ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

CHAPTER 4

 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of management actions for each of the 

alternatives described in Chapter 2. Both beneficial and 

adverse effects (impacts) are described. 

Assumptions used in analyzing the environmental consequences are described in Appendix 10 and are based on 

previous events, experience of personnel, and knowledge of 

resources and land uses in the planning area. 

Impacts described in this chapter are estimates based on 

management options described in the alternatives. In some 

cases, existing data were used; in others very little data were 

available. Lack of data has contributed to a degree of uncertainty to the impact estimates. However, the assumptions for 

analysis of the alternatives include professional judgements 

and projections of anticipated actions and levels that provide 

an adequate reasonable range for analysis. 

This chapter is arranged to address impacts to all resource 

elements or options for each particular alternative. The 

impact analysis for the No Action Alternative was prepared 

first, and contains some of the more detailed discussion of 

impacts that the other alternatives used for comparison. However, as in Chapter 2, the Preferred Alternative is listed first to 

enable the reader to identify it easily. Impact causes and 

relationships common to all alternatives are included within 

this analysis and precede the individual alternative impact 

sections. Table 4-1 is a summary comparison of the estimated 

total impacts of each alternative. 

For purposes of analysis, short-term impacts described in 

this document are those that would last 10 years or less; longterm impacts would last 10 years or more. Irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of resources and unavoidable adverse effects are discussed in the text if they would occur. 

Similarly, effects on a given environmental component caused 

by a particular management action are discussed if they would 

occur. 

Impact causes and relationships to the core area and two 

ACECs that are associated with the core area are also addressed where applicable. In some cases, the affects to the 

core area are the same as described for the general planning 

area and are not repeated. Impact causes and relationships to 

other special management areas are also included. Cumulative impact summaries are also provided. A description of the 

factors considered in the cumulative impact analysis such as 

the effects of past, present, and future actions are included in 

the reasonably foreseeable development scenarios found in 

the assumption and analysis guidelines (Appendix 10) and in 

the affected environment in the EIS. 

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

Significance criteria were developed to measure the degree 

to which an impact would affect the human and natural 

environment. Not all resources have identified significance 

criteria. Developing significance criteria is difficult for a 

number of reasons. First, although used extensively throughout the Act, NEPA does not identify what is meant by 

significant on a resource-by resource basis. Second, it is often 

difficult to quantify impacts for some resources. In these 

cases, significance criteria must be subjective and often rely 

on the professional opinion of the persons preparing and 

reviewing the impact analysis. Third, for the reader, the 

significance of an impact is often framed in terms of personal 

experience. For instance, persons who benefit directly from 

the positive economic impacts of the project are more likely 

to consider that positive impact more significant than someone who will not receive direct financial gain. Similarly, 

someone who uses the project area for recreation is likely to 

find conflicts with project-related activities much more severe 

than someone who does not. Finally, much is unknown about 

the future level of use or development in the planning area. In 

many cases, the significance of the impacts described in this 

chapter will directly depend on the ultimate level of use or 

development. It is impossible at this point to understand what 

the ultimate use or development level in the planning area may 

be. 

Cultural Significance Criteria 

An undertaking has an effect on a historic property when 

the undertaking may alter characteristics that may qualify the 

property for inclusion in the National Register. For the 

purpose of determining the significance of effect, alteration to 

features of the property’s location, setting, or use may be 

relevant depending on a property’s significant characteristics 

and should be considered (36 CFR part 800). 

Groundwater Significance Criteria 

Impacts to groundwater supplies or springs would be 

considered significant if: 

the natural flow of water to local springs is interrupted; or 

groundwater quality is degraded so that it can no longer be 

classified for its current use; or 

the water table is lowered, as a result of drilling water 

supply wells, to a level that would require replacement or 

deepening of other groundwater wells in the project area. 

Land and Resource Use Significance 

Criteria 

Significant impacts to land and resource use would result 

from project-related activities if those activities: 

287
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

adversely affect the use, enjoyment or value of adjacent 

property or introduce safety and health risks or a nuisance 

or annoyance to an area where such risks, nuisance, or 

annoyance did not previously exist. 

Oil and Gas Significance Criteria 

Impacts on oil and gas exploration and development would 

be considered significant if: 

in any instance where the potential gas resource from a 

typical field (greater than 5 billion cubic feet of cumulative 

production) could not be expected to be developed due to 

restrictions placed on exploration and development activity, 

when 25 percent of the potential exploration and development activity cannot occur due to restrictions, 

when 25 percent of the reserves from potential exploration 

and development activity cannot be recovered due to 

restrictions, or 

when the number of wells that would likely be productive 

is reduced by 25 percent. 

Significance criteria for coalbed methane development 

could not be determined since little is known about the 

potential for this resource in the planning area. 

Paleontology Significance Criteria 

A significant impact to paleontological resources would 

occur if important fossils, which could substantially add to 

scientific understanding of paleontological resources, are 

destroyed. 

Recreation Significance Criteria 

Several specific areas have been defined where project 

related activities would conflict with current recreation use. 

The impacts associated with these conflicts are considered 

significant if: 

Activities result in long-term elimination or reduction of 

recreation use in any area of these areas;

A level of development which is incompatible with the

stated objectives of special recreation management areas;

or

Activities that would have a direct or indirect affect on 

wilderness suitability. 

Surface Water/Watershed/Water Quality 

Significance Criteria 

Impacts to surface water/watershed/water quality would 

be considered significant if the following occur: 

accelerated erosion and runoff from permitted actions or 

activities into intermittent drainages and perennial streams 

alter the physical characteristics of streams; 

accelerated erosion and runoff from permitted actions or 

activities into intermittent drainages and perennial streams 

cause increased sedimentation which degrades the quality 

of water; 

accidental spill of fuels, liquids, chemicals or hazardous 

materials affects the quality of surface water; or 

an increase in sediment loading causes any rivers or streams 

to be identified as a water which does not support its 

designated use; or 

disturbed areas are not adequately stabilized to reduce soil 

erosion and potential impacts to water quality; or 

there is increased erosion or reduced soil productivity to a 

level which prevents reestablishment of vegetative cover 

within five years. 

Threatened Endangered and Candidate 

Plant and Animal Species Significance 

Criteria 

Impacts to Federally listed threatened and endangered 

species, species proposed for listing, candidate species, and 

species with special status recognized by USFWS, BLM, and 

WGFD would be considered significant if any of the following occurred: 

the death due to activities of any individual plant or animal 

which would jeopardize the continued existence of a species; 

reduced recruitment and/or survival of individual plants or 

animals that would impede species’ recovery; 

loss of Federally designated critical habitat for a species; 

contributing causes that warrant an unlisted species to be 

proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act; or 

use of water affecting the surface flow to the Colorado or 

Platte rivers or their tributaries. 

Vegetation Significance Criteria 

Impacts to vegetation would be considered significant if: 

within five years reclaimed areas do not attain adequate 

vegetation cover and species composition to stabilize the 

site and to support pre-existing land uses including livestock forage and wildlife habitat; or 

there is invasion and establishment of noxious non-native 

weeds that contributes to unsuccessful revegetation. 

Significant impacts could occur if adequate revegetation 

measures are not implemented and monitored to insure successful revegetation. Proper implementation of revegetation 

measures are necessary to insure that significant impacts do 

not occur. 

VRM Significance Criteria 

A significant impact to visual resources on federal lands is 

defined as activities or developments that would not meet 

VRM class objectives for an area. A significant impact would 

occur if facilities or other activities become the predominant 

feature in the landscape where objectives for that area are to 

maintain the existing character of the landscape. 

288
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Wetland Riparian Significance Criteria 

In February 1989, the COE and EPA entered into a memorandum of understanding in which the COE agreed to exercise 

its authority to review Section 404 permit applications nationwide so as to minimize loss of wetlands through appropriate 

mitigation requirements. Section 404 requires that a permit be 

issued to insure that no discharge of dredged material or fill 

material is permitted to enter waters of the U.S. if a practicable 

alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation’s waters would be significantly degraded. 

To obtain a Section 404 permit, the applicant must demonstrate that three steps have been accomplished: wetland impacts have been avoided, where practicable; potential impacts 

to wetlands have been minimized; and, compensation has 

been provided for any remaining unavoidable impacts through 

activities to restore or create wetlands. 

For purposes of this EIS, it was determined that impacts to 

wetland and riparian areas would be significant if: 

there is a loss of wetlands or wetland function in the project 

area; 

there is a loss of riparian area or its functionality due to 

permitted management actions or other activities; or 

there is any violation of the requirements listed above for 

Section 404 permits. 

Wild Horse Significance Criteria 

Impacts to wild horses would be considered significant if: 

appropriate management level (AML) could not be achieved 

or maintained. 

Wildlife Significance Criteria 

Impacts to wildlife would be considered significant if any 

of the following occurred: 

increased mortality and/or decreased survival of native 

wildlife species considered as Vital, High, or Moderate by 

the WGFD Mitigation Policy; 

loss of habitat function and/or habitat value for habitats 

classified as Vital or High by the WGFD Mitigation Policy; 

or 

Long-term displacement of elk or deer from crucial habitats such as the core and parturition areas. 

IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

Air Quality Impact Summary 

The Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Draft EIS estimated air 

quality impacts from the proposed Pinedale Anticline project, 

as well as impacts from existing and reasonable foreseeable 

future development (RFD), including the Jack Morrow Hills 

project (USDI 1999a). Estimated impacts were derived from 

the air quality dispersion model CalPuff. Estimates of the 

impacts from the proposed Jack Morrow Hills project are 

derived from the Pinedale Anticline EIS and summarized 

below. See Appendix 7 for more detailed information. 

Near-Field Impacts 

Near-field impacts are estimated increases in concentration within 5 kilometers of the emission source. Near-field 

cumulative emissions from the proposed Jack Morrow Hills 

project are expected to increase the concentrations of each of 

the pollutants considered [sulphur dioxide (SO2), particulate 

matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and carbon monoxide (CO)] by less than two 

percent of the Wyoming and federal air quality standards 

(Figure 10). Concentration increases by the Jack Morrow 

Hills project alone are expected to be about ten percent of the 

PSD increment for PM10 (24-hour average) and one percent or 

less for SO2 (annual, 24 hour, and 3 hour), NO2 (annual) and 

PM10 (annual) (Figure 11). Therefore, no significant adverse 

near-field impacts would occur. Since analysis predicts that 

air quality would remain in compliance with federal and 

Wyoming air quality standards, no significant adverse impacts are expected to occur. 

Far-Field Impacts 

Far-field impacts are estimated increases in concentration, 

visibility impairment, and acid deposition within the modeling domain, in this case consisting of the entire counties of 

Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta, and Lincoln, and parts of the 

counties of Teton, Fremont, Hot Springs, Washakie, Natrona, 

and Carbon (Map 63). Estimated impacts are reported for 

sensitive areas, such as wilderness areas, roadless areas, 

national parks, and lakes, within this modeling domain. 

Pollutant Concentrations 

Although cumulative emissions from the proposed Jack 

Morrow Hills project increased the concentrations of each of 

the pollutants considered by the Pinedale Anticline EIS, 

concentrations at all nearby wilderness areas and parks were 

in compliance with Wyoming and federal air quality standards 

(Figure12). Concentrations of SO2, PM10, PM2.5 (24 hour), 

and NO2 (annual) were below 20 percent of the WAAQS, 

while PM2.5 (annual) was below 40 percent of the standard. 

Visibility 

Visibility can be defined as the distance one can see and the 

ability to perceive color, contrast and detail. The deciview 

(dV) is one way to express visibility. One deciview represents 

a change in scenic quality (distance, color, contrast, and/or 

detail) that is just noticeable to an average person. Visibility 

impairment is expressed as the number of days per year that 

the cumulative emissions could decrease visibility in nearby 

sensitive areas by 0.5 deciview and by 1 deciview. Worst-case 

cumulative emissions from the Jack Morrow Hills proposed 

project and all other reasonably foreseeable development in 

southwest Wyoming are estimated to cause 9 days of visibility 

impairment greater than 0.5 deciview at Bridger Wilderness 

Area, although no visibility impairment greater than 1 deciview 

is expected at any of the sensitive areas in the Jack Morrow 

Hills region (Table 4-2). 

289
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Acidification of Lakes 

Lake acidification is expressed as acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), the lake’s capacity to resist acidification from acid 

rain. A 10 percent change in ANC represents the limit of 

acceptable change (LAC) in ANC. Cumulative emissions 

from the Jack Morrow Hills proposed project and all other 

reasonably foreseeable development in southwest Wyoming 

are estimated to reduce ANC by less than one percent of the 

LAC for the five lakes included in this analysis (Appendix 7). 

Cumulative 

An Air Quality Assessment Protocol was developed which 

proposed the methodologies for quantifying potential air 

quality impacts from the Pinedale Anticline Project and other 

reasonably foreseeable development in southwest Wyoming. 

As a result, a modeling analysis utilizing the Wyoming DEQAQD, USDA Forest Service, Environmental Protection 

Agency, and BLM agreed upon CALMET/CALPUFF model, 

which includes the Jack Morrow Hills planning area, has been 

completed. Results are now available through the Pinedale 

Anticline DEIS (November 1999) air quality analysis. The 

cumulative impact analyses contained in this EIS assumed the 

implementation of over 8,450 new/replacement wells and 

associated compression, showed that a 1.0 deciview change 

threshold was not exceeded due to cumulative emissions. A 

0.5 deciview change threshold, however, would be exceeded. 

The USDA Forest Service reviewed the days of modeled 

cumulative impacts that are greater than 0.5 deciview change 

and have determined that the cumulative impacts from the 

Pinedale Anticline Project, combined with other recently 

proposed projects in southwest Wyoming, are significant in 

increasing visibility impairment in the Bridger Wilderness 

Area. However, based on the application of emissions reduction mitigation efforts by Ultra Petroleum at the Naughton 

Power Plant, and considering the timing, magnitude, and 

duration of the remaining projected cumulative visibility 

impacts, the USDA Forest Service considers these impacts to 

be within an acceptable range (USDI 1999a and USDI 1999b). 

Cultural 

The overall density of archaeological sites in the Jack 

Morrow Hills area is probably about 3.2 sites per 640 acres, as 

it is across the Rock Springs Field Office area. However, there 

are portions of the planning area where site densities are 

projected to be considerably higher, and where sites are 

considerably larger than in other places within the Rock 

Springs Field Office area. Moreover, some kinds of sites, 

particularly PaleoIndian sites such as the Krmpotich and 

Finley sites are of national-level scientific significance. These 

factors must be considered when assessing potential impacts 

from other activities in the planning area. 

The BLM’s preferred strategy for managing most kinds of 

heritage resources is to avoid affecting them. However, 

avoidance is not always feasible. This is especially true when 

issues of public health and safety, or resource protection are 

involved. Thus, realistically, some loss of heritage resources 

is probably inevitable when development occurs in a given 

region. In some cases, some kinds of archaeological sites and 

paleontological localities mitigation can be accomplished by 

scientifically recovering data that makes the resource valuable. Data recovery mitigation can be expensive in terms of 

both money and time. 

Most heritage resources are primarily managed pursuant to 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and 

the National Historic Preservation Act. However, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 

and Executive Order 13007 address management of sites of 

concern to Native American peoples for traditional, sacred or 

religious purposes. Several sites of this kind have been 

identified by Native American traditional elders in recent 

years, and are collectively called, “respected places.” AIRFA 

and Executive Order 13007, and to some extent other Federal 

mandates including treaties, require the BLM to protect these 

places and to allow their use by Native American traditional 

people to the extent possible within the bounds of other legal 

mandates. 

Mitigation of adverse effects to some kinds of historic 

properties can be accomplished by scientifically recovering 

the information that makes the resource valuable. Data 

recovery mitigation can be expensive in terms of both money 

and time. Data recovery mitigation may take several years to 

accomplish and project development could be impeded while 

this work is being accomplished. 

The procedures for complying with the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and the Wyoming Protocol to the BLM 

National Programmatic Agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are designed to take these factors 

into account when managing resources that are considered 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places. Resources that are not eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places may still be important and require 

some level of management effort. 

All mining claims within 3 miles of the historic trails 

corridor would be evaluated to ensure objectives of the South 

Pass Historic Landscape ACEC are maintained. 

Hazardous Materials 

The impact of hazardous materials would be the same for 

all alternatives. As development activities increase and as 

more people use the public lands, the possibility of chemical 

spills and even unauthorized dumping would increase. However, hazardous waste spills and/or dumping would be cleaned 

up by the responsible party to prevent endangering human 

health and/or further environmental damage. Lands would be 

inspected prior to transfer out of public ownership or prior to 

acquisition to protect the public from contact with hazardous 

materials. Water resources would be tested to determine if 

hazardous substances were present. 

Noise 

Noise is expressed in decibels (dBA). In general, noise 

levels can be categorized as follows (BLM 1999a): 

290
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

• quiet: noise level less than 60 dBA 

• moderate: noise level from 60 to 90 dBA 

• loud: noise level greater than 90 dBA 

Noise levels in the Jack Morrow Hills region have not been 

monitored but are likely to be in the “quiet” category: 39 dBA 

during the day and 32 dBA at night (EPA 1971). 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regards a 

constant noise level greater than 49 dBA to be a significant 

disturbance or impact. Noise from a drill rig exceeds 49 dBA 

at distances within about 800 feet, and noise from a 26,000-

horsepower compressor exceeds this significance level at 

distances within about 2,500 feet (USDI 1999a). Figure 13 

shows noise levels for other activities in the Jack Morrow 

Hills region (USDI 1999c). It is not anticipated that drilling 

activities would occur within 800 feet of a residence (occupied dwelling) or within 2,500 feet for compressor sites, so 

impacts should not occur. Compressor facilities located 

closer than 2,500 feet to a sage grouse lek could significantly 

affect sage grouse lek use (USDI 1999a and USDI 1999b). 

However, no such activity is anticipated adjacent to sage 

grouse leks. If this should occur, it would be addressed in 

future analyses. 

Special Status Plant Species 

Any actions that would lead to the need to list any special 

status plant species as Threatened or Endangered would be 

determined to be a significant impact on the species and would 

be unacceptable. Avoidance would be the preferred form of 

mitigation for special status plant species. Thresholds for 

determining the significance of impacts on special status plant 

species would be based on the species entire range. 

Wildlife 

Existing leases within the planning area may not provide 

the specific mitigation measures needed to protect important 

habitats or wildlife. Mitigating measures (conditions of 

approval) can be identified through environmental analysis 

but depending on economics, the companies can claim an 

economic hardship and may not have to implement all the 

recommended mitigation measures. Without specific mitigation such as remote monitoring, pad drilling, directional 

drilling, and centralized tank batteries, the areas where activity occurs would prevent elk from using the area for the life of 

the activity. The seasonal closure to protect big game birthing 

areas within the core and ACECs would not apply to oil and 

gas companies that need to access the area. This has the 

potential to have significant effects to elk, with the severity of 

the effects dependent on the amount of activity. 

The amount of land used for road surfaces and well pads 

represents a direct loss of habitat. The loss of adjacent habitats 

because of a reduction in use by deer and elk due to harassment 

or habitat degradation is much more subtle, but has been 

observed and documented. Reported distances of avoidance 

areas for elk range widely depending on the area but it is well 

documented that elk regularly travel great distances in the 

planning area. Depending on amount and type of traffic, road 

quality, and adjacent cover density, Lyon and Ward (1982) 

found that elk moved from 0.24 to 1.8 miles. Generally, road 

avoidance has been reported to be greater in areas of open 

vegetation with less adjacent cover (Perry and Overly 1976; 

Lyon 1979a); in shrub lands rather than in pine forests and 

juniper woodlands (Rost and Bailey 1979); and in 0areas with 

increased density of high quality roads (Hershey and Leege 

1976). During a study of elk distributions during winter in 

western Wyoming, some elk moved 0.5 to 2.4 miles away 

from a well site during its construction (Hayden-Wing Associates 1990). Elk have been observed to be displaced upwards 

of 3 miles (Green River RMP) in the planning area and have 

been seen running until they are completely out of sight. This 

occurs where no physical barriers exist to screen activity and 

noise, which is common in the planning area. Preliminary 

results from the Jack Morrow Hills Desert Elk Study support 

this assessment (Bock and Lindzey 1999). 

Numerous studies (MacArthur, et al. 1982; Bromley 1985, 

Freddy 1979; Kautz, et al. 1981; Ward, et al. 1976;) indicate 

that human disturbances can increase movements by big game 

animals and cause more energy to be expended than if the 

disturbance had not occurred. A model developed by Hobbes 

(1989) links disturbance and mule deer movements with 

concomitant energy expense, and snow depths, to mule deer 

mortality under different conditions of winter severity. Hobbes 

computed that, under mild conditions (less than 1 inch or snow 

and average minimum temperatures), mortality rates of mule 

deer would be practically unaffected. But in severe winters 

with colder temperatures and 13 inches of snow, modeled 

mortalities of fawns and does increased substantially, depending on the frequency of disturbance and the distance animals 

traveled to escape. If, in a severe winter, adult mule deer were 

subjected to 2 disturbances per day and fled one half kilometer 

each time they were disturbed, their mortality rate would be 

twice as high as if they did not attempt to escape at all (Hobbes 

1989). Likewise, the potential exists for increased mortality 

to elk and reduced calving success due to the long distances 

elk are known to travel once disturbed. 

The planning area has had two proposals for potential 

coalbed methane development, in addition to other development proposals. Currently, 3 wells are located just outside of 

the planning area. If these wells should prove to be productive, the likelihood of coalbed methane development inside 

the planning area would be increased. Long-term big game 

habitat loss from exploration, development, and production 

may be significant due to well spacing requirements. Coalbed 

methane development under this proposal could displace as 

many as 300 to 400 elk from the Steamboat/Sands elk herd and 

may cause them to permanently leave the plains habitat and 

move to the Wind River Mountains and other areas of suitable 

habitat. This would make maintenance of the herd objective 

very unlikely. Antelope in the Killpecker drainage may be 

adversely impacted by displacement, animal stress, and longterm forage loss (50 years or more). Displacement moves 

animals into less desirable habitat and creates competition for 

available resources with other species and uses. 

Big game habitat loss results from road construction and 

road use, facility construction and placement, pipeline con291
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

struction, field facility maintenance, rights-of-way construction, range improvement construction, and disturbance zones 

around these areas. All disturbed acreages would not be fully 

reclaimed and portions would remain unavailable as habitat 

for wildlife for 20 years or more. Limited rainfall, poor soils, 

and severe winter conditions make reclamation difficult, 

increasing the time required to re-establish suitable vegetation 

to pre-disturbance composition and density. 

Seasonal constraints would be used to mitigate impacts to 

wildlife from human activities during crucial periods and 

provide short-term protection for wildlife. Long-term maintenance and operations activities in crucial wildlife habitats 

would continue to cause displacement of wildlife from crucial 

habitats, including disruption of nesting, fawning and calving 

areas, and crucial big game winter habitats, unless additional 

measures are applied. 

Elk tend to utilize both the steep terrain and dense sagebrush and the wide open spaces in the area. Because of the 

terrain in the core area (steep slopes and dense sagebrush used 

for elk calving and high ridge tops utilized during the winter), 

some elk use the core area year round. The actual effect from 

surface disturbing and disruptive activities in the flat, desert 

areas is larger than the direct loss of acreage indicates. 

Activities in this type of terrain tend to displace the elk great 

distances (upwards of 3 miles) due to the extended sight 

distances in the desert-type terrain. Elk disturbed in the 

Steamboat area tend to abandon the entire Steamboat area 

rather than seek shelter in adjacent canyons because of the 

narrowness of benches and canyons and lack of hiding cover 

in those areas. 

Surface disturbance can have a direct impact on small 

mammals because they cannot easily leave their habitats and 

avoid heavy equipment and soil and vegetation removal. 

Therefore, some loss small mammals is expected to occur. 

Given the specificity of sage grouse nesting requirements 

that include mature sagebrush, it is unlikely that destroyed 

nesting habitat can be restored to pre-disturbance condition in 

20 years. Opportunities may exist, however, to enhance 

remaining vegetation and habitat characteristics to provide 

more suitable habitat than currently exists. If that cannot be 

accomplished, there would be a net loss of habitat function and 

impacts to sage grouse nesting habitat. Noise may adversely 

affect strutting and nesting grouse. The amount of impact is 

unknown at this time. Road construction and related traffic 

can also impact sage grouse leks. Generally, roads would 

avoid sage grouse leks. Pipelines could affect nesting habitats, depending on types of vegetation that would be removed. 

Construction within 2 miles of a lek would be restricted from 

March 1 through June 30. 

Oregon Buttes ACEC 

The natural values of the Oregon Buttes ACEC would 

benefit from resource management prescriptions. The area is 

closed to surface disturbing activities which would provide 

for long-term maintenance of ACEC values. 

Since this ACEC lies within a Wilderness Study Area, no 

leasing is allowed. An assessment of the amount of exploration and development activity that could occur if restrictions 

were not in place can not be made. Some potential drilling 

locations would not be available due to this restriction and 

some extra drilling and development costs would be required 

to access any potential reservoirs from off-site locations. No 

impacts would meet established significance criteria. 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Cultural Impacts 

Actions to maintain or enhance air quality and monitoring 

of air quality would in most cases have little impact upon 

cultural resources. In cases, such as the South Pass Historic 

Landscape or some resources of concern to Native Americans, viewshed is an important aspect of a cultural resources 

value. Air quality enhancement would be beneficial to these 

kinds of cultural resources. 

Enhanced avoidance distances for Native American respected places would facilitate easier protection of all kinds of 

heritage resources. More detailed agency direction, including 

procedures for consultation with Native American traditional 

elders in some cases, should optimize flexibility for protecting 

heritage resources. 

Efforts to control wild fires would generally be beneficial 

to cultural resources. Preventing or stopping the burning of 

historic structures would be a beneficial effect of fire suppression efforts. However, the use of heavy equipment and 

resultant surface disturbance could impact most kinds of 

cultural resources by disturbing the soil matrix within or upon 

which archaeological or historical resources are situated. Use 

of fire retardant chemicals could affect rock art sites and some 

historic structures. 

Changing the visual appearance of vegetative communities whether by wildfire or controlled burning could have 

short-term adverse effects to places such as the South Pass 

Historic Landscape. However, vegetative communities are 

continually changing and the communities visible in an area 

like the South Pass Historic Landscape are not necessarily 

those that were there during the location’s most significant 

historic period of use. 

Archaeological remains of wooden structures such as 

wickiups, antelope traps, and drive lines could be destroyed if 

in the path of a fire whether wildfire or controlled burn. 

Efforts should be taken to identify these and other flammable 

kinds of cultural resources, protect them from wildfire, and 

prevent them from being burned during any controlled burn 

operation. 

Actions to prevent accidents and spills of hazardous materials would usually positively benefit cultural resources. 

Mitigation and cleanup of spills could adversely impact most 

kinds of cultural resources by altering their contextual setting 

whether that setting is a soil matrix, a viewshed, or a structure. 

Seasonal restrictions and other mitigative measures applied to lands and realty actions generally have beneficial 

effects to cultural resources by limiting or otherwise controlling surface disturbing activities. Special management pre292
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

scriptions for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, such 

as the South Pass Historic Landscape and White Mountain 

Petroglyphs are generally protective in nature and tend to 

benefit cultural resources. 

Rights-of-way authorizations could impact cultural resources either directly by destroying them outright, or indirectly by changing the context and setting in which they occur. 

Usually pre-authorization inventory and evaluation for cultural resources enables BLM to avoidance significant cultural 

resources. Occasionally, erosion resulting from activities 

authorized by lands actions can damage cultural resources. 

Sometimes, cultural resources that were not identified 

during inventory are damaged by implementation of rightsof-way and other lands authorizations. The most common 

situation in which this happens is when a buried archaeological resource, which had no surface manifestation is damaged 

by pipeline trenching operations. In some cases, when authorizations cross areas with soils considered to have high potential for holding buried cultural resources monitoring or inspection of the open trench is required to ensure that any 

buried cultural resources are identified and properly treated. 

Native American traditional elders would be invited into 

the consultation process whenever potentials exist to affect 

places they identify as respected places. BLM would use 

geographic information systems, and other appropriate technologies to place surface disturbing activities in areas where 

they are the least intrusive upon cultural resources, including 

areas identified as respected places by Native Americans. 

Some negative effects from surface disturbing activities may 

still be visible in some places. However, the BLM would 

make a positive attempt to minimize intrusions in the most 

critical areas. 

Closure of Steamboat Mountain ACEC, Oregon Buttes 

ACEC and Continental Peak to communication sites would 

likely protect cultural resources, including areas identified as 

respected places by Native Americans, in those areas. Allowing communications sites on Essex Mountain and Pacific 

Butte may have some negative effects on visual resources in 

those areas which in turn may have negative effects on areas 

identified as respected places by Native Americans. These 

negative effects may be partially or completely mitigated by 

restrictions identified in the plan, and by selecting sites that are 

not adverse to visual and cultural resources sensitivities. 

Restricting actions on Pacific Butte to conform to the 

management prescriptions in place for the South Pass Historic 

Landscape would protect critical cultural resources in that 

area. 

Lands withdrawals are usually beneficial to cultural resources because they limit or prevent other many actions that 

could otherwise damage cultural resources. Additional withdrawals in the two northern elk calving areas and the top of 

Steamboat Mountain would generally enhance efforts to protect cultural resources of all kinds. 

Acquiring easements to provide public access to cultural 

and historical resources would generally enhance public enjoyment of heritage resources and would facilitate better 

management of these resources, especially sites such as White 

Mountain petroglyphs and the Crookston Ranch site. Acquiring public easements would enhance research opportunities 

for archaeologists, paleontologists and other scientists operating on public lands. 

Livestock grazing management actions would generally be 

beneficial to cultural resources of all kinds. Actions taken to 

meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would 

generally be beneficial to cultural resources of all kinds. 

Generally, spring developments tend to be more detrimental 

than other kinds of water developments because the water 

source was often attractive to prehistoric and historic inhabitants of the region. Conversely, reservoirs are usually situated 

in drainage bottoms that tend to have been disturbed by 

alluvial action and are less likely to have soil deposits that 

could harbor intact archaeological materials. Limiting water 

developments would benefit cultural resources by limiting the 

surface disturbance involved with these developments. These 

impacts would be slightly greater than the No Action Alternative. Livestock rubbing against rock art panels, and historic 

structures such as those at Crookston Ranch and the Rock 

Cabin could severely damage, or completely destroy those 

resources. 

In the planning area, the region of stabilized sand/silt sheet 

deposit north and west of White Mountain is especially 

vulnerable to surface disturbance because archaeological resources are known to be buried in the soil deposit with no 

surface expression. Surface disturbing activities in this area 

are especially prone to disturb buried archaeological sites. 

Furthermore, these kinds of sites as exemplified by the Finley 

and Krmpotich Sites are tremendously important to archaeological science. This is because those sites are very intact 

manifestations of some of the earliest cultures (e.g., Folsom, 

Goshen, et al.) in North America. The proximity of this region 

to the Pinedale Glaciation (the last of the great Pleistocene 

glacial advances) undoubtedly has some association with the 

preservation of these very ancient cultural materials in this 

area. Add to this the presence of skeletal remains of several 

species of extinct Pleistocene fauna (Bison bison antiquous 

and Camelops sp.), in the area and the tremendous scientific 

potential of the region becomes readily apparent. 

The development of 85 projected oil and gas wells and 

associated facilities with enhanced management prescriptions, including enhanced consultation with Native American 

traditional elders and enlarged protective zones of up to 2-1/ 

2 miles around areas identified by Native Americans as 

respected places would significantly increase protection of 

cultural resources of all kinds. 

Mitigation prescriptions for salable minerals in Preferred 

Alternative would generally enhance protection of cultural 

resources of all kinds. 

Prescriptions for geophysical exploration would generally 

enhance protection of cultural resources of all kinds. 

Monitoring of activities on BLM-administered lands significantly enhances protection of heritage resources of all 

kinds. Efforts to monitor reclamation and enhance the efficacy of reclamation efforts would generally enhance protection of heritage resources of all kinds. 

293
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Few impacts are expected from off-road vehicles under 

current management. ORVs could cause significant localized 

damage to archaeological or historical sites, or to Native 

American respected places when operated outside management prescriptions. Given ORV industry projections that a 

fourfold increase in “4-wheeler” sales would occur in the next 

five years, additional adverse effects to cultural resources 

from unauthorized use of these vehicles is likely. Designation 

of areas as “open”, “limited”, or “closed” to ORV travel would 

enhance protection of heritage resources of all kinds. 

Outdoor recreation in accordance with current management prescriptions and within existing laws should not adversely impact cultural resources. However, the simple increased numbers of people recreating on the public lands 

would inevitably place greater pressures upon the BLM to 

protect resources such as the White Mountain Petroglyphs and 

the Crookston Ranch Historic Site from unauthorized and 

illegal uses. Additional site specific planning at these sites is 

needed. 

The protection in place for special status species management would generally have little effect upon cultural resources. In some cases, actions such as the closures associated 

with protection of plant species, management would have 

beneficial effects for cultural resources simply because these 

more intensive management prescriptions would also tend to 

protect all types of heritage resources. 

It could be that special status species protection would be 

in keeping with generalized Native American concerns for 

environmental protection. Conversely, if a special status plant 

happened to be a Native American medicinal plant then BLM 

protection could preclude their use of the plant. Without more 

specific information both in terms of the species considered 

for special management, and data about traditional plant and 

animal uses it is difficult to make more definitive projections 

regarding Native American concerns with special status species management. 

Increasing the areas managed under NSO prescription 

would provide greater protection for heritage resources of all 

kinds. Intensified transportation planning would additionally 

enhance efforts to protect heritage resources of all kinds. 

Vegetative manipulation that is surface disturbing, such as 

chaining, could adversely affect cultural resources by destroying archaeological and historical sites. Manipulations 

such as chemical treatment could affect places such as South 

Pass Historic Landscape and the viewsheds associated with 

Native American respected places by changing the visual 

setting of the cultural resources. If the changes were short 

term and tended to engender enhancement of ‘native’ plant 

species, the resulting effect would be beneficial for cultural 

resources (see also Fire Management). 

Changing the VRM Class in the Steamboat Mountain 

ACEC from Class III to Class II partially in recognition of the 

increased heritage resource values of those areas brought to 

our attention by Native American traditional elders would 

significantly improve BLM management of heritage resources 

of all kinds. Additionally, including a portion of White 

Mountain as Class II VRM would significantly improve BLM 

management of heritage resources of all kinds in that area. 

Additional watershed management prescriptions concerning surface protection and erosion abatement would enhance 

protection of heritage resources of all kinds. 

Grazing over-use by wild horses can impact cultural resources both directly by destroying archaeological sites, historic trails and associated viewsheds, and indirectly by accelerating erosion which can eventually destroy some of these 

resources. 

Few negative impacts are anticipated as a result of wild 

horse management. Occasionally, horse trapping facilities 

could be placed on an archaeological sites resulting in destruction of the site. This could be prevented by prior inventory and 

evaluation for cultural resources. 

Horses, wild and otherwise, are very important in the 

cultures of Plains and Great Basin Native Americans. Indeed, 

many unique cultural traits having to do with horses have 

developed among these peoples. The presence of wild horses 

on BLM-administered lands is important to Native Americans. The horses evident in the Native American rock art at 

White Mountain Petroglyphs illustrate this fact. Wild horses, 

for these reasons, are to a degree a heritage resource. 

Efforts to prevent fragmentation of wildlife habitat and 

adverse effects to riparian habitats would enhance appreciation of heritage resources within their environmental context. 

Core Area 

Leasing in part of the core area would somewhat limit 

BLM’s capability to manage heritage resources. Heritage 

resources would be one of the concerns considered in the 

portion of the core that would be evaluated for 4 years. Most 

adverse effects of subsequent leasing could be mitigated; 

however, leasing could potentially adversely affect BLM’s 

ability to manage Native American respected places. 

NSO restrictions would enhance protection of all kinds of 

heritage resources; however, off-site development could somewhat impact BLM’s ability to manage heritage resources. 

Limitations on road density would generally enhance efforts 

to protect heritage resources of all kinds. 

Desired Plant Community objectives would generally enhance efforts to manage heritage resources, and particularly 

Native American respected places. The ability to protect and 

manage heritage resources would be greatly enhanced by 

expanding Class II VRM areas. Efforts to enhance wildlife 

and riparian habitats would generally enhance heritage resource management efforts. 

Cumulative Impacts 

In most cases it should be possible to avoid effects to 

cultural resources which is the BLM’s preferred way to 

manage cultural resources relative to other activities. There 

may be rare cases where it is not possible to avoid effecting 

cultural resources. In cases where the resource that would be 

effected is an archaeological site it may be possible to mitigate 

the adverse effect by retrieving a significant portion of the 

scientific data that the site contains. However, data recovery 

mitigation can be expensive and time consuming. Since data 

294
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

recovery would need to occur prior to activities that would 

destroy the archaeological resource in question this approach 

is usually an impediment to development efforts. With two 

exceptions standard avoidance and mitigation strategies should 

result in little impact to most kinds of heritage resources under 

the No Action Alternative. 

Avoidance of surface disturbing activities within the 

paleosol deposition area, and within 1/2 mile viewshed of all 

rock art sites would enhance protection of those kinds of 

heritage resources. Avoidance of Native American respected 

places would enhance protection of those heritage resources, 

however failure to define avoidance radii, or viewshed may 

leave those resources vulnerable to some kinds of impacts. 

Additional case specific consultation with Native American 

traditional elders concerning activities proposed in the vicinity of those resources may result in greater protection (up to 2-

1/2 mile radius), or less protection (minimum 100-foot radius) 

of those resources. Additional consultation may, or may not 

improve BLM’s ongoing dialog with tribal governments and 

traditional elders. 

Paleontological Impacts 

Oil and gas and coalbed methane development, pipeline 

construction, road building, and other types of surface disturbance have two types of direct impact on undiscovered scientifically significant fossils. First, these activities may inadvertently damage or destroy significant fossil sites buried 

below the surface. Such an impact is considered unavoidable. 

Second, discovery of significant fossil sites may occur during 

preconstruction field surveys or during monitoring of construction. Upon discovery, a mitigation plan would be developed for the recovery, study, and housing of the fossils. 

New roads associated with development make access to 

public land easier for the general public. Better access 

facilitates the discovery and study of additional fossils but 

may also provide opportunities for unauthorized collection. 

At this time, unauthorized collection does not appear to be a 

problem within the planning area. Any future problems would 

be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. 

The most important difference between alternatives relates 

to the amount of projected development and whether or not 

known significant fossil site(s) have been protected. Under 

the Preferred Alternative, the projected development is less 

than projected for Alternative A and the No Action Alternative but greater than that projected for Alternative B. Under 

the Preferred Alternative, known scientifically significant 

fossil sites within the planning area would be closed to surface 

disturbing activity. The magnitude of the impacts described 

above would be less compared to the No Action Alternative 

and Alternative A but greater than Alternative B. 

Core Area 

The level of projected development within the core and 

connectivity area is greater than in Alternative B and the No 

Action Alternative but less than in Alternative A. The types 

of direct and indirect impacts described for the general area 

would be the same. The magnitude of the impacts would be 

greater compared to the No Action Alternative and Alternative B and less than Alternative A. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Paleontological information is gathered slowly, because 

most is obtained from fossils that become naturally exposed at 

the surface and from fossil recovery, which is a slow, meticulous work. The anticipated surface disturbing activities offer 

an opportunity to examine bedrock below the surface. Construction may expose fossils that would otherwise remain 

buried for hundreds if not thousands of years, or never be 

exposed. Over the planning period, the additional information 

gathered from development would contribute more to our 

cumulative knowledge of the resource in a shorter time frame 

than would naturally occur. At the same time, the anticipated 

surface disturbance and improved access may result in a loss 

of knowledge due to accidental damage of fossils during 

construction and loss due to unauthorized collection. The 

cumulative loss due to inadvertent damage or destruction is 

unavoidable, however, the cumulative loss due to unauthorized collection can be reduced, particularly for known scientifically significant sites, through area closure and proper 

transportation planning. 

Fire Impacts 

Fire management activities associated with both wildfire 

and prescribed burns would create or provide a variety of 

benefits and impacts for numerous resources. Examples of 

benefits would include increased forage for livestock, wild 

horses, and wildlife. Examples of impacts would include 

cultural sites or special status plant species damaged or 

destroyed through fire line construction and/or vehicle operations, the loss of cultural rock art through the application of 

dye-impregnated fire retardant or smoke damage, the loss of 

sage grouse nesting habitat, the loss of soil stabilizing vegetative cover on unstable/erosive soils, or the damage or destruction of human-made facilities, such as fences, oil and gas wells 

and pipelines, and campgrounds. Refer to the other resource 

sections in this chapter for additional fire related impacts. 

The primary impact to the fire management program 

would be increased prescribed burn and wildfire suppression 

costs and reduced opportunity for prescribed burning. Increased costs would result from increased fire frequency, 

increased fire size and/or intensity, and increased costs of 

doing business. Providing full suppression to sagebrushscurfpea vegetation types would increase the costs of fire 

management. 

Factors affecting fire frequency are off-road vehicle use, 

recreational activity, mineral exploration and development. 

Off-road vehicle use frequently occurs in remote, difficult 

to access areas. While the off-road vehicle trails do provide 

access to those remote areas, the time required to get fire 

suppression equipment to fires is considerable. Off-road use 

contributes to wildfire activity in two ways: 1) escaped camp 

fires, and 2) fires ignited from the off-road vehicle (i.e., the 

catalytic converter). 

295
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Recreational activity (i.e., camping, picnicking, hunting, 

fishing, backpacking) also frequently occur in remote, difficult to access areas. Wildfire activity from recreational 

activity occurs the same as off-road vehicle use. The designation of special recreation management areas would invite 

more public use and would increase the probability of wildfire 

occurrences. 

Mineral exploration, development, and production add to 

potential wildfire occurrence through an increased number of 

ignition sources, i.e., catalytic convertors; surface explosives; 

welding equipment and operations; and sparks from heavy 

equipment operations, etc. 

Factors affecting fire size and/or intensity include restrictions on equipment use and activities that increase or decrease 

fuel loading. For example, the use of fire suppression vehicles 

would be restricted to existing roads and trails in known 

cultural resource sites and areas containing special status plant 

species and known plant habitat. The use of fire retardants and 

other suppression equipment is restricted in several special 

management areas. Fire intensity due to increased or decreased fuel loading are attributable to livestock grazing. 

Livestock grazing generally reduces the amount of fine fuels 

which decrease fire intensity. However, excessive removal of 

fine fuels can result in increased brush production which 

would increase fire intensity. Use of prescribed fire to 

decrease fuel-loading and promote vegetative composition 

may decrease the occurrence, severity, and duration of wild 

fire. 

Factors affecting the cost of doing business are an increased frequency of unauthorized hazardous material sites 

and the increase of the number of wildland/industrial and 

wildland/urban interface areas. 

Hazardous material areas present a serious health hazard to 

fire fighters who come in contact with them. Increased fire 

activity may develop greater exposure of firefighters to incidental hazardous waste during suppression activities, consequently creating a greater threat to firefighter safety. To 

promote safety, additional training and specialized equipment 

may be needed. 

As the number of wildland/industrial and wildland/urban 

interface areas increase, so does the demand for fire protection 

and the expectancy for immediate response. The BLM would 

only provide wildland protection on BLM-administered public lands. 

Factors affecting prescribed burn costs are restrictions on 

the use of vehicles or other equipment, establishing or constructing black lines or control lines around sensitive resource 

values or areas such as cultural resource or special status plant 

species sites, and requirements to burn some sensitive watersheds in the spring. Spring burning requires roughly twice as 

much fine fuels as fall burning requiring more time and effort 

in obtaining desired ignitions. 

Increased activity that would result in the use or assembling of people on wildlands would increase the probability 

that a wildfire would occur. Prolonged lack of prescribed 

burns or wildfires would reduce the grass/forb component of 

the system and increase brush occurrence. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Short- and long-term impacts could occur from additional 

costs for wildfire suppression and prescribed fire, accrued 

from restrictions imposed by other resource management 

requirements. 

Lands Impacts 

Right-of-way holders would have some flexibility and 

opportunity for locating and routing rights-of-way under this 

alternative. However, right-of-way placement would be impacted by exclusion, avoidance areas, areas closed to surface 

occupancy, and those areas with seasonal restrictions. These 

effects would be less than Alternative B but greater than the 

No Action Alternative as more acres would be considered 

avoidance or exclusion areas. Non-federal lands could be 

affected by the routing of rights-of-way around avoidance and 

exclusion areas; however, this effect should be minor since 

most of the planning area consists of federal lands. 

The exclusion of rights-of-way within the South Pass 

Historic Landscape vista (about 23,640 acres) would have a 

major impact if activity should increase in this area since 

rights-of-way in exclusion areas would not be allowed unless 

mandated by law. Large avoidance areas would have a similar 

impact, as avoidance of these areas may require a longer route 

which would affect other offsite areas and increase costs to the 

applicant. About 75 percent of the planning area would be 

avoidance areas for rights-of-way and about 5 percent of the 

planning area would exclude right-of-way activity. Long 

linear facilities such as pipelines and powerlines would be 

affected the most by these restrictions, as extensive reroutes 

would be necessary. Additional mitigation may also be 

applied to activities that may occur in all avoidance areas, also 

increasing project costs and the amount of time needed to 

complete projects (Table 4-3). 

No surface occupancy restrictions, affecting about 56,040 

acres would preclude placement of rights-of-way because 

surface disturbing and disrupting activities would not be 

allowed. Most of these areas are small and scattered throughout the planning area and can be easily avoided. However, this 

effect increases when combined with avoidance and exclusion areas. Large areas with NSO restrictions have the same 

effect as large exclusion areas. 

Areas closed to communication site location (about 43,400 

acres) preclude placement of these types of facilities. If 

alternate locations cannot be found, this can cause gaps in 

communication signals and inefficient communication coverage of areas. More areas would be open to communication 

sites than under Alternative B, but more would be closed than 

under the No Action Alternative. 

Seasonal restrictions and other mitigation measures to 

protect resource values and threatened and endangered species (T&E) would impact rights-of-way by restricting location and/or timing of construction. 

The possibility of high dust levels resulting from use of 

unpaved access roads would necessitate stipulations to control dust. All construction rights-of-way as well as access road 

296
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

rights-of-way would include a stipulation requiring that the 

holder meet Federal and State air quality standards. 

Land tenure adjustments would occur only if the benefits 

outweigh any adverse impacts, and if there are no significant 

impacts which cannot be mitigated. About 4,721 acres have 

been identified as possibly suitable for disposal/acquisition 

(USDI 1997). 

The withdrawal of about 9,000 acres proposed for the 

JMHCAP and the 37,290 acres identified for withdrawal in 

the Green River RMP (Table 4-4), would preclude disposal, 

entry, and mineral location in those areas. Withdrawals for 

more than 5,000 acres would require notification of Congress. 

Existing withdrawals such as those for oil shale and coal, 

would be reviewed and those which no longer serve the 

purpose for which they were withdrawn, would be revoked. 

These lands would then be open for disposal, entry, and 

mineral location. About 211,130 acres would open to mineral 

location that previously were not available for this activity. 

Potential for mining claim activity is low except in the South 

Pass Area. This action would benefit mining claimants by 

allowing mining claim activity on areas that were previously 

closed. 

There is adequate vehicle access on the existing roads and 

trails to the lands in the planning area. Closing or restricting 

specific areas to protect public health and safety and the 

implementation of transportation planning should not cause 

severe adverse effects to vehicle users because so much of the 

area is currently accessible and such closures would likely be 

few. Implementing the ORV designations would keep vehicles on designated routes which could result in traveling 

further to get to a destination, but should not preclude accessing an area. Foot and horse traffic would not be affected. 

Impacts to rights-of-way and other lands actions for the 

South Pass Historic Landscape would be the same as discussed in the general impact section. The impacts to rights-ofway for the Oregon Buttes and White Mountain Petroglyphs 

ACECs would be the same as discussed for exclusion areas 

and areas closed to surface disturbing activities. The impacts 

to other lands actions would be the same as discussed for the 

general area. 

Core Area 

The core area, including the Greater Sand Dunes and 

Steamboat Mountain ACECs, would be an avoidance area for 

rights-of-way. The face of Steamboat Mountain (about 9,400 

acres) would be excluded from rights-of-way requiring reroutes of linear facilities. Large avoidance areas such as this 

would require routing facilities around these areas. This 

would affect other offsite areas and increase costs to the 

applicant. Land tenure, withdrawal, and access impacts 

would be the same as described for the general area. Communication sites would be excluded from the Steamboat Mountain ACEC which could cause inefficient communication 

coverage in some areas. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The combined actions of large areas of avoidance (about 

416,660 acres), much of it connecting, and about 37,210 acres 

of exclusion area (and about 43,400 acres excluded from 

communication sites) would affect right-of-way placement. 

Long linear rights-of-way particularly would be affected by 

potentially longer routes increasing construction costs. Fewer 

rights-of-way would be needed as less acreage would be 

leased and fewer gas wells would be drilled. 

Withdrawal of 46,270 acres would preclude disposal, 

entry, and mineral location. Revocation of about 211,130 

withdrawn acres would allow for entry and mineral location, 

and consideration of land disposal. 

Lands would be irreversibly lost to the public land base 

when sold or exchanged. However, under exchanges, lands of 

comparable value would be obtained. 

Livestock Grazing Impacts 

Livestock would not be adversely affected by air quality 

actions and if reduced emissions occur, may benefit the 

environment for domestic livestock. 

Cultural and paleontological management would only affect livestock grazing if cultural sites are fenced from livestock use, causing a loss of available forage. Since most 

cultural sites are small, the amount of impact would be 

minimal. 

Under this alternative it is assumed that 70 gas wells and 15 

shallow coalbed methane wells would be drilled in the Reasonable Foreseeable Development scenario (RFD). This 

would mean that there would be up to 2,100 acres of surface 

disturbance. This amount of disturbance would have only a 

minimal impact. Net long-term disturbance would be about 

365 acres. 

Mining claim activity would not affect livestock production considering the small amount of forage disturbance 

predicted over the long term. However, if a locatable mineral 

was found and in sufficient quantities and size to warrant 

production facilities, the disturbance could result in minor 

livestock reductions over the long term. This is not likely to 

occur. 

Gravel or other material pits provided for improvement of 

roads, pipelines, or other facilities, would not pose a concern 

for livestock production and management. Coal or sodium 

exploration and development would not affect livestock grazing. 

Chemicals such as caustic soda, acids, drilling fluid, reservoir fluid and other materials may be spilled unintentionally 

on roadways and ditches and ultimately water sources. The 

use of hazardous materials poses a threat to livestock if they 

come into contact with them or consume contaminated forage 

or water. However, it is not likely that this would occur. 

Actions concerning rights-of-ways, pipelines, roads, utilities and other surface disturbing actions such as well pads, 

water diversions, etc., can adversely affect livestock by reduc297
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

ing available forage. About 70,520 acres would be closed to 

rights-of-way (including communication sites)) which would 

benefit livestock by protecting available forage. Reclamation 

of linear rights-of-way that do not include permanent roads 

would mitigate these forage related impacts under all alternatives. 

Effects to livestock grazing could occur from implementing standards and guidelines, reviews, and making related 

adjustments prior to the next grazing season. While adjustments would benefit long-term forage production and vigor, 

they could result in short-term impacts to livestock operators. 

This impact would result from the need to remove livestock 

from allotments when appropriate levels of utilization have 

been reached. 

With the implementation of the Wyoming Standards and 

Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands in 1998, it was determined 

that all public lands located within the planning area be 

assessed in 1999. As of the end of the 1999 grazing season, 

nine allotments had been assessed for conformance with the 

Wyoming standards for rangeland health. Where the standards are not being met and it has been determined that 

livestock management is the cause, appropriate measures 

would be developed using the guidelines in the Jack Morrow 

Hills Coordinated Activity Plan. 

Suitability of the planning area would mostly affect the 

class of livestock. Some areas are more suitable for cattle 

while other areas are more appropriate for sheep. Slopes 

greater than 20 percent are usually only accessible to sheep 

while the lower lying areas are more accessible to cattle 

grazing. Distance to water is also more critical for cattle than 

for sheep. Omitting areas of little or no productivity or very 

steep slopes might have an impact on the livestock operators 

by a reduction in adjudicated AUMs. However, this would 

decrease the potential overutilization of the vegetation in 

other areas. With sheep and cattle there is a diverse range of 

forage needs which separates each class of livestock. One area 

may indeed be unsuitable for one class of livestock but very 

suitable to another. 

Salting for distribution of livestock could require some 

effort in planning and proper placement but would aid in the 

distribution of forage utilization and reduce impacts to other 

resources such as wildlife, water quality, and riparian resources. 

Vegetative treatments beneficial to wildlife would also be 

beneficial to livestock. Burning or using chemicals to reduce 

sagebrush would only increase the forage for both livestock 

and some species of wildlife. Benefits would be greater than 

for the No Action Alternative. 

Up to 11 new livestock management water facilities could 

be developed. New livestock waters would benefit livestock 

grazing management. Limiting the numbers and locations of 

new livestock watering sources would provide more benefits 

than the No Action Alternative. Limiting water developments 

could increase competition between domestic livestock and 

wild horses for available water. 

Authorized grazing use would not exceed the recognized 

permitted use. For analysis purposes, anticipated actual use 

would range from approximately 9,851 AUMs (5-year average 1994-1998) to the total permitted use of 26,032 AUMs. 

The average between the two amounts is 17,941 AUMs 

(15,814 cattle and 2,127 sheep). Again for analysis purposes, 

this grazing level was held constant throughout the planning 

period. 

Livestock operators would have the flexibility to manage 

their livestock in a way that would be beneficial to the 

resource. Allowing a range of stocking levels gives an 

operator the chance to adjust to the changing complexities of 

resource management. Therefore there would be no effect 

from this alternative to livestock. Benefits would be increased 

flexibility to rest portions of the planning area for resource 

concerns while allowing a voluntary reduction in numbers, 

allowing for improvement in both riparian and upland vegetation. 

Ensuring growing season rest and no livestock use before 

range readiness would ensure healthy forage. However, this 

would place constraints on the flexibility of grazing plans and 

livestock operators could need other options for grazing their 

livestock until they can turn out their cattle on public lands 

within the planning area. This could mean a change in the 

livestock operations. 

A change in operations to accommodate the changes in 

grazing seasons, would provide some benefits. The quality 

and vigor of the plants would improve, causing an increase in 

growth rate of calves and lambs. This could generate more 

revenue from sales depending upon livestock market conditions. 

Grazing plans would be prepared for all areas and address 

riparian desired plant community objectives and proper functioning condition. Generally, riparian area pastures have been 

established as mitigation for some types of grazing use. 

Flexibility in management would be reduced due to fewer 

riparian pastures that would be developed. Riparian pastures 

would only be developed to enhance watershed values and 

wildlife habitat, not necessarily to facilitate livestock grazing. 

Livestock use limits would be established not to exceed 30 

percent on riparian shrubs and 40 percent on key riparian 

herbaceous species. This may increase operating costs. However, by setting utilization levels, an increase in productivity 

can be assumed. With this increase in productivity, the 

increased vegetation, increased weaning weights, and less 

work involved moving livestock would ultimately increase 

the productivity of the rangeland, livestock health, and decrease operating costs with the potential to improve profitability. 

Constraints on water development placement could result 

in an increased use of riparian areas and utilization limits 

could be reached within a short time frame. The operators 

would find it increasingly difficult to hold their livestock in 

areas of little or no water, causing an increase in riding time, 

trucking and increased operating costs. 

Monitoring and reclamation activities would benefit livestock grazing by providing information on forage use and 

distribution, and by reclaiming disturbed areas to provide 

forage for livestock grazing. Monitoring information can be 

298
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

used to identify problem areas and direct management changes 

to mitigate or eliminate resource concerns. 

With the ever growing popularity of ORVs, livestock could 

be adversely affected by being chased or harassed. Gates 

could be left open interfering with or preventing compliance 

with livestock management requirements. Moving livestock 

from camping areas, water sources, or other areas could cause 

serious injury or in rare cases even death of the animals. 

There would be more flexibility in livestock management 

opportunities for riparian and wetlands under the Preferred 

Alternative than under Alternative B, but less than in Alternative A. Livestock would be moved from riparian areas (and in 

some cases, may need to be removed from an entire allotment) 

if utilization levels are reached prior to the end of the authorized use period. Riparian management actions (use levels, 

DPC, etc.) and other management prescriptions (i.e., limiting 

water developments in crucial habitats, managing riparian 

pastures for wildlife and watershed resources, use levels on 

upland species, etc.) would increase the intensity of livestock 

management. However, improved riparian areas would benefit livestock grazing by providing improved forage. 

For a detailed socioeconomic impacts discussion of the 

livestock industry, see Socioeconomic Impacts. Under the 

Preferred Alternative, 316,280 cattle AUMs and 42,540 sheep 

AUMs would be available for livestock grazing during the 20-

year life of the project. The total economic impact of livestock 

grazing would be $22.3 million. Employment in the livestock 

sector would be 252 annual job equivalents earning $16,353 

average per year. The AUMs of livestock grazing are 92 

percent of the No Action Alternative. AUMs available for 

livestock grazing on an annual basis under the Preferred 

Alternative represent an increase over the baseline year 1998 

and the 5-year average of 1994-1998. 

No surface occupancy stipulations applied to areas such as 

the South Pass Historic Landscape, Oregon Buttes ACEC, and 

White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC could prevent construction of livestock management facilities; therefore, livestock 

distribution patterns may not improve in those areas. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, there is one special status 

plant species located in the planning area, the large-fruited 

bladderpod (Lesquerella macrocarpa). There seems to be no 

conflict between livestock and this special status plant. 

There are no listed threatened or endangered species located within the planning area. If a survey revealed the 

presence of a threatened and endangered species, mitigation 

measures would be developed to ensure that habitat for the 

species was protected or enhanced. 

Transportation planning could benefit livestock grazing 

activity by limiting forage lost from development activity. In 

particular, defining transportation routes and corridors and 

establishing road densities would reduce surface disturbance. 

Access would still be provided for livestock activities such as 

repairing improvements or moving livestock in various allotments. 

Poisonous plants pose a problem to livestock through 

ingestion of toxic chemicals located in the plants themselves. 

Control of these species would decrease the likelihood of 

infection or death from noxious weeds. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, wild horses would not 

impact livestock grazing as long as horses are kept at the 

appropriate management level (AML). For the most part, the 

wild horse use is located on the fringes of the planning area. 

There are some wild horses located outside the wild horse herd 

area; however, there appears to be no impact with them being 

outside the area. Horses have a tendency to haze livestock 

away from water sources during drought years. They have 

been known to keep livestock away from watering sources for 

a period of time. There could be some competition between 

livestock and horses due to the same dietary overlap in food 

sources. 

Livestock would not be affected by current wilderness 

management. Continued closure of wilderness study areas to 

vehicle use could affect the livestock operators in gathering 

their livestock for market or moving them to another area. 

This alternative, although not as restrictive as Alternative 

B is still more restrictive than Alternative A. Although this 

alternative is restrictive to livestock grazing management and 

the livestock industry, it allows for some use of management 

tools to lessen the severity outlined in Alternative B. 

Restrictions on range improvements, watering sources and 

or areas, utilization levels, upland and riparian management 

objectives, and use limits have been analyzed in earlier 

chapters and would not be discussed further. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, potential competition 

with wildlife for forage and shade would continue. Development of additional water sources in the core would not be 

allowed which would affect livestock distribution. This may 

cause the livestock operators to move livestock, depending on 

water availability to areas of lower grazing productivity. 

However, through management practices such as water hauling and other permitted activities the operator may be able to 

stay in a more productive area longer because of increased 

management activities. These activities may be beneficial 

because of increased forage available due to better management practices. 

Limiting placement of water sources and establishing 

utilization limits upon sage grouse leks and nesting areas may 

pose additional management constraints and may be more 

costly. This may also affect livestock distribution. Limiting 

use in areas that contain waters, such as the flockets, may 

cause livestock operators to find alternative watering sources. 

Constraints on the construction of additional livestock 

water and distribution facilities could result in concentrated 

use of the remaining areas. In combination with the standards 

for healthy rangelands, these constraints could result in changes 

to livestock operations. 

Core Area 

Impacts to the core area would be the same as described for 

the general planning areas. In particular, surface use constraints and management practices precluding construction of 

rangeland improvements may prevent improvement of live299
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

stock distribution patterns. This would affect the Pacific 

Creek, Steamboat Mountain, Sands, Bush Rim, and Fourth of 

July allotments. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Actions taken under this alternative could result in a shortterm reduction in use as the area and time available for grazing 

would be limited. This impact would be greater for this 

alternative than for Alternative A and the No Action Alternative but less than under Alternative B. The projected increase 

in forage production could help to offset this loss in the long 

term. 

Minerals Impacts 

Leasables - Oil and Gas and Coalbed Methane 

Resources 

Oil and gas and coalbed methane development would be 

restricted or prohibited as the result of conflicts with environmentally related resource values. This cumulative impact is 

due to the restriction categories: 

• no leasing, 

• no surface occupancy, 

• seasonal access restrictions, and 

• controlled surface use restrictions. 

Approximately 27 percent of the planning area would be 

closed to leasing. Leasing would be prohibited parts of the 

core area and connectivity areas in addition to the nondiscretionary closures in wilderness study areas. 

In areas of no surface occupancy, surface disturbing activities are prohibited. About 10 percent of the planning area 

would be affected by this restriction (Map 10 and Table 2-4). 

Access to hydrocarbon resources located beneath these areas 

must be accomplished by drilling deviated or horizontal wells, 

which may not always be economically feasible. Directional 

drilling would increase well cost. 

About 60 percent of the planning area is affected by 

seasonal restrictions (Map 11). Seasonal restrictions limit oil 

and gas activities to certain time periods during the year. 

Activities can be prohibited from between 2 and 9 months out 

of the year depending on the purpose of the time limitation, 

and number and kind of overlapping seasonal restrictions. 

This restriction is applied to leases to protect, big game winter 

ranges, certain calving and parturition areas, raptor habitat, 

mountain plover nesting, and sage grouse nesting areas (Table 

2-4). Most of the seasonal restriction overlaps occur during 

the spring and early summer. The recent addition of a 

requirement for mountain plover nesting surveys would increase costs for new proposed wells or construction activities. 

Controls on surface disturbing activities are applied to 

leases to mitigate adverse impacts. The effect of surface use 

restrictions can range from no effect, to added mitigation and 

reclamation requirements, to moving well locations, all the 

way to prohibiting exploration and development activity. The 

magnitude of the impact is generally not known until a well 

has been proposed. About 72 percent of the planning area 

would be affected by these controlled surface use restrictions 

(Table 2-4 and Map 12). 

The reasonable foreseeable development scenario projected that 202 wells (includes five coalbed methane wells) 

could be drilled in the planning area if the entire area were 

open to exploration and development. The impacts of restrictions on this projection are: 

1. five of the coalbed methane wells expected to be drilled 

under the No Action Alternative would not be drilled due 

to additional restrictions resulting from staged leasing, no 

surface occupancy, and controlled surface use mitigation 

and reclamation requirements being added for this alternative, 

2. an estimated direct loss of 29 percent of the potentially 

drilled wells (55 wells) through no leasing, 

3. an estimated indirect loss of 35 percent of the potentially 

drilled oil and gas wells (67 wells) because restrictions 

(staged leasing, no leasing, surface occupancy stipulations, and mitigation and reclamation requirements) over 

almost all of the planning area could discourage industry 

from initiating exploration and development activities, 

4. increased operating costs related to trying to get access for 

drilling those available well locations and transporting 

production obtained, 

5. in the short term (through 2007), the number of producing 

wells could increase from 48 wells (46 oil and gas wells and 

2 coalbed methane wells) to 58 wells (55 oil and gas wells 

and 3 coalbed methane wells, 

6. in the long term (through 2017), the number of producing 

wells could decrease to 41 wells (38 oil and gas wells and 

3 coalbed methane wells). 

Impacts of Fewer Wells 

About 70 wells (34 producing oil and gas wells and three 

producing coalbed methane wells) are expected to be drilled 

and 122 wells would not be drilled during the 20-year analysis 

period. The new producing wells would account for additional royalty and tax revenue to the government. The 34 new 

oil and gas wells would have a total reserve of 74.8 billion 

cubic feet of gas. The projected reserves of the expected three 

new producing coalbed methane wells is not known. 

The unavailable production from the oil and gas wells not 

drilled represents unrealized royalty and tax revenue. Sixtyfive of the 122 wells would be expected to produce and they 

could recover 143 billion cubic feet of gas. A loss of 

opportunity for revenue and royalty would occur if wells 

could not be drilled to obtain hydrocarbons under no leasing 

and no surface operations areas. Where leasing is deferred, 

the opportunity to recover hydrocarbon reserves would also 

be deferred for some period longer than 20 years. The amount 

of potential revenue from undrilled coalbed methane wells is 

unknown, since the number of potential undrilled coalbed 

methane wells could not be determined. Opportunities for 

direct and indirect employment would also be reduced with 

fewer producing wells. 

300
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Significance of Impacts to Oil and Gas Activities 

Significance criteria 1, 2, and 3 would be exceeded for the 

Preferred Alternative. Two fields (Nitchie Gulch and Pine 

Canyon) lie in or partially in the planning area. They both 

exceed the 5 billion cubic feet of gas criteria. The Nitchie 

Gulch Field contains 48 wells (see RFD) and the Pine Canyon 

Field contains 22 wells (George 1992). The well average per 

field in this area is 35. Diedrich (1999) has indicated that field 

sizes are likely to range from 20 to 25 wells. In comparison, 

a natural gas field in southwestern Wyoming typically includes 30 to 200+ wells (Barlow and Haun 1994). It appears 

that at least one average field would not be developed due to 

direct impacts of staged leasing and due to indirect impacts of 

applying no surface occupancy and surface use restrictions. 

Possibly as many as three fields would not be developed due 

to these restrictions. 

About 64 percent of expected potential exploration and 

development activity could not occur due to restrictions. 

Potential direct losses were determined to be 29 percent and 

indirect losses 35 percent. Collectively and individually these 

two types of losses exceed the threshold loss of 25 percent 

which was determined to be significant. 

About 64 percent of expected reserve additions would not 

occur due to restrictions. The significance threshold was 

determined to be a loss of 25 percent of the potential reserves. 

The total number of producing wells would decrease by 15 

percent over the 20-year study period. This did not meet the 

significance criteria of a reduction of 25 percent in the number 

of producing wells. 

Impacts in the Core Area and Connectivity Area 

Staged leasing would be implemented in these areas. Some 

areas would become no surface occupancy while others would 

be withdrawn from leasing for an unknown period of time. 

Impacts as a result of restrictions in the Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC and Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be the same as 

for the core area since they lie within it. Types of impacts 

determined for the planning area as a whole, also apply to this 

area. 

The core and connectivity areas make up about 38 percent 

of the planning area. Much of the Nitchie Gulch Field lies 

within the core area. Some wells would be drilled as development wells within the Nitchie Gulch Field and some could be 

drilled as part of another field (possibly as extensions of one 

or more of the small one- or two-well fields already present). 

Development of an entire field may be precluded at least for 

the life of this plan. The criteria #1 impact threshold may be 

exceeded. 

Forty-seven (47) wells have been completed as gas producers in the core area and connectivity area. Thirty-five (35) 

wells still produce. Over the long term, 33 of these wells are 

expected to be abandoned, leaving only 2 producing well(s). 

Approximately 18 of the 35 new wells projected under the 

RFD are expected to be productive. The significant impact 

threshold for criteria #4 would be exceeded since the total 

number of producers could decrease from 35 to 20 over the life 

of this plan. This impact would be partly due to depletion of 

reservoir rocks in the area and partly due to the restrictions 

placed on exploration and development activity. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Impacts include those expected from all oil and gas development. Present impacts are due to 48 existing producing 

wells. Short-term impacts (1998-2007) expected are: 10 new 

exploratory unit proposals; 36 new wells; 19 new producing 

wells; 17 drilled and abandoned wells; and 7 abandoned 

producing wells. At the end of 2007 there would be 58 

producing wells in the planning area. This would be an 

increase of 10 wells (nine conventional and one coalbed 

methane well) over the December 1997 total of 48 wells. 

Long-term impacts (1998-2017) expected are: 20 new 

exploratory unit proposals; 70 new wells; 37 new producing 

wells; 33 drilled and abandoned wells; and 42 abandoned 

producing wells. At the end of 2017 there would be 43 

producing wells in the planning area. This would be a 

decrease of seven wells (an increase of 3 coalbed methane 

wells and a decrease of eight conventional wells) over the 

December 1997 total of 48 wells. 

Leasables (Other than Oil and Gas and 

Coalbed Methane), Locatables, and Salables 

Leasables - Coal 

A limited amount (10 to 15 acres) of exploration drilling is 

projected within the coal potential area during the latter part 

of the planning period (Map 47). The coal potential area is 

located in the extreme southern portion of the planning area 

and includes portions of the general and core areas. Access 

limitations would be less than the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative B, and similar to Alternative A. Under this 

alternative, exploration within the core would be reviewed on 

a case-by-case basis and would be open except as described as 

follows. About 42,500 acres would be closed to coal exploration. Avoidance of Native American respected sites would 

range from 100 feet to 2.5 miles. Sensitive areas would be 

avoided, including elk calving areas, big sagebrush, mountain 

shrubs, and special status plant species habitat. Also, areas 

with an NSO restriction for oil and gas development would be 

closed to exploration, except that exploration could occur on 

existing roads and trails in accordance with transportation 

planning (Table 4-5). 

The effects to coal exploration under this alternative would 

be similar to that described for Alternative A and Alternative 

B. Avoidance areas may cause portions of the coal potential 

area to not be evaluated; therefore, isolated coal bodies may 

not be developed. Access to the remaining area would likely 

be enough for a preliminary exploratory program but not for 

a detailed exploratory program during the planning period. 

Cumulative Impacts Same as described for the general 

impact discussion. 

Leasables - Sodium 

The sodium brine potential area occurs outside the core 

area, so no impacts to the resources in the core area are 

301
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

anticipated. Exploration and development for sodium would 

be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, with appropriate mitigation applied. Activity would avoid sensitive areas as described for coal exploration. Areas with an NSO restriction 

for oil and gas development would be closed to exploration, 

except that exploration could occur on existing roads and 

trails in accordance with transportation planning (Table 4-5). 

Also, no facilities related to development would be located 

within the planning area. Well locations would be permitted 

on a case-by-case basis. The impact to exploration and 

development would be an increased cost of doing business, 

but would not likely preclude activities. 

Cumulative Impacts Same as described for the general 

impact discussion. 

Locatables 

The impacts to locatable minerals development under this 

alternative would be the same as that described for the No 

Action Alternative; however, the magnitude of the impacts 

would be greater due to an increase in withdrawal areas. In 

addition to the Green River RMP withdrawals, the two northern elk calving areas and one Native American respected site 

would be withdrawn from mineral entry. The northern elk 

calving areas lie within historical gold placer claim locations. 

Withdrawal of these lands from mineral location would exclude them from any additional locatable minerals exploration and development, other than on claims already existing in 

these areas at the time of withdrawal. The BLM has the option 

of pursuing validity exams on any existing claims. Should 

they be found invalid, they would be declared null and void on 

that basis. And, should they be found valid, such claims could 

be mined and/or patented. 

Core Area The impacts to locatable minerals development 

under this alternative would be the same as that described for 

the No Action Alternative; however, the magnitude of the 

impacts would be greater due to an increase in withdrawal 

areas but this would be less than described for Alternative B. 

In addition to the Green River RMP withdrawals, the top of 

Steamboat Mountain (about 960 acres) and two Native American respected sites would be withdrawn from mineral entry. 

The same procedures for dealing with existing claims at the 

time of withdrawal as described for the general area would be 

applied. 

Cumulative Impacts Same as described for the general 

impact discussion. 

Salables 

The Green River RMP (USDI 1997) closed 207,850 acres 

or about 33 percent of the public land within the planning area 

to the sale of mineral materials (Table 4-6). Areas that remain 

open to development of mineral materials contain primarily 

shale, claystone, and sandstone and very little, if any, sand and 

gravel. Where construction requirements specify a certain 

type of material not found within the planning area, alternative 

sources outside the planning area are mined and hauled to the 

construction site. In addition to the areas closed or restricted 

to development of mineral materials under the No Action 

Alternative, activities would avoid sensitive areas as described for coal exploration. The remainder of the area would 

be open to development on a case-by-case basis. 

The Green River RMP FEIS also describes areas where 

surface disturbance is constrained (in Table 2-8). These 

controlled surface use areas would adversely impact the 

access to and use of the surface for recovery of mineral 

materials. Mitigation measures would increase the cost of 

doing business, limit timing of activities, and may preclude 

some activities in both the short and long term. 

The disposal of mineral materials from the existing Wyoming Department of Transportation pit along Wyoming Highway 28 would eventually result in the depletion of materials 

at this site, necessitating the establishment of a new site(s). 

Also under this alternative, development of mineral materials is restricted to support of other development occurring in 

the planning area. No sales contracts or free use permits 

would be issued to support projects outside the planning area. 

Though mineral materials are in short supply within the 

general area, this restriction protects small localized sources 

for localized use. This reduces construction costs associated 

with long haul distances from other mineral material sources 

outside the planning area. 

Core Area This alternative closes the lava rock portion of 

Steamboat Mountain to development of mineral materials, 

but leaves the remainder of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

open to development. Again, as described for the general area, 

development of mineral materials could only occur as an 

activity in support of other development within the planning 

area. Compared to the No Action Alternative, which closed 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC to all mineral materials activities, this alternative provides for some level of development to 

occur. Construction costs associated with oil and gas and 

other development within the core would decrease. 

Cumulative Impacts The cumulative effects on mineral 

materials would be an increase in the total amount of materials 

available from within the planning area compared to the No 

Action Alternative. 

Geophysical 

Under this alternative, the direct and indirect impacts 

described for the other alternatives would be the same, although to a lesser degree than Alternative B but more than the 

No Action Alternative and Alternative A. An interdisciplinary team review would be initiated for all geophysical 

proposals within the JMHCAP area on a case-by-case basis. 

Detailed analysis of the potential restrictions would not be 

available prior to development of exploration proposals. 

Geophysical exploration could occur within the core area, 

areas with NSO restrictions, and other areas (active sand 

dunes, slopes greater than 20 percent, ACEC values, key 

habitat - unique vegetation and plant communities, key habitat 

- escape cover, cultural/historical/Native American concerns, 

connectivity area, inaccessibility, special status species, stabilized dunes, and VRM Class II areas) but would be limited to 

use of existing roads and trails. Given the potential resource 

conflicts between geophysical activities and wildlife, cultural, vegetation, and recreation resources, the direct impact 

302
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

would be an increase in the cost of operations from mitigation 

of impacts to these resources. The cost of geophysical 

activities would increase due to controlled surface use restrictions, time delays, and seasonal restrictions. 

Also carried forward from the Green River RMP, restrictions, such as limiting the use of vehicles and explosive 

charges (Table 4-7) in sensitive resource areas inside and 

outside the core. Sensitive resources include Boars Tusk, a 

portion of White Mountain Petroglyphs, Crookston Ranch, 

developed recreation sites and the ORV parking lot in the 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, raptor nesting sites, portions of 

South Pass Historic Landscape, Oregon Buttes ACEC, special 

status plant species habitat, Tri-Territory Marker, Native 

American respected sites, Wilderness Study Areas, and recreation interpretive sites. Some of these areas, such as the 

WSAs, would be open to foot traffic only. 

The Green River RMP identified certain areas that would 

remain open to leasing but closed or restricted to geophysical 

activities. This alternative adds to this list of areas as described above. Such a situation may indirectly affect overall 

development of oil and gas resources in these areas and 

potentially increase the amount of surface disturbance associated with development. If subsurface information can not be 

retrieved through conventional geophysical means, then operators assume a higher risk during exploration and development of these areas. The presence or absence of geophysical 

data can mean the difference between more efficient development, with fewer, more productive wells and missing the 

reservoir entirely. Areas that would remain open to leasing 

but closed or restricted to geophysical activities may incur less 

efficient development resulting in more surface disturbance 

than would otherwise occur were geophysical data available. 

Core Area 

Under this alternative, oil and gas development and the 

issuance of new leases would occur within portions of the core 

area. Geophysical activities would be allowed, but restricted 

to use of exiting roads and trails in conformance with the 

transportation plan. The use of explosive charges would not 

be permitted. The impacts to geophysical operations would be 

the same as that described above for the general area, except 

that geophysical operations, such as 3-D seismic, would not 

be permitted within an oil and gas high potential area. If 

subsurface information can not be retrieved through conventional geophysical means, then operators assume a higher risk 

during exploration and development of these areas. The 

presence or absence of geophysical data can mean the difference between more efficient development, with fewer, more 

productive wells and missing the reservoir entirely. Areas that 

would remain open to leasing but closed or restricted to 

geophysical activities may incur less efficient development 

resulting in more surface disturbance than would otherwise 

occur were geophysical data available. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impact of the this alternative on geophysical operations would be similar although somewhat less than 

under Alternative B. Less area could be explored, creating 

data gaps. There would be an overall increase in costs to the 

operator from mitigation. There is the potential for more 

surface disturbance as more gas wells may be drilled to 

delineate a reservoir due to a lack of geophysical data. 

Off-Road Vehicle Impacts 

ORV use would be restricted under this alternative by 

limiting winter access to county roads. Over-the snow vehicles would follow ORV designations. Additional ORV 

seasonal closures could be pursued in critical habitats. Roads 

in sensitive areas would be seasonally gated from general 

public use. 

Approximately 80 percent of the planning area is available 

for off-road vehicle (ORV) use. Wilderness Study Areas, 

candidate plant sites, and some cultural sites or about 20 

percent of the planning area is closed to ORV use creating a 

small impact to this type of recreation. 

There are hundreds of miles of roads and trails available for 

the public to use. All-terrain vehicle (ATV) use, specifically 

four wheelers, has been increasing and is anticipated to 

continue to increase. A leader in the Utah BlueRibbon 

Coalition has predicted that in the next three to five years ATV 

use will increase 300 to 400 percent. 

The Sand Dunes ORV open area would continue to operate 

as an open off-road vehicle play area. It is anticipated that the 

existing small, one-hole vault toilet would be replaced with a 

bigger toilet. The existing parking lot would be expanded to 

accommodate the increased use the area is receiving. This 

would relieve congestion and make the site more user friendly. 

There is a possibility that more improvements to the site could 

be made such as an off loading ramp, picnic tables, fire rings, 

and wind shelters. However, all this would be subject to 

appropriated dollars which have not been available in recent 

years. 

The Sand Dunes ORV open area lies in the eastern third of 

the Sand Dunes Area of Critical Environmental Concern (see 

write-ups for Special Management Areas). ATV users (i.e., 

sand rails, all-terrain vehicles) are allowed to drive anywhere 

on the 10,500-acre active sand dune area. Presently, there are 

17 producing gas wells, two pipelines, storage tanks, and 

numerous access roads in the area creating health and safety 

issues. See the impact analysis for the Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Long-term beneficial effects would result from the large 

number of existing roads and trails available for vehicle use, 

and from newly constructed roads anticipated with additional 

development which would provide access to new areas. The 

areas closed or limited to designated roads and trails are small 

in comparison. 

Recreation Impacts 

Existing wildlife populations would be maintained or 

increased and a slight increase in recreation user days would 

303
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

be anticipated over Alternative A for hunting. Non-consumptive recreation days are projected to increase by two percent 

per year during the planning period. About 1.18 million 

resident and nonresident non-consumptive recreation days 

would be used in the 20-year analysis period. 

Visitor use in the planning area will continue to grow based 

on population increases in the Intermountain West. Visitation 

to Wyoming’s National Parks and Forests is increasing and 

the public would be looking to the BLM-administered lands to 

get away from the crowds. It is anticipated that as developments occur, populations increase, and other traditional recreation use areas become saturated, the integrity of setting and 

opportunity for unconfined and solitary recreation experiences would diminish. Non-consumptive recreation days are 

projected to increase by two percent per year during the 

planning period. About 1.18 million resident and nonresident 

non-consumptive recreation days would be used in the 20-

year analysis period. 

The BLM-administered lands in the planning area are 

noted for the undeveloped, wild nature of recreation opportunities. The only developed sites are the Sand Dunes Off-Road 

Vehicle Area and the interpretive sites along the Oregon/ 

Mormon Pioneer/California/and Pony Express National Historic Trails. The White Mountain Petroglyphs cultural site is 

in need of a site plan to control visitor use. This site could be 

developed within the life of the plan. 

Managing for the continued availability of outdoor recreational opportunities, meeting legal requirements for health 

and safety of visitors, and mitigating conflicts between different types of resource users would solve many of the current 

problems. Meeting the long-range needs of the public and 

utilization of recreation resources would be pursued. 

Low-investment, resource-dependent opportunities such 

as backcountry byways, watchable wildlife, and wild horse 

viewing would be pursued in the area. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Recreation demand and uses could increase to a point 

where conflicts would occur for unconfined dispersed recreation opportunities. However, management prescriptions 

would mitigate these impacts somewhat, to lessen the effects 

identified in Alternative A. 

Some hunting opportunities may diminish for the general 

public in areas where development occurs due to the displacement of animals and because of measures applied to protect 

public health and safety. The ability of some pristine habitat 

areas to support wildlife may also be diminished due to 

increased recreation uses and access into these areas. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

The JMHCAP economic analysis was based on a 20-year 

planning period (1998-2017) with 1998 as the base year. In 

addition to looking at economic impacts by affected resource 

by alternative, cumulative economic effects are summarized 

for the short-term (1998-2007) and the long-term (1998-

2017) portions of the planning period. The short-term and 

long-term cumulative effects for Alternative A, Alternative B, 

and the Preferred Alternative were compared with the impacts 

for the No Action Alternative on a percentage basis. All dollar 

figures used for evaluating impacts in the socioeconomic 

analysis are in current dollars. Economic tables which were 

used for the analysis in the document are on file at the Rock 

Springs Field Office. 

Oil and Gas 

The economic impact of oil and gas activities in the Jack 

Morrow Hills area was analyzed in two parts. The first was the 

development phase, which considered the economic impacts 

associated with drilling and completion of oil and gas wells in 

the study area. The second was the production phase, which 

considered the economic impacts associated with the production of crude oil and natural gas from the completed wells. 

Only the development phase was considered for coalbed 

methane wells, since production estimates for these wells 

were not available due to a lack of production history in the 

area. 

Development Phase 

Table 4-8 summarizes the economic assumptions used in 

the analysis for oil and gas development (the drilling and 

completion of oil and gas wells). Development costs were 

separated into wells that were drilled and completed and wells 

that were drilled and abandoned. Development costs were 

estimated for three types of wells: 1) Standard oil and gas 

wells (7,000-9,000 feet), 2) Deep coalbed methane wells 

(greater that 1,200 feet), and 3) Shallow coalbed methane 

wells (less than 1,200 feet). BLM’s Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development Scenario report (RFD) assumed that all shallow 

coalbed methane wells were completed, so no costs were 

estimated for drilled and abandoned shallow wells. Most of 

the drilling and completion cost information was taken or 

adapted from the Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation, 

Socio/Economic Evaluation (SWRE) report. For some types 

of wells this information was supplemented with information 

from other sources. 

Table 4-8 indicates that the estimated total cost of drilling 

and completing an oil and gas well was $567,600. This 

expenditure generated total economic impacts (direct and 

secondary) of $774,600 per well in the Southwest Wyoming 

economy. The total economic impact per well included 

$119,500 of labor earnings in the region. Drilling one oil and 

gas well supported the equivalent of 4.4 annual jobs in the 

region. A similar explanation applies to the other types of oil 

and gas wells shown in Table 4-8. 

The estimated costs for standard oil and gas wells were 

taken from the SWRE report. The estimated cost for shallow 

coalbed methane wells was based on reported costs for similar 

wells in Northeast Wyoming. The cost breakdown for deep 

and shallow coalbed methane wells was assumed to be proportional to that for a standard oil and gas well. 

Estimates of the economic impacts of oil and gas development on the Southwest Wyoming economy in terms of total 

economic impact, earnings, and jobs were based on the 

304
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

updated model from the SWRE report. The employment 

estimates were expressed as annual (12 month) job equivalents. 

Information on the number and type of wells for the 

JMHCAP was taken from the BLM’s RFD report. Table 4-9 

summarizes projected drilling activity by type of well. The 

RFD assumed that the success rate for standard oil and gas 

wells and deep coalbed methane wells would be approximately 53 percent and that the success rate for shallow coalbed 

methane wells would be 100 percent. 

Production Phase 

Table 4-10 summarizes the economic assumptions used in 

the analysis for oil and gas production. Crude oil production 

was analyzed separately from natural gas production. Natural 

gas is the predominate form of production in the Jack Morrow 

Hills area. Most of the production information was taken or 

updated from the SWRE report. 

In Table 4-10, the price of oil was assumed to be $15.00 per 

barrel. At that price level one barrel of oil would generate 

$23.16 of total economic activity (direct and secondary) in the 

Southwest Wyoming economy. The total economic activity 

per barrel included $2.50 of labor earnings in the region. One 

barrel of oil supported 0.000072 direct and secondary jobs in 

the region or the equivalent of one annual job for about every 

13,900 barrels. One barrel of oil also generated $1.00 of direct 

revenue for local governments in the region. A similar 

explanation applies to the per MMCF amounts for natural gas 

production. The value of natural gas production is based on 

a price of $1.75 per MCF. 

The price of oil has varied substantially in Wyoming 

during recent years, ranging from a high of $19.56 in 1996 to 

a low of $9.50 in 1999 (Wyoming Geo-notes 1999). As a 

result, forecasting future oil price is very difficult. The 

Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast (January 1999) 

of $15.00 per barrel for 2002-2005 was used in the analysis. 

This price level was comparable to the average for 1996 

through 1999. In 1998 oil production represented about one 

percent of the total value of oil and gas production in the Jack 

Morrow Hills. The Wyoming State Government Revenue 

Forecast of $1.75 per MCF for 1999-2005 was used for natural 

gas production in the analysis. In 1998 natural gas production 

represented nearly 99 percent of the total value of oil and gas 

production in the Jack Morrow Hills. 

Estimates of the economic impacts of oil and gas production on the Southwest Wyoming economy in terms of total 

economic impact, earnings, and jobs were based on the 

updated model from the SWRE. The employment estimates 

were expressed as annual (12 month) job equivalents. Estimates of local government revenue for oil and gas production 

were also taken from the SWRE report. 

Information on the amount of oil and gas production for the 

JMHCAP was taken from the BLM’s RFD report. Table 4-

11summarizes production by alternative. The RFD projected 

117 barrels of oil/condensate and 84.6 MMCF of natural gas 

per well per year, respectively, over a 26-year producing life 

for each. 

Sixty-five oil and gas wells and 20 coalbed methane wells 

would be drilled over the 20-year period of 1998 to 2017. 

Almost 116 thousand barrels of oil and 83,669.4 MMCF of 

natural gas would be produced. The total economic impact for 

drilling and production would be approximately $242 million. 

Employment produced by the oil and gas activity over the life 

of the project would be 770 annual job equivalents with a total 

earnings of about $22.5 million. On an annual basis, about 37 

jobs earning a range of salaries of $27,180 to $34,921 would 

be supported. Economic impacts from oil and gas activities 

under the Preferred Alternative are basically comparable to 

the No Action Alternative, less than Alternative A, and more 

than Alternative B. 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing was separated into cattle and sheep 

animal unit months (AUMs) with each type of livestock 

grazing analyzed separately. Direct fiscal revenues to local 

government from livestock grazing were estimated based on 

the proportion of production taxes and Federal grazing fees 

received or returned to Southwest Wyoming. Table 4-12 

summarizes the economic assumptions used in the analysis 

for livestock grazing. 

Table 4-12 indicates that gross receipts for cattle production in Wyoming have averaged $33.27 per AUM over the last 

five years (1993-97). At that price level, cattle production 

would generate $65.07 of total economic impact (direct and 

secondary) in the Southwest Wyoming economy. The total 

economic impact per AUM included $11.81 of labor earnings 

in the region. One AUM of cattle production supported 

0.000710 direct and secondary jobs in the region or the 

equivalent of one annual job for every 1,408 AUMs. One 

AUM of cattle production also generated $1.88 of direct 

revenue for local governments in the region. A similar 

explanation applies to the per AUM amounts for sheep production in Table 4-12. 

Gross receipts per AUM for cattle and sheep production 

were estimated from five-year average prices (1993-97) reported in the Wyoming Agricultural Statistics (1998). A fiveyear average was used in the analysis due to the variability in 

livestock price in recent years. Livestock prices were held 

constant throughout the planning period. 

Estimates of the economic impact of livestock grazing in 

terms of earnings and jobs were based on the updated model 

from the SWRE report. The employment estimates were 

expressed as annual (12 month) job equivalents. Direct local 

government revenue estimates were based on local tax rates 

and state and Federal government legislation regarding the 

distribution of tax revenue to cities, towns, counties, and 

special districts. 

Information on the number and type of AUMs for the 

JMHCAP was provided by the BLM. Due to changes in 

available forage, environmental conditions, business decisions by operators, and livestock prices, livestock grazing in 

the Jack Morrow Hills area has varied over time. Total 

permitted use for the area was 26,032 AUMs (22,767 cattle 

and 3,265 sheep). Yet the actual use for the last five years 

305
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

(1993-97) averaged 9,851 AUMs (8,861 cattle and 990 sheep). 

However, grazing use has trended up since 1997 with actual 

use for the baseline year of 1998 at 13,038 AUMs (11,991 

cattle and 1,047 sheep). Given this variability in livestock 

grazing the following grazing assumption was used in the 

analysis. 

Annual grazing AUMs were based on the average of the 

five-year average actual use (9,851 AUMs) and the total 

permitted use (26,032 AUMs). The average of the two 

amounts was 17,941 AUMs (15,814 cattle and 2,127 sheep). 

This grazing level was held constant throughout the planning 

period. 

Under the Preferred Alternative 316,280 cattle AUMs and 

42,540 sheep AUMs would be available for livestock grazing 

during the 20-year life of the project. The total economic 

impact of livestock grazing would be $22.3 million. Employment in the livestock sector would be 252 annual job equivalents earning $16,353 average per year. The AUMS of 

livestock grazing are 92 percent of the No Action Alternative. 

Recreation Activities 

As previously noted, recreation activities in the JMHCAP 

were separated into nonresident and resident use. Nonresident use was valued based on the economic impact from 

expenditures by nonresidents in the region. Resident use was 

valued based on the net economic value to the user. Direct 

fiscal revenues to local government from recreation were 

estimated based on the proportion nonresident sales, lodging, 

and gas tax revenues returned to local government in Southwest Wyoming. Table 4-13 summarizes the economic assumptions used in the analysis for recreation. 

Table 4-13 indicates that on average nonresident elk hunters spent an estimated $239.40 per recreation day in Southwest Wyoming. This spending generated a total economic 

impact (direct and secondary) of $330.69 in the regional 

economy. The total economic impact per hunter day included 

$47.28 of labor earnings in the region. One nonresident elk 

hunter day supported 0.003307 direct and secondary jobs in 

the region or the equivalent of one annual job for every 302 

hunter recreation days. One nonresident elk hunter day also 

generates $3.69 in direct revenue for local governments in 

Southwest Wyoming. The net economic value of one resident 

elk hunter day was estimated to have been $41.46. A similar 

explanation applies to the other recreation activities shown in 

Table 4-13. 

Estimated per recreation day expenditures for elk, deer, 

and antelope nonresident hunters for 1997 were developed 

from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s Annual 

Report (1998). They represent average statewide nonresident 

expenditure estimates. Per day expenditures for non-consumptive, nonresident recreation were adapted from Report 

on the Economic Impact of the Travel Industry in Wyoming 

(1997) prepared for the Wyoming Division of Tourism by 

Morey and Associates. The estimates were for Region 2, 

which includes Uinta, Sweetwater, Carbon, Albany, and 

Laramie counties. All visitor expenditures were assumed to 

occur in Southwest Wyoming and were expressed in constant 

1997 dollars throughout the planning period. 

Estimates of the economic impacts of nonresident recreation expenditures on the Southwest Wyoming economy in 

terms of total economic impact, earnings, and jobs were based 

on the updated model from the SWRE report. The employment estimates were expressed as annual (12 month) job 

equivalents. Direct local government revenue estimates were 

based on local tax rates and state government legislation 

regarding distributions of sales tax, lodging tax, and gas tax 

revenues to cities, towns, counties, and special districts. 

Estimates of the net economic value of resident recreation 

days were taken from a draft report for the USDA Forest 

Service (Rosenberger, et al. 1999). The estimates used in the 

analysis were for big game hunting and various non-consumptive recreation activities in the intermountain region of the 

United States. The report did not provide separate estimates 

for elk, deer, and antelope. 

Information on the number and type of recreation days for 

the JMHCAP was provided by the BLM. For hunter days, the 

BLM estimates were developed in consultation with the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Hunting days estimates represent the 10-year average for the Jack Morrow Hills 

area. Non-consumptive days were based on 19 percent of total 

Green River Extensive Recreation Area days from RMIS. 

Since the BLM and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

measure recreation days differently hunting and non-consumptive estimates may not be strictly comparable. 

A total of 48,700 non-consumptive recreation days were 

estimated for 1998. The 48,700 recreation days included 

31,950 nonresident days (65.6 percent) and 16,750 resident 

days (34.4 percent). Non-consumptive recreation days were 

projected to increase by two percent per year during the 

planning period. Under this alternative non-consumptive 

recreation days are projected to increase to 70,947 days in 

2017. The proportion of nonresident and resident recreation 

days was assumed to remain constant. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, 1.18 million resident and 

nonresident non-consumptive recreation days would be used 

in the 20-year life of the project. The total economic impact 

of the non-consumptive nonresident recreation days would be 

$62.7 million. Some 19,070 nonresident hunting days (elk, 

deer, and antelope) with a total economic impact of $6 million 

would be realized over the life of the project. Employment in 

the recreation sector would be 875 annual job equivalents 

earning approximately $12,521 average per year. 

Elk displacement would occur as habitat is fragmented. 

Average elk hunter days would increase in the short term from 

424 in 1998 to 524 days by 2005. There would then be a 

gradual decrease for the remainder of the planning period to 

324 hunter days by 2017. The average elk hunter days over the 

planning period would be 424. The proportion of nonresident 

and resident hunter days was assumed to remain constant. 

Average deer hunter days would remain constant over the 

planning period at 1,830 hunter days per year. The 1,830 

hunter days would include 75 nonresident days (4.1 percent) 

and 1,755 resident days (95.9 percent). 

Average antelope hunter days would remain constant over 

the planning period at 2,274 hunter days per year. The 2,274 

306
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

hunter days would include 812 nonresident days (35.7 percent) and 1,462 resident days (64.3 percent). 

Short-Term Cumulative Impacts (1998-2007) 

and Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 4-14 summarizes the cumulative short-term physical 

outputs by alternative for the JMHCAP. The top half of the 

table shows the physical units of output for each alternative. 

The bottom half of the table indicates how the alternatives 

compare to the No Action Alternative on a percentage basis. 

The Preferred Alternative is basically comparable to the 

No Action Alternative and represents a midpoint between 

Alternative A and Alternative B. Standard oil and gas drilling 

and production activities are about 97 to 98 percent of the No 

Action Alternative. Coalbed methane drilling activity is 80 

percent of the No Action Alternative. The AUMs of livestock 

grazing are 92 percent of the No Action Alternative. Hunting 

days and non-consumptive recreation days are comparable to 

the No Action Alternative. 

Economic Effects by Alternative 

Table 4-15 summarizes the cumulative short-term economic effects of the JMHCAP alternatives on the Southwest 

Wyoming economy. The top half of the table shows the 

dollars amounts for each alternative. The bottom half of the 

table indicates how the alternatives compare to the No Action 

Alternative on a percentage basis. 

The Preferred Alternative is basically comparable to the 

No Action Alternative and represents a midpoint between 

Alternative A and Alternative B. Direct and total impacts for 

the Preferred Alternative are 98 percent of the No Action 

Alternative. Total earnings and employment are 96 to 97 

percent of the No Action Alternative. Local government 

revenue is 98 percent of the No Action Alternative. Resident 

recreation benefits are comparable to the No Action Alternative. 

Long-Term Cumulative Impacts (1998-2017) 

and Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 4-16 summarizes the cumulative long-term physical 

outputs by alternative for the JMHCAP. The top half of the 

table shows the physical units of output for each alternative. 

The bottom half of the table indicates how the alternatives 

compare to the No Action Alternative on a percentage basis. 

The Preferred Alternative is basically comparable to the 

No Action Alternative and represents a midpoint between 

Alternative A and Alternative B. Standard oil and gas drilling 

and production activities are similar to the No Action Alternative. Coalbed methane drilling activity is 80 percent of the No 

Action Alternative. The AUMs of livestock grazing are 92 

percent of the No Action Alternative. Hunting days and nonconsumptive recreation days are comparable to the No Action 

Alternative. 

Economic Effects by Alternative 

Table 4-17 summarizes the cumulative long-term economic effects of the JMHCAP alternatives on the Southwest 

Wyoming economy. The top half of the table shows the dollar 

amounts for each alternative. The bottom half of the table 

indicates how the alternatives compare to the No Action 

Alternative on a percentage basis. 

The Preferred Alternative is basically comparable to the 

No Action Alternative and represents a midpoint between 

Alternative A and Alternative B. Direct impacts, total impacts, total earnings, total employment, local government 

revenue, and resident recreation benefits are all 99 to 100 

percent of the No Action Alternative. 

Special Status Plant Species Impacts 

Factors that adversely affect air quality (e.g., emissions 

from industrial sites, airborne particulate, etc.) may also affect 

special status plant species, especially if source areas are 

located near, upwind, or adjacent to actual plant locations or 

potential habitat areas. Generally, mitigation and management actions associated with air quality management would 

benefit and protect special status plant locations and potential 

habitat areas. 

Generally, mitigation and management actions associated 

with cultural and paleontological resource management would 

benefit and protect special status plant locations and potential 

habitat areas in the same vicinity as the protected sites. 

Avoidance by surface disturbing activities is one commonly 

applied mitigating measure; however, avoidance of cultural 

sites could create a conflict with special status plants by 

displacing surface disturbing activities onto plant habitat to 

avoid the cultural site. Under all alternatives, special status 

plant locations are closed to surface disturbing activities. In 

cases where protection of special status plants may conflict 

with cultural site protection, the mitigation measures for 

cultural resources could include data recovery of the site, 

avoiding special status plant habitat. Data recovery of cultural 

sites that are occupied by special status plants on the surface 

could cause conflict between these resources. Such conflict 

could result in disturbance to plant habitat or prevention of 

subsurface cultural data recovery. 

Searches for special status plant species would be done 

prior to data recovery (excavation) and would prevent unintentional harm to these species. Data recovery of cultural sites 

which occurs within special status plant habitats could impact 

these plants by direct removal if searches were not performed, 

or if avoidance of the plants and their habitats was not used as 

a mitigating measure. Avoidance of paleosols would provide 

additional protection to special status plant species inhabiting 

these areas. 

In addition, most surface disturbing activities are not 

permitted within the special status plant populations, thus no 

impacts from cultural site excavations or related surface 

disturbing activities are expected. 

Under this alternative, special status plant species habitat 

would be closed to all surface disturbing fire suppression 

307
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

activities unless necessary for species survival. Vehicle use 

for wildfire suppression activities would be limited to existing 

roads and trails in actual special status plant species locations 

and potential habitat areas; therefore, impacts to plant species 

would be insignificant. 

While most of the known special status plant species 

habitats are not generally dependent on fire, prescribed fire 

could be used to treat these ecosystems if required to maintain 

quality habitat. 

Impacts from fire suppression in the special status plant 

species locations should be avoided through site specific fire 

suppression design. Activities would not be permitted that 

disturb the habitat unless necessary for species survival. 

Vehicle use for fire suppression would be consistent with the 

ORV designations for the area, generally keeping to existing 

roads and trails. 

In general, hazardous waste management activities would 

have insignificant impacts to special status species and their 

habitat. Avoidance of known special status plant locations by 

surface disturbing activities would prevent impacts from most 

permitted activities, however developmental activity in the 

vicinity of special status plants could increase the risk of 

introducing hazardous materials on special status plants and 

their habitat through spills or unauthorized dumping. 

Land exchanges would have no impacts to special status 

plant species populations or potential habitat areas. Any 

significant vegetative resources on lands identified for disposal would probably be discovered in site specific investigations that would be conducted during evaluation of sale 

proposals. In such cases, effects on special status plant species 

would be mitigated by appropriate wording in the patent or the 

sale would be denied. 

Management of actual special status plant species locations as right-of-way avoidance areas and potential habitat 

areas as special status plant species survey areas would ensure 

that damage to these species would be minimized. Insignificant amounts of damage would occur to special status plant 

species populations due to issuance of rights-of-way and 

permits. 

Consideration for exchanges for lands in Wilderness Study 

Areas and ACECs would provide increased protection for 

special status plant species in those areas. Land exchanges to 

include lands within Wilderness Study Areas would be inventoried for special status plant species prior to exchange. Plant 

inventories of the WSAs would be performed to determine the 

presence of special status plant species. Such inventories 

would increase the protective management actions allowable 

for them under all alternatives. 

Activities such as chemical control of weeds along rightsof-way could contribute to an irreversible and irretrievable 

loss of the plant populations if their habitat is located on or 

adjacent to the right-of-way. 

Searches for special status plants prior to disturbing activities, such as construction of communication sites and other 

rights-of-way would locate any new populations. Surface 

disturbance would not occur on these populations and adverse 

effects to plants would not occur. 

Concentrating activities in certain areas, and especially 

concentrating pipelines and other linear facilities along already disturbed roads in the area, would provide additional 

protection for special status plant species by limiting the 

amount of surface disturbance. Additional ROW avoidance 

and exclusion areas would benefit potential special status 

plant species by limiting the amount of native plant habitat 

disturbed. 

Closure of certain sensitive areas, including areas with 

special status plants to public access would increase protection by preventing unintentional impacts. Closure of certain 

areas to communication sites would also increase protection. 

Additional withdrawals in elk calving areas, and on Steamboat Mountain would provide additional protection for potential special status plant species habitat. 

Taking appropriate measures to meet the standards and 

guidelines for healthy rangelands would have a beneficial 

impact to special status plants by improving the general 

ecological condition of the range, providing potential habitat 

for these species to expand their populations into the area, or 

within the area. 

Attaining optimal rangeland biodiversity and health would 

be accelerated by taking appropriate measures to meet the 

rangeland standards and guidelines. The impacts of this to 

special status plant species would be beneficial by providing 

more favorable habitat in a shorter amount of time. 

Limiting upland livestock utilization levels and developing grazing plans for riparian and upland habitats would be 

desirable, as special status plant impacts would decrease from 

either less livestock numbers or shorter durations of use. 

Locating salt licks as far as 1/4 mile from special status 

plant locations would benefit these populations, protecting 

them from trailing and livestock congregating. 

Under this alternative, 65 new wells would be drilled plus 

an additional 20 coalbed methane wells. Impacts would be 

somewhat greater than under Alternative B as more areas 

would be leased and developed. However, special status plant 

locations are closed to surface disturbing activities, and to coal 

and sodium exploration. If searches are conducted prior to any 

surface disturbing activity, and avoidance measures employed, 

impacts to special status plant species from exploration and 

development activities would be insignificant. 

Activities that would avoid slopes would potentially benefit special status plants as many of them are located on rims, 

slopes and windswept uplands. Unintentional uprooting and 

squashing damage from vehicular use, and physiological 

effects of associated dust settling on the plants would contribute to negative impacts. 

Special status plant species locations would be closed to 

mineral material sales. These actions would prevent damage 

to plant populations already inventoried. Potential special 

status plant habitat would be searched; and if plants are found, 

would be avoided, reducing these impacts to an insignificant 

level. 

Maintaining the closure of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

to mineral material sales would aid in ensuring that this area 

308
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

remains viable as special status plant habitat. In addition, the 

big sagebrush/scurfpea communities would be protected under a no surface occupancy restriction. 

Public land withdrawals and seasonal road closures would 

have beneficial impacts to special status plants and their 

habitat by removing known and potential special status plant 

habitat from mineral location and year-round road use. This 

alternative would provide more protection of special status 

plant species than the No Action Alternative or Alternative A, 

but less than Alternative B. 

Actual special status plant locations would be favorably 

impacted by their closure to geophysical vehicle use and 

explosive charges. In these areas, vehicles would be restricted 

to existing roads and trails where they are consistent with the 

transportation plan, avoiding special status plant locations. In 

addition, impacts would be lessened by conducting searches 

for these species prior to surface disturbance in potential 

habitat. Special status plant species are closed to off-road 

vehicle use, as well as to the use of explosives and blasting, 

providing protection of these plants from these activities. 

Performance of field monitoring after surface disturbing 

activities to ensure successful reclamation, and on-going 

monitoring of land use by wildlife, livestock, minerals, and 

other resource programs would help maintain healthy ecosystems that could support special status plant populations. 

Specifying roads and trails to be designated would potentially provide benefits to special status plants by allowing 

more land to be reclaimed and return to native plant communities. 

Achievement of the revegetation objectives under reclamation would replace native plant communities in the long 

term, providing healthy habitat for colonization and expansion of special status plant species. Monitoring of disturbed 

sites would enhance reclamation success. Use of containerized shrub stock would hasten the re-establishment of important shrub communities after disturbance. 

Plans to provide Backcountry Byway interpretive sites and 

turnouts would not impact known special status plant species 

populations, as their habitat is closed to surface disturbing 

activities. Interpretive sites and turnouts would not be placed 

where special status plant species are located. Increased 

incidental use such as undeveloped campsites could impact 

the special status plant species. Anticipated increased recreational use such as mountain biking could also threaten 

special status plant populations due to off-trail biking and 

creation of new trails. 

Plans to protect Crookston Ranch and its riparian area 

could provide expansion territory for Ute ladies’-tresses 

(Spiranthes diluvialis), although it is not known to occur at the 

site currently. A recent survey of the area revealed that the site 

provides good potential habitat for this species. 

Management actions described to protect visual quality, 

wilderness areas, and special management areas would generally benefit or not impact special status plant species populations or potential habitat. This alternative would provide a 

greater benefit than the No Action Alternative as more areas 

would be managed for Class II visual values. 

Additional riparian management actions including establishment of grazing plans, limiting roads and crossings and 

limiting livestock use would provide healthy, diverse native 

plant habitat. 

Transportation plans would be beneficial to special status 

plant populations by incorporating known locations and conducting clearance surveys prior to designating access routes. 

Rehabilitation of unused roads and trails and limiting the 

number of road miles in sensitive habitats would prevent loss 

of actual and potential special status plant habitat by reducing 

the amount of vehicular access across cushion plant communities, rims, slopes and other sensitive areas where special 

status plants are commonly found. In addition, limiting the 

number of stream and riparian area crossings could maintain 

the integrity of these areas which are potential habitat for the 

Ute ladies’-tresses. 

Management activities implemented in woodland communities would have no impact on special status plant species or 

potential habitat areas as searches would be required prior to 

treatments such as prescribed fire, chaining or thinning. If a 

special status plant species were found, treatments would not 

be allowed unless they were beneficial to the species. Searches 

would also be conducted prior to treatments in any vegetation 

type; if special status plants are located, the treatments would 

not be allowed unless they would benefit the species. Therefore, adverse effects would not occur to special status plants 

species. 

In general, practices to conserve and stabilize soils would 

help maintain healthy ecosystems which can support special 

status plant species. Energy-dissipating structures designed 

to protect steep slopes and highly erosive soils could benefit 

special status plant species that are off-site but within the area 

of impact by preventing loss of habitat. Establishment of road 

and well pad densities would allow more native plant communities to remain undisturbed, and capable of sustaining healthy 

special status plant species populations. 

Managing for wild horses is not likely to impact special 

status plant species, unless horse traps, helicopter pads or 

other associated round-up facilities were constructed on or 

near their habitat. Plant searches in these proposed project 

areas prior to disturbance would provide additional protection 

for these species. Trampling by wild horses has been listed as 

a threat to existing populations of large fruited bladderpod 

(Lesquerella macrocarpa); however, potential impacts appear to be minimal. Horse trampling around water holes can 

and does have an impact to vegetation, and could affect special 

status plant species located there. 

Management actions described to protect wildlife habitat 

would generally benefit or not impact special status plant 

species populations or potential habitat. Managing riparian 

exclosures for all wildlife species would benefit special status 

plants by maintaining native riparian plant communities, 

allowing natural processes of succession to thrive, providing 

habitat for a diversity of plant species. 

309
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Core Area 

Conducting a resource evaluation prior to considering oil 

and gas leasing or other developments would benefit special 

status plant species populations but not as much as for the No 

Action Alternative. Continued protective actions specific to 

ACECs would also reduce potential impacts to special status 

plant populations. Known locations of the large-fruited 

bladderpod (Lesquerella macrocarpa) would be evaluated on 

a case-by-case basis to determine if they meet the relevance 

and importance criteria to be considered for inclusion with the 

Special Status Plant Species ACEC. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Management prescriptions would provide benefits to the 

special status (candidate) plant species and their habitat. 

Additional restrictions on geophysical activity, off-road vehicle use, fire suppression activities, and a proposed withdrawal would further reduce the level of impact. Management 

actions that prevent species from being listed as T&E species 

would benefit all parties. Threatened and endangered species 

are more universally protected, and private or other agency 

administered lands could be affected. Prevention of listing 

would therefore be beneficial to all parties. Development 

activities, such as those associated with recreation sites and 

minerals actions, could have an impact on special status plant 

species in areas where several different resource concerns 

may limit options for placement of mineral development 

facilities. However, increased inventory for these species in 

areas projected for development could provide more information about rare plant species and their status. 

Generally, mitigation and management actions associated 

with cultural and paleontological resource management would 

benefit and protect special status plant locations and potential 

habitat areas. Limitations imposed within the visual horizon 

of designated and non-designated historic roads and trails 

would benefit and protect special status plant species locations and potential habitat areas. 

Vehicle use for wildfire suppression activities would be 

limited to existing roads and trails in actual special status plant 

species locations and potential habitat areas; therefore, impacts to plant species would be insignificant. 

Pursuit of withdrawals in actual special status plant species 

locations would prevent impact to special status plant species 

from mining activity. Management of actual special status 

plant species locations as right-of-way avoidance areas and 

potential habitat areas as special status plant species survey 

areas would ensure no damage would occur to special status 

plant species populations due to issuance of rights-of-way and 

permits. Special status plant species locations would be 

closed to mineral material sales, surface disturbance, and 

geophysical vehicles. These actions would prevent damage to 

plant populations already inventoried. Plant and habitat 

searches would be conducted and, if plants are found, avoidance would be designated, prior to geophysical activity or 

surface disturbance; therefore, there would also be no impact 

to special status plants in areas that have not been inventoried. 

Management prescriptions, including no surface occupancy requirements in actual plant locations, would prevent 

impacts to special status plant species from range improvement projects such as wells, reservoirs, and fences. Limiting 

upland livestock utilization levels and developing grazing 

plans for riparian and upland habitats would be desirable, as 

special status plant impacts would decrease from either less 

livestock numbers or shorter durations of use. Taking appropriate measures to meet the standards and guidelines for 

healthy rangelands would have a beneficial impact to special 

status plants by improving the general ecological condition of 

the range, providing potential habitat for these species to 

expand their populations into the area, or within the area. 

Management actions described to protect visual quality, 

watershed values, wilderness areas, wildlife habitat, and special management areas would generally benefit or not impact 

special status plant species populations or potential habitat. 

Specifying roads and trails to be designated would potentially 

provide benefits to special status plants by allowing more land 

to be reclaimed and return to native plant communities. 

Vegetation/Woodlands/Weeds and 

Riparian/Wetland Resources Impacts 

Impacts to Vegetation/Woodlands/Weeds 

Management actions implemented to control dust along 

dirt roads would permit vegetation to be more productive and 

vigorous. Selective requirements imposed on prescribed 

burns in order to avoid violation of ambient air quality 

standards could increase burn costs and alter prescribed burn 

plans. Industrial plant stack emissions could alter plant 

communities in the immediate vicinity and downwind from 

the emission source; however, none are anticipated at this 

time. 

Generally, stipulations and management actions implemented to protect cultural and paleontological resources would 

prevent surface disturbance and vegetation removal. Limitations imposed within the visual horizon of designated and 

nondesignated historic trails could alter areas considered for 

prescribed burning and range improvement construction 

thereby facilitating localized overuse of vegetation due to 

poor livestock distribution. Concentrated fossil collection 

causes surface disturbance and results in removal of vegetation from those areas; however, these effects should be minimal. 

Prescribed burning would cause a long-term decrease in 

sagebrush species, a short-term increase in annual weeds, and 

a long-term increase in grass species. Total vegetative production would decline for the first two growing seasons 

following a prescribed burn. After the second year, livestock 

and certain wildlife forage would increase, and range condition and total forage production would improve in the third 

year after a prescribed burn. No prescribed fires are currently 

planned but it is anticipated that they would occur during this 

plan. 

Prescribed burns in decadent aspen stands would, with 

proper grazing management, stimulate sprouting and repro310
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

duction of aspen and alter age class structure. Prescribed 

burns conducted during the hot season or during low soil 

moisture conditions would limit sprouting and regeneration of 

certain mountain shrub species, primarily antelope bitterbrush, and could cause less diverse species composition and 

longer post-burn recovery periods. Cool season burns or 

burns conducted during periods of high soil moisture would 

provide greater opportunity for mountain shrub regeneration 

and sprouting, and would provide greater species diversity 

and shorter recovery periods. 

Wildfires cause a short-term loss of vegetation and livestock/wildlife forage on rangelands. Wildfires usually occur 

in the high density sagebrush, juniper, conifer, and aspen 

types. Within three years, livestock and wildlife forage would 

generally exceed original levels as grasses and forbs replace 

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. 

There would be a short-term increase of annual weeds and 

a short-term decrease in vegetation production on prescribed 

burn acreage. However, there would be a long-term increase 

in grass species and vegetation production. Wildfire would 

create a similar effect for both the short and long term. The 

effects of wildlife on vegetation are not anticipated to be 

significant. 

Additional prescriptions for managing fire would include 

full suppression in the big sagebrush/scurfpea plant communities, providing protection for this unique vegetation association. The increase in full suppression areas for wildfires 

would provide additional benefits by decreasing acreage 

burned, in areas where wildfire would be detrimental. However, for those plant communities where wildfire would be 

beneficial, an increase in acreage receiving full suppression 

would produce additional negative impacts. 

Generally, hazardous waste management activities would 

not impact vegetative resources, although illegal hazardous 

waste dumping or spills could damage or totally remove 

vegetation from the immediate vicinity of the dump or spill. 

Implementation of the range standards (applied to all uses) 

and guidelines (for livestock grazing) as the minimum acceptable conditions for public rangelands would increase the 

health and diversity of the planning area vegetation. By 

ensuring that all activities conducted on the public lands 

within the planning area are designed to maintain and enhance 

native vegetation and promote properly functioning watersheds, negative impacts to plants and their habitat would be 

minimized to an acceptable level. Monitoring and evaluation 

of rangeland uses and impacts is mandatory. Results of these 

evaluations would determine if the objectives of this plan are 

being met, and if not, then adaptive management actions 

would be required to improve the conditions of native vegetation. 

The possible sale of public land would generally result in 

the loss of vegetative resources as most disposals would be in 

support of urban and industrial expansion. No significant rare 

plants are known to exist on lands identified as potentially 

suitable for disposal. Any significant vegetative resources on 

these lands would probably be discovered in site specific 

investigations that would be conducted during evaluation of 

sale proposals. In such cases, effects on vegetation would be 

mitigated by appropriate wording in the patent, or the sale 

would be denied if necessary. 

Most of the impacts to vegetation from lands and realty 

actions would result from industry-associated rights of ways, 

such as pipelines, access roads and utility lines. These would 

remove vegetation in the short term, but reestablishment of 

desirable grass and forb species would be anticipated within 

3 to 5 years after reclamation. With proper reclamation, there 

would be no significant loss of vegetation in the long term, 

except for tall shrub species which may require up to 70 to 150 

years to grow back to pre-disturbance height and cover values. 

Designated ROW avoidance areas that include the big 

sagebrush/scurfpea communities would have beneficial impacts on this rare plant association. Rights-of-way corridors 

or windows (concentration areas) and avoidance areas would 

be identified that would minimize the impacts to a larger area. 

This should serve to decrease erosion and other impacts to 

sensitive resources. 

This alternative has more acres considered for withdrawal 

from mineral entry than does the No Action Alternative. 

There is potential for more exceptions to the rights-of-way 

windows allowing for more surface disturbance which could 

produce greater impacts to vegetation than for the No Action 

Alternative. 

For purposes of analysis, the anticipated actual use would 

not exceed the recognized active permitted use and would 

range from 9,851 to 26,032 AUMs or an average of 17,941 

AUMs. Less intensive grazing would promote healthier, 

more biologically diverse native plant communities. Implementation of more restrictive riparian utilization standards 

would directly benefit willows, grasses, and sedges by maintaining plant vigor, community structure, and diversity. However, more grazing (up to 16,181 additional AUMs) could 

occur than under Alternative B, which could result in some 

areas being grazed too long, too close, or too frequently. This 

could have a negative effect on plant growth and vigor. 

Livestock grazing systems would be designed to achieve 

desired plant communities. These actions would probably 

have a long-term positive impact on uplands and riparian 

areas. The vegetation types that would be most affected by 

livestock grazing would include the saltbush, low density 

sagebrush, high density sagebrush, aspen, riparian, grassland, 

and greasewood classifications. 

Locating salt licks as far as 1/4 mile from special status 

plant locations and riparian areas would benefit these populations and vegetation types by protecting them from livestock 

trailing and congregation impacts. Delaying livestock turnout 

until native range grasses are in the boot would promote 

healthy, vigorous stands which could repel weed invasions 

easier, and would be capable of withstanding drought. 

Proposed reconstruction of 11 stock ponds in the planning 

area would encourage livestock congregation in these areas, 

311
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

causing negative effects to surrounding vegetation. However, 

water developments, including wells, springs, and pipelines 

should improve livestock and wild horse distribution patterns, 

encouraging more uniform utilization of forage and causing 

less damage to certain vegetation types. 

The impacts under this alternative would basically be the 

same as Alternative B but may not provide as quick of a 

recovery for degraded riparian areas, although progress would 

still occur. Implementation of livestock grazing standards 

would be sufficient to recover degraded riparian areas and 

improve water quality. 

Trampling and use of dune ponds and adjacent riparian 

habitat would be reduced. These areas are ecologically fragile 

and can easily deteriorate from sustained surface disturbing 

activities, livestock watering, and from livestock grazing. 

Mechanical manipulation of vegetation (chaining, chemicals, contour furrowing, ripping, etc.) has not been identified 

but has not been ruled out. These activities would result in a 

change in vegetation composition and would temporarily 

remove target species. Chemicals used to remove sagebrush 

and noxious weeds could impact nontarget vegetation on 

localized areas. 

Fencing would be used to manage livestock grazing to 

improve forage and habitat condition on upland and wetland 

sites. Range condition should improve on localized areas 

where fences are used to implement AMPs or better distribute 

livestock. In wetlands, fencing would control livestock use 

and improve habitat and watershed condition. More diverse 

vegetation would result and soil erosion would be reduced. 

Conversions in class of livestock would be considered on 

a case-by-case basis and would only be approved where such 

a conversion would aid in achieving the JMHCAP objectives. 

Conversions from cattle to sheep would generally result in 

greater utilization of upland areas and shrub species. Conversions from sheep to cattle would generally result in greater use 

of riparian and grassland areas. Any impacts from future 

conversions would be analyzed in site specific documents. 

Allocation of unallotted forage, or changes in season of use 

would open new areas to livestock grazing and forage utilization. Increased utilization in these areas could result in species 

composition changes or a decrease in vegetative production 

and vigor. 

Season of use changes or use of areas previously unused 

could result in reductions in existing forage bases used by 

wildlife. In addition, use in stabilized dune areas could cause 

blowouts and destabilization of the dunes by removing vegetation needed to hold down the sand. 

Oil and gas activity would be less than anticipated in 

Alternative A and almost the same as the No Action Alternative (4 wells less than No Action) and more than Alternative 

B. Short- and long-term disturbance would be similar to the 

No Action Alternative. 

Under this alternative it is assumed that 85 wells would be 

drilled in the Reasonable Foreseeable Development scenario 

(RFD). This would mean there would be up to 2,100 acres of 

surface disturbance. This amount of disturbance would only 

have a minimal impact if stringent mitigation measures were 

followed (as described in the RMP and the No Action Alternative). Some mitigation measures (such as directional drilling and limiting the number of well pads per section) may not 

be applied if costs are unreasonable on existing leases. Restricting the types of mitigation to be applied could increase 

impacts. The acres of disturbance shown above assumes that 

each well would have a pad, road, and pipeline. 

Coal exploration activities should be minimal and would 

avoid sensitive plant communities including the big sagebrush/scurfpea, reducing impacts on this vegetation type. 

Areas of sensitive vegetation, such as the big sagebrush/ 

scurfpea communities would be closed to sodium exploration 

which would reduce the potential for the disturbance of these 

plant communities and have beneficial impacts on these 

communities. Big sagebrush/scurfpea and other sensitive 

plant communities would be closed to mineral material sales, 

thus maintaining the health and diversity of these communities. 

Known rare plant communities such as the only known 

community of big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea and good representative areas of sagebrush-grass communities could be lost 

to mining claim activity as mineral withdrawals would not be 

pursued and no special protection currently exists for them. 

The majority of the few aspen communities in the planning 

area would be open to location, resulting in direct removal of 

the trees, and conversion of the habitat to non-woodlands. 

Location of mining claims on Steamboat Mountain (within 

the ACEC) would cause potential destruction of the springs 

and seeps located in these areas, and direct loss of the significant vegetative resources they support. Protection would be 

somewhat less than the No Action Alternative or Alternative 

B because fewer withdrawals would be pursued. 

Geophysical exploration activities would usually disturb 

less than one acre of vegetation per mile of operation. All new 

disturbance would be reclaimed after exploration. 3-D vibroseis 

techniques are known to crush the vegetation, leaving the 

roots and most aboveground biomass intact. Most herbaceous 

vegetation would not be severely impacted by this method; 

however, shrub species would generally be damaged. Impacts 

to vegetation communities would be reduced due to management actions that limit vehicle use and explosive charges. 

Monitoring is an essential part of natural resource management because it provides information on the relative success 

of management strategies. Implementation of monitoring 

would be performed to determine if the prescribed management actions are being followed (compliance monitoring), 

verify if they are achieving the desired results (effectiveness 

monitoring), and determine if underlying assumptions are 

sound (validation monitoring). Monitoring results provide 

the information to determine whether a goal has been met, and 

whether to continue or to modify the management direction. 

The concept of adaptive management acknowledges the need 

to manage resources under circumstances that contain varying 

degrees of uncertainty, and the need to adjust to new information. Adaptive management is based on monitoring that is 

sufficiently sensitive to detect relevant ecological changes. 

312
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Findings obtained through monitoring, together with research 

and other new information would provide a basis for adaptive 

management changes to the selected alternative. 

The current RMP and other project-specific and sitespecific NEPA documents require monitoring of resources, 

activities, or effects, and would continue to do so under all 

alternatives. The monitoring items or elements of the current 

plans include soil, water, air, vegetation, visual resources, 

cultural resources, lands, minerals, range, wildlife and fisheries habitat, timber, special areas, and wild horses. The health 

and diversity of vegetation in the planning area depends on the 

ability to adaptively manage the proposed activities within the 

limits of the resource. 

Repeated off-road vehicle use would damage vegetation 

because vehicle tires crush and tear plant tissues and eventually destroy plant cover. Off-road vehicle activity often 

occurs in areas that are too steep or erosive for road construction. The combination of vegetation loss and activity on steep 

erosive soils produces excessive soil erosion and causes 

further impacts associated with sedimentation on adjacent 

areas. All vegetation classifications would be damaged by 

off-road vehicle use, but such damage would be most common 

on badlands, high and low density sagebrush, juniper, saltbush, and sand dune vegetation classifications. 

Achievement of the revegetation objectives under reclamation would replace native plant communities in the long 

term, providing healthy habitat for colonization and expansion of special status plant species. Monitoring of disturbed 

sites would enhance reclamation success. Containerized 

shrub seedlings used in reclamation practices would help reestablish shrubs in sensitive areas under this alternative, 

decreasing impacts in the short term. 

Retaining the seasonal road closure would provide shortand long-term benefits to important big sagebrush communities due to reduced vehicle use (including ORV use), particularly when the road would be impassable due to wet or muddy 

conditions. 

A long-term loss of native vegetation due to weed invasions would be expected to increase with the higher rate of 

activity in the area, especially with unauthorized use of ORVs 

through previously undisturbed areas. Although weeds would 

increase due to surface disturbing activities, the impacts 

would be less than under the No Action Alternative as less area 

would be disturbed. 

Recreation area support facility construction would remove vegetation. Concentrated recreational activities, especially around and near riparian areas, can damage vegetation 

through trampling, digging, cutting, or pulling. Off-road 

vehicle rallies, cross country races, and other such events 

would damage or totally remove vegetation from the event 

route. 

The protective measures in place in the Green River RMP 

for special status plant species would have positive benefits to 

riparian areas. Any management to protect threatened and 

endangered or sensitive aquatic species (fish, frogs, etc.) 

would most likely result in improvements or enhancement of 

riparian areas. 

Proposed mitigation measures such as directional drilling, 

combining facilities, and multiple-hole, single pad drilling on 

currently leased areas would reduce negative impacts to 

vegetation in some critical areas, where these measures would 

be applied. These measures would not be applied in all cases. 

Surface disturbing activities such as those associated with 

roads, pipelines, well pads, coal and sodium exploration, 

locatable mineral exploration and development, and mineral 

material sales, would disturb about 2,500 acres in the long 

term. Reclamation practices would restore vegetation to all 

but about 600 acres in the long term. Although vegetative 

reestablishment would occur, some original plant communities would not be reestablished for more than 20 years. This 

particularly applies to shrubland communities and the big 

sagebrush/scurfpea communities and stabilized sand dunes. 

Impacts are not expected to be significant because few of these 

communities would be disturbed with management actions. 

A transportation plan would be developed to design the 

best use of existing roads in the planning area. This planning 

would benefit sensitive vegetation resources, such as riparian 

areas, mountain shrubs, big sagebrush/scurfpea and cushion 

plant communities, by chanelling access to certain areas, 

allowing other areas to remain undisturbed or to revegetate. 

This would benefit the vegetation resource. In addition, 

seasonal road closures and limitations on riparian area crossing would reduce impacts to vegetation. 

Management activities implemented in woodland communities would benefit vegetation in these areas. Conversions of 

woodlands from one type to another would not be permitted. 

There would be no impacts to the plants requiring specific 

woodland habitat types. 

Woodlands in the project area consist primarily of aspen 

and limber pine stands scattered throughout the Steamboat 

Mountain and Oregon Buttes area. These stands are not of 

commercial quality, and generally are in steep or rugged areas 

that are not conducive to surface disturbing activities. They 

provide important thermal and safety cover, and nesting 

habitat for wildlife. Woodland forest acreage would be 

maintained. Treatments may be implemented that influence 

successional stages, but such treatments would not permanently convert the areas to other vegetation types. Juniper 

stands may be replaced where they are encroaching into other 

vegetation types. Woodland conifer management would be 

limited to activities designed to control insects and disease in 

the Steamboat Mountain ACEC. Because woodland areas are 

limited, removal of aspen and limber pine stands would have 

a negative effect on woodlands. 

Generally any management action that would preserve 

visual resources would also benefit vegetation. This alternative would provide a greater benefit than the No Action 

Alternative as more areas would be managed for Class II 

visual values. 

Watershed analysis is a systematic procedure to characterize the aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial features within a 

watershed. Its purpose is to develop and document a scientifically-based understanding of the ecological structure, functions, processes, and interactions occurring within a water313
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

shed. Watershed analysis would provide information about 

patterns and processes within a watershed and provide information for monitoring at that scale. Watershed analysis would 

provide benefits to native vegetation by maintaining, or restoring, healthy and diverse plant communities, through the 

establishment of Desired Plant Communities. Actions that 

would maintain or improve watershed conditions would generally benefit vegetation communities. 

Watershed activities are aimed at the restoration and enhancement of watersheds, including riparian areas. These 

activities generally are a positive benefit to riparian areas. 

Negative impacts, if they occur, usually come as a result of 

inadequate design of dams or instream structures, or other 

watershed practices. No specific activities of this nature are 

planned, but site specific stipulations would be developed and 

applied if needed. 

Proposed wild horse numbers would be managed at a level 

that would not adversely affect vegetation. However, continued concentration of wild horses and other large animals near 

water sources could damage vegetation in localized areas 

through trampling, trailing, and overgrazing. 

Management actions described to protect wildlife habitat 

would generally benefit or not impact vegetation communities or potential habitat. Managing riparian exclosures for all 

wildlife species would benefit vegetation communities by 

maintaining native riparian plant communities, allowing natural 

processes of succession to thrive, providing habitat for a 

diversity of plant species. 

Only positive long-term benefits are anticipated from 

wildlife management activities. Prescribed fire impacts to 

benefit watershed, vegetation, and habitat are described in the 

other sections. There are no specific fisheries activities 

planned. Stipulations to protect and enhance wildlife habitat 

including riparian areas and streams result in positive impacts 

(e.g., increased plant species diversity and age structure, 

increased density, better production, decreased erosion, runoff and sedimentation, more available habitat, better water 

quality, etc.) to the vegetation resource. 

Actions and objectives for vegetation management in the 

ACECs would provide beneficial impacts to vegetation. Native 

vegetation would be maintained and protected on the BLMadministered public lands to allow natural plant succession to 

continue. Revegetation of disturbed areas with big sagebrush 

and other native shrubs would be required to maintain and or 

improve big game habitat. Grazing systems would be designed to achieve desired plant communities in all the ACECs. 

Impacts to Riparian/Wetland Resources 

Actions to maintain or enhance air quality and monitoring 

of air quality would in most cases positively benefit riparian/ 

wetland resources in the long term. 

The mitigation measures applied to protect cultural sites 

are expanded in most cases under this alternative. Many 

cultural sites occur near riparian areas. Where this occurs, the 

expanded mitigations would positively benefit riparian areas 

by restricting surface disturbance for a greater area around the 

sites. Impacts from excavations of cultural sites as described 

in the No Action Alternative would apply for this alternative 

also. 

Prescribed fire actions benefit watersheds in the long term 

by providing for plant diversity and health. Healthy watersheds benefit riparian areas and water quality. There are shortterm negative impacts to water due to sedimentation, erosion, 

nutrient enrichment of the water (could be beneficial in some 

low productivity waters), shade removal, particulate emissions, etc. Short- and long-term benefits include nutrient 

recycling in soils, increased age and species diversity of 

plants, improved water quality (after 2 to 3 years), etc. No 

prescribed fires are currently planned but it is anticipated that 

they would occur during this plan. 

Wildfire and resultant suppression activities generally 

have greater negative impacts to watersheds and streams. 

Usually areas burned in these cases are greater in extent, more 

“solid block” (less mosaic), hotter burning (causing much 

more vegetation to be eliminated), etc. This could cause 

greater erosion, sedimentation of streams, and a possible 

change from a desired plant community. The increase in full 

suppression areas for wildfires would provide additional 

benefits by decreasing acreage burned. 

Actions to prevent accidents and spills of hazardous materials would positively benefit riparian areas. The fact that 

hazardous materials (i.e., oil and gas) would be developed in 

this area presents a threat of such accidents or spills occurring. 

Until such occurs there is no negative impact to riparian areas. 

Mitigation and cleanup of spills rarely are able to recover a 

riparian area to its original condition in a short period of time. 

Implementation of the range standards (applied to all uses) 

and guidelines (for livestock grazing) as the minimum acceptable conditions for public rangelands would increase the 

health and diversity of the area vegetation. By ensuring that 

all activities conducted on the public lands within the planning 

area are designed to maintain and enhance native vegetation 

and promote properly functioning watersheds, negative impacts to riparian plants and their habitat would be minimized 

to an acceptable level. Monitoring and evaluation of rangeland uses and impacts is mandatory. Results of these evaluations would determine if the objectives of this plan are being 

met, and if not, then adaptive management actions would be 

required to improve the conditions of native riparian vegetation. 

Lands actions such as rights-of-way for linear actions such 

as pipelines, roads, utilities and other surface disturbing 

actions such as well pads, water diversions, etc., can adversely 

affect watershed resources and riparian areas. This is because 

of the increased erosion and sedimentation from surface 

disturbance or the removal of water from public land streams. 

Adequate mitigation (barriers, culverts, re-vegetation, instream 

flows, etc.) would be implemented in order to keep the 

negative impacts short term. 

Rights-of-way corridors or windows (concentration areas) 

and avoidance areas would be identified that would minimize 

the impacts to a larger area. This should serve to decrease 

erosion and other impacts to sensitive resources. However, 

314
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

the potential for more exceptions to right-of-way windows 

could allow for activity outside these windows. 

Wetland and riparian habitats are not suitable for disposal 

unless opportunities exist for land exchange for lands of equal 

or better value (functional and dollar value). Functional value 

of these resources would be determined by the appropriate 

wildlife, fisheries, and watershed personnel. In an exchange, 

there should be no impact (positive or negative) unless it 

allows for better management of the resource. In this circumstance the impact would be positive. 

Mineral withdrawals would serve to protect riparian/wetland and aquatic areas from degradation, destruction and 

sedimentation. 

Water diversions have had negative impacts to riparian/ 

wetland areas in the past, particularly on Pacific Creek. In 

some cases, streams have been completely dewatered for 

periods of time rendering the stream unusable and in some 

cases making the riparian area non-functional. There are no 

plans for new diversions in the future but should proposals be 

presented they would take into consideration the functionality 

of the stream and riparian area. 

For wetlands and riparian areas, the minimum standard is 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). Stream (lotic) inventories began in 1995 and were completed in 1999. The ratings 

for lentic riparian areas (bogs, marshes, ponds, wetlands, and 

wet meadows) have not been completed. Twenty percent 

(16.5 miles out of 79.95 miles) of the stream (lotic) riparian 

areas in the Jack Morrow Hills planning area are in proper 

functioning condition. A significant portion (40 percent) is in 

upward trend and an equally significant portion (40 percent) 

is in downward or “not apparent” trend. These data were 

collected in 1995-6 when a adverse amount of non-use by 

livestock was occurring. Not all of the poor conditions in 

riparian areas are due to livestock grazing; however, livestock 

grazing, roads, and water diversions create the most significant impacts to the riparian areas in the planning area. It is 

known that season-long use by livestock concentrates use 

around riparian areas during the hot season, and that later fall 

use tends to be adverse to riparian plants. 

Formulation of new management plans for grazing, including riparian objectives and desired plant communities (required under the Preferred Alternative of the Green River 

RMP for areas with riparian resources, page 11, ROD) could 

include such things as rest or deferred rotations, short duration 

grazing, reduction in active permitted use, forage use levels on 

herbaceous and woody species, off site watering, herding, 

fencing, salting a quarter mile or more from water, etc., may 

reverse the downward or static trends and achieve, at a 

minimum, proper functioning condition. The setting of “desired plant community” objectives (e.g., percent composition 

of particular species and age classes) for each allotment is 

crucial for the recovery and monitoring of riparian areas 

within the planning area. Many of these items would be 

addressed during the evaluation of the Standards for Rangeland Health and implementation of the Guidelines for Grazing 

Management (S&Gs). 

Guidelines for appropriate turn out dates (boot stage on 

plants), an active permitted use level of an average of 17,941 

AUMs (which is the 5-year average), riparian vegetation 

utilization not to exceed levels of 40 percent on shrubs, 35 

percent “relative use” on herbaceous plants or an 8-inch 

stubble height, eliminating any season long grazing, conducting suitability reviews, taking aggressive appropriate actions 

for Standards and Guidelines that would bring riparian health 

to proper functioning condition, all would benefit riparian 

health and productivity. It is assumed that under the actions 

substantial progress toward riparian health and Desired Plant 

Communities would be achieved. 

Under this alternative it is assumed that 70 deep oil and gas 

wells would be drilled in the Reasonable Foreseeable Development scenario (RFD). This would mean there would be up 

to 2,100 acres of surface disturbance. This amount of disturbance would only have a minimal impact if stringent mitigation measures were followed (as described in the RMP and the 

No Action Alternative). Some mitigation measures (such as 

directional drilling and limiting the number of well pads per 

section) may not be able to be applied if costs are unreasonable 

on existing leases. Restricting the types of mitigation to be 

applied could increase impacts. The acres of disturbance 

shown above assumes that each well would have a pad, road 

and pipeline. Transportation planning within the area would 

serve to limit or mitigate the impacts to streams and riparian 

areas as would directional drilling (decreases the number of 

pads) and other possible mitigation measures (NSO and CSU 

stipulations, etc.). 

In addition, 15 coalbed methane wells would be drilled on 

existing leases. They would be clustered in the sand dunes 

area. These are shallow wells (900 to 1,000 feet deep). In the 

process of coalbed methane production, large volumes of 

water are pumped from the aquifer at that level. It is unknown 

at this time if the aquifer at this level is directly connected to 

the surface water in the dunal ponds and wet meadows. If it 

is, there may be an adverse effect of drying up the riparian 

zone locally. This would not only affect the riparian plants but 

all of the wildlife that depends on those plants, insects and 

surface water. 

Hard rock mining (locatables) could pose significant threats 

to aquatic resources, especially when involving dredging or 

placer mining. The highest potential for this type of activity 

is in the Oregon Gulch area. Though there is no commercial 

activity anticipated at this time there is active prospecting in 

the area with the potential to create accelerated erosion. The 

areas that are proposed for withdrawal would not be subject to 

impacts from this activity. 

Demand for other types of mineral development (salables) 

such as gravel pits, etc., would increase with gas development 

but these areas would be located away from riparian areas and 

streams and should have negligible impact to these resources. 

No coal or sodium extraction is expected; thus, no impacts are 

anticipated 

Geophysical activities currently have sufficient protective 

stipulations in the Green River RMP to eliminate impacts to 

riparian areas and streams (fisheries). 

No impacts are expected from off-road vehicles under 

current management. ORVs do cause significant localized 

damage to wetlands and riparian areas when operated outside 

315
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

of management prescriptions (i.e., existing roads and trails, 

designated roads and trails, and closed areas). Industry 

personnel predict a four-fold increase in “4-wheeler” sales in 

the next 5 years and additional negative impacts may occur if 

that holds true. 

Outdoor recreation centered around water bodies can affect bank stability along lakes and streams. Lack of channel 

stability can affect the stability of the riparian zone on which 

most camping and other activities occur. Compaction and or 

loss of the riparian area greatly reduces streambank stability 

which in turn increases sediment, salt, and phosphate loads. 

Use of the 200-foot buffer strip between perennial water and 

camping may eliminate some of the impacts. Sewage near 

streams from recreational activities can also pose a threat to 

aquatic resources but under current management this should 

not occur. Enforcement of the 200-foot buffer is key for no 

impacts to occur. 

The protective measures in place in the Green River RMP 

for special status plant species would have positive benefits to 

riparian areas. Any management to protect threatened and 

endangered or sensitive aquatic species (fish, frogs, etc.) 

would most likely be an improvement or enhancement of 

riparian areas. 

Impacts of prescribed fire on vegetation are described in 

Fire Management in this section. Other types of vegetation 

manipulation (chemical and mechanical) would have similar 

impacts as fire management. Generally, riparian areas are 

buffered by 100 feet or so to help offset the short-term increase 

in erosion. Long-term benefits are expected if management 

and mitigation stipulations are followed as prescribed in the 

Green River RMP. 

Since the minimum acceptable condition for riparian areas 

is Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), and most of this 

planning area is not in this condition, increased attention to 

this could only benefit riparian areas. 

Weed management activities could have positive or negative effects. Positive effects would occur by decreasing 

competition with riparian plants as long as key riparian plants 

are not accidentally targeted. Biological or mechanical methods of weed control usually have no long-term adverse effect. 

Adequate protections and stipulations are present in the Green 

River RMP. 

Watershed activities are aimed at restoration and enhancement of watersheds, including riparian areas. These activities 

generally are a positive benefit to riparian areas. Negative 

impacts, if they occur, usually come as a result of inadequate 

design of dams or instream structures, or other watershed 

practice. No specific activities of this nature are planned, but 

site specific stipulations would be developed and applied if 

needed. 

As stated in other sections, the 500-foot buffer from the 

edge of riparian areas, wetlands, and 100-year floodplains 

applies to surface disturbing activities unless specifically 

designed and mitigated to benefit these areas. All other 

management stipulations as developed in the Green River 

RMP apply. This should result in positive impacts to riparian 

areas. 

Proposed wild horse numbers would be managed at a level 

that would not adversely affect vegetation. However, continued concentration of wild horses and other large animals near 

water sources could damage vegetation in localized areas 

through trampling, trailing, and overgrazing. 

Only positive long-term benefits are anticipated from 

wildlife habitat management activities. Prescribed fire impacts to benefit watershed, vegetation, and habitat are described in the other sections. There are no specific fisheries 

activities planned in the planning area. Stipulations to protect 

and enhance wildlife habitat include riparian areas and streams 

should result in positive impacts (e.g., increased plant species 

diversity and age structure, increased density, better production, decreased erosion, runoff and sedimentation, more available habitat, better water quality, etc.) to the vegetation 

resource. 

All other management stipulations as developed in the 

Green River RMP apply. This should result in positive 

impacts for riparian areas and fisheries. 

Core Area 

Fewer surface disturbing activities in the Core Area would 

reduce both short- and long-term impacts to vegetation. Protective measures designed for vegetation in the ACECs would 

have short- and long-term benefits to native plant communities. Establishment of maximum road densities would decrease the loss of critical vegetation types to surface disturbing activities. Livestock grazing on stabilized dunes would be 

detrimental to native plant species, and would likely cause 

areas of destabilization, loss of native plants and acceleration 

of weed invasions. Implementation of use levels and assessment of standards and implementation of guidelines would 

reduce this effect. Quick recovery of riparian/wetland areas 

from degraded states would be expected. 

The relatively pristine portion of the eastern area of the 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC that has no development, including the base of Steamboat Rim, would be managed to protect 

big game habitat and vegetation communities. In the Steamboat ACEC, vegetation management would be designed to 

maintain, preserve or enhance biological diversity while providing big game forage and cover requirements. Reseeding 

and reforestation within the ACEC would be done with native 

species. Shrub species may be included in all seed mixes. The 

vegetation and habitat objectives described for the Steamboat 

ACEC would apply. These objectives include, but are not 

limited to: 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. There would, however, be a 

long-term loss of some vegetation due to surface disturbing 

activities. Even with reclamation, some shrub species, in 

particular the big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea, could take more 

than 20 years to re-establish. 

316
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Impacts 

Management actions implemented to control dust along 

dirt roads would permit vegetation to be more productive and 

vigorous. Selective requirements imposed on prescribed 

burns to avoid violation of ambient air quality standards could 

increase burn costs and alter prescribed burn plans. Industrial 

plant stack emissions could alter plant communities in the 

immediate vicinity and downwind from the emission source. 

Full suppression of wildfire in the big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea 

plant communities would provide for protection for this 

unique vegetation association. The increase in full suppression areas for wildfires would provide additional benefits by 

decreasing acreage burned. 

Assessment of standards and implementation of guidelines 

for all uses would increase the health and diversity of the 

planning area vegetation. By ensuring that all activities 

conducted on the public lands within the planning area are 

designed to maintain and enhance native vegetation and 

promote properly functioning watersheds, negative impacts 

to plants and their habitat would be minimized to an acceptable level. Monitoring results would determine if the objectives of this plan are being met, and if not, then adaptive 

management actions would be required to improve the conditions of native vegetation. 

Management actions implemented would benefit vegetation communities and habitat, especially the unique big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea association and other sensitive species. 

Desired plant community (DPC) objectives would be established to enhance wildlife habitat, watershed, and biodiversity 

values. Vegetation treatments would be designed to protect 

water and stream quality, dissipate erosion, and maintain or 

enhance mountain shrub and woodland communities to achieve 

a healthy and productive condition for long-term benefits and 

values in concert with range condition, watershed, and wildlife needs. Chemicals used to remove sagebrush and noxious 

weeds could impact nontarget vegetation on localized areas. 

Transportation planning would benefit sensitive vegetation resources, such as riparian areas, mountain shrubs, big 

sagebrush/scurfpea and cushion plant communities, by channeling access to certain areas, allowing other areas to remain 

undisturbed, or to revegetate. Seasonal road closures and 

limitations on riparian area crossing would reduce impacts to 

vegetation. Habitat degradation and deterioration of healthy 

native plant communities that promotes noxious weed invasions would be kept to a minimum. 

Closing areas to mineral entry and to surface disturbance 

would benefit vegetation communities 

(Table 2-4 and Table 4-4). An estimated 1,900 acres would 

be reclaimed. After reclamation, roughly 600 acres would be 

disturbed for the long term, slightly greater than the No Action 

Alternative but less than Alternative A. There is a potential for 

more exceptions to the placement of rights-of-way outside of 

rights-of-way windows, allowing for more surface disturbance in currently undisturbed areas. The amount of disturbance would only have a minimal impact if stringent mitigation measures were followed. Conducting a resource evaluation to acquire additional information on resource activities 

would benefit vegetation communities. 

Livestock grazing systems would be designed to achieve 

desired plant communities. These actions would probably 

have a long-term positive impact on uplands and riparian 

areas. The vegetation types that would be most affected by 

livestock grazing would include the saltbush, low density 

sagebrush, high density sagebrush, aspen, riparian, and greasewood classifications. Management to achieve proper functioning condition on all riparian areas would benefit vegetation and lead to healthier and more diverse riparian plant 

communities. Trampling and use of dune ponds and adjacent 

riparian habitat would be reduced. Season of use changes or 

use in areas previously unused could result in reductions in 

existing forage bases used by wildlife. In addition, use in 

stabilized dune areas could cause blowouts and destabilization of the dunes by removing vegetation needed to hold down 

the sand. Fencing would be used to manage livestock grazing 

to improve forage and habitat condition on upland and wetland sites. Range condition should improve on localized areas 

with better distribution of livestock. In wetlands, fencing 

would control livestock use and improve habitat and watershed condition. More diverse vegetation would be produced 

and soil erosion would be reduced. Delaying grazing livestock turnout until native range grasses are in the boot stage of 

phenological development would promote healthy, vigorous 

stands which could repel weed invasions, and are more 

capable of withstanding drought. 

The impacts under this alternative may not provide as 

quick of a recovery for degraded riparian areas as in Alternative B, though progress would still occur. 

Visual Resource Management Impacts 

There are potential visual impacts on Essex Mountain and 

Pacific Butte by allowing communication sites. However, 

this should only be a slight impact if the applied mitigation 

measures are followed. 

Under this alternative, the Red Desert Watershed area 

would remain a VRM Class III. VRM Class III stipulations 

should protect the open space vistas of this area. 

The initiation of a program to improve the visual quality of 

the oil fields would benefit the visual resources in those areas 

and, in many cases, would benefit other resources such as soil, 

watershed, and vegetation. The avoidance of identified areas 

which are not suitable for linear rights-of-way would protect 

the sensitive visual resources in these areas. 

Protecting National Historic Trails and other trails by not 

allowing visual disturbance, by applying surface constraints 

to important cultural sites, and limiting geophysical vehicles 

to designated roads and trails in the South Pass Historic 

Landscape would enhance visual values and protect the visual 

sensitivity of these resources and areas. 

Not allowing surface mining activities and surface occupancy areas around the Boars Tusk and the Steamboat Mountain-Killpecker Dune Fields, including the wild horse viewing 

area, would retain and enhance visual resources found in the 

area. 

317
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

As more oil and gas development occurs, more effects to 

the visual quality of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would 

occur. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Same as described for the general impact discussion. 

Watershed/Water Quality Impacts 

The actions taken to protect air quality would also help 

watershed resources. Air pollution generated from within the 

planning area would most likely have limited impacts on 

watershed values and water quality as a result of direct air/ 

water contact. 

Cultural activities have limited direct effects on water 

quality. Effects can occur when avoidance of cultural sites 

directs activities to other areas and may affect watershed 

resources and water quality. This could have a positive or 

detrimental effect depending on the location of the diverted 

activity. Cultural resource data recovery excavations, although of limited spatial extent, can have negative impacts to 

soil and watershed stability if not properly conducted. The 

larger areas of protection around cultural sites would make a 

difference in the amount and location of disturbances in the 

immediate area but it is unknown how this would change the 

activity outside the areas of concern. 

Fire can have both positive and negative effects on watershed resources and water quality. Fire suppression activities 

could cause soil erosion as a result of fire line construction, 

vehicle and/or equipment traffic. Prescribed/controlled burns 

generally affect soil stability less than wildfire suppression 

efforts. In the short term, fire increases the potential for 

erosion. Over the long term, properly managed burns can 

create and maintain conditions that promote thicker growth of 

vegetation, reducing erosion. Under this alternative fire 

would be suppressed in the big sagebrush/scurfpea areas, 

slightly increasing the potential for suppression efforts to 

cause soil erosion. 

Hazardous materials within the planning area are generally 

confined to areas such as drilling sites and within the transportation systems (roads and pipelines). Hazardous materials 

may also be contained in motorized equipment and unauthorized dump sites but would generally be of smaller volumes in 

these locations. 

Soil contamination from drilling fluids and accompanying 

chemicals for production drilling threaten area soils. Unlined 

reserve pits offer no protection from contamination to surrounding soils; therefore, unlined reserve pits should be 

avoided in any area where there is a potential for groundwater 

contamination. 

Application of standards (for health rangelands) and implementation of guidelines (for livestock grazing) would reduce 

the effects to watersheds and water quality from surface 

disturbing activities, recreation uses, and livestock grazing. 

The differences between the alternatives can be expressed in 

the level of conflict that could occur between the actions that 

would take place under each alternative and the goals set forth 

by Standards and Guidelines. 

The actions proposed under the Preferred Alternative would 

aid in meeting standards and guidelines. Site specific progress 

to achieve water quality and vegetation goals would be more 

rapid under Alternative B than the other proposed alternatives; however, the Preferred Alternative provides more flexibility in applying various management options to aid in 

reaching standards and guidelines. 

Realty actions such as rights-of-ways for linear disturbances such as pipelines and roads can adversely affect soils 

especially in areas of vegetated sand dunes which could be 

impacted by wind erosion when the vegetation is removed. 

Uncontrolled runoff from roads can create gullying in adjacent drainages. Successful reclamation and maintenance of 

linear disturbances limits the impact of these actions. The 

location of communication sites and transportation corridors 

would be limited in the Preferred Alternative (similar to 

Alternative B); however, exceptions might be granted if just 

cause could be shown. The overall disturbance would most 

likely be closer to Alternative B than Alternative A. 

As most of the disturbances associated with communication sites would be away from riparian areas and streams, the 

effects of the creation and maintenance of communication 

sites would be less than an equivalent disturbance located 

closer to water courses. The disturbance created by the 

creation and maintenance of communication sites has the 

potential to affect watershed values and water quality, as does 

any disturbance. Of primary concern is the potential for 

increased traffic during periods of inclement weather along 

portions of travel routes to and from the sites, where conditions can create an increased potential for erosion close to 

water bodies. Also of concern is the increased potential for 

erosion from the steeper portion of the access roads. While 

such sections of road would most likely have a larger average 

particle size and thus be more resistant to erosion than areas 

with finer average soil particle sizes, the concentration of the 

flow of water associated with the creation and maintenance of 

the road would increase the potential for flow concentration 

and sediment production. 

Livestock grazing has a major influence on land and stream 

conditions and thus erosion and water quality. Implementation of existing programs (primarily standards for healthy 

rangelands and guidelines for livestock grazing management), as well as the management actions in this alternative 

would aid in improving watershed condition. 

Livestock grazing, roads, and water diversions can alter 

conditions in riparian areas. For riparian impacts, see Vegetation Impacts. 

Impacts to soils from grazing can be caused by 

overutilization of riparian and upland areas leading to soil 

compaction and vegetative removal. This can lead to loss of 

the soil surface, rill, and gully formation which could impact 

water quality through more rapid runoff and higher sediment 

loads. Livestock could contribute to the degradation of areas 

that might cause further concern depending on their location. 

Areas in very erodible soil structure could have the possibility 

of washing, blowing, or being removed from further beneficial purposes. 

318
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Activities that decrease plant vigor can increase erosion 

and decrease water quality. Depending on the actions taken, 

specific areas may show some changes, positive or adverse, 

but the overall trend would be closely related to the level of 

surface disturbing activities. 

Overall progress to achieve water quality and vegetation 

goals would be less rapid under the Preferred Alternative than 

under Alternative B, but would still be desirable. Site specific 

progress might be more rapid than Alternative B because the 

greater range of management options which would help 

customize individual grazing programs. 

Development activities such as roads and well pads affect 

overland flow and groundwater infiltration. Roads and well 

pads interrupt natural surface flow patterns and reduce groundwater infiltration by compacting the soil. This can increase the 

erosive potential of runoff events by creating a shorter period 

of runoff and an increased volume. Drainage ditches, culverts, and surfacing can channelize surface flows and direct 

them away from the road surface. While this helps protects the 

road surface, it can also increase erosive potential along the 

path of concentrated flow. Proper design, construction, and 

maintenance reduce the erosive potential for road and well 

pad areas but do not fully compensate for the concentration of 

flows. 

Impacts to surface water quality from oil and gas development are generally the result of unsuccessful reclamation and/ 

or increased runoff from pads and roads, destabilizing drainages. With effective monitoring, most individual well sites 

and mines should have only a short-term impact on watershed 

stability. 

Other concerns which could arise include: sedimentation, 

soil contamination, salt and phosphate loading, groundwater 

contamination, bank and channel instability, loss of aquifers, 

augmented flows, and water disposal. 

A greater amount of area would be available for development under the Preferred Alternative than under the No 

Action Alternative. This could result in a greater number of 

wells being drilled; however, management prescriptions such 

as transportation and reclamation planning would help to 

offset this level of disturbance. The proposed evaluation 

period and creation of an unleased corridor could reduce 

activity in some of the steeper regions of the area which would 

help reduce erosion. 

In addition to the roads and other surface disturbances that 

would be required for coalbed methane production there is the 

additional concern of water disposal. Any discharge into a 

surface channel that is unaccustomed to having similar flows 

creates the potential for increased erosion. 

If the water obtained from coalbed methane production is 

of a high quality and discharged, there may be some controversy at the end of the project when the water is no longer 

available for use as livestock or wildlife water. If the produced 

water contains high levels of salts there is a potential for 

creating conditions similar to those surrounding the evaporation ponds associated with trona production. Reinjection of 

the water may solve some of these problems but care should 

be taken to avoid creating new ones. It is assumed that the 

primary means of water disposal would be through reinjection. 

The level of disturbance that can be associated with coalbed 

methane production would largely be determined by the area 

of development. Current technology requires relatively close 

well spacing and a road network for maintenance. Even with 

total reinjection of the produced water this road and well 

network would increase the potential of erosion in the area of 

development. Because the level of development would be 

approximately the same per unit area within a production 

zone, an estimate of the potential level of disturbance and 

subsequent erosion and threat to water quality can be related 

to the areas that would be made available for leasing under 

each alternative. 

It is unknown whether there is a connection between the 

surface waters and the waters that would be removed to 

stimulate gas production. Investigations to determine if there 

is a connection and application of appropriate mitigation to 

protect water quality and quantity would be needed prior to 

production. 

The region with the greatest coalbed methane production 

has a surface of stabilized sand dunes, a condition that makes 

the area vulnerable to disturbance of the vegetation cover. 

Given the road and well density that would be required, this is 

a concern. Proper land management would reduce the level of 

disturbance but not eliminate it. Maintenance of the vegetative community and the transportation network would be a 

primary concern on any development in the area. 

The road network would create additional recreation access into the area of stabilized sand dunes. Given the sensitive 

nature of the soils in the area, this is a concern. A transportation and recreation management plan should be part of any 

development. 

The potential level of disturbance associated with coalbed 

methane in the Preferred Alternative lies somewhere between 

the No Action Alternative and Alternative B. Given the 

erosive nature of the surface, the potential levels of erosion 

within the stabilized sand dunes area is dependent on the level 

of development. The overall erosion potential from proposed 

management actions in the Preferred Alternative would be 

closest to Alternative B. However, concentrated development 

in localized areas would have the same affect under all 

alternatives. 

The mineral material resource with the greatest potential 

for development in the area is sand and gravel. As most of the 

potential sites within the planning area are located away from 

streams and wetlands, the primary effect of their development 

on water and vegetation quality would come from increased 

activity on the roads. There could be some additional runoff 

from the mine areas but the effect that they would have on 

downstream water quality would be difficult to determine. 

Surfacing of roads with hard surfaces or gravel has the 

potential to reduce watershed impacts. 

The closing of big game calving, big sagebrush, and other 

sensitive areas to development as well as conformance with 

319
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

the transportation plan would reduce the potential for erosion 

but does not eliminate it. 

Coal exploration can be related to surface water quality 

through the amount of surface disturbed. Coal exploration 

activities would disturb about 15 acres over 20 years, and with 

the application of mitigation measures, causing minimal impacts. About 227,600 acres would be closed to coal exploration activity. Activities would avoid areas with sensitive 

resources unless a plan could be developed to mitigate adverse 

impacts. 

Sodium development could occur on about 2.5 acres of the 

planning area. About 227,600 acres would be closed to 

sodium prospecting. Because there are no planned sodium 

processing facilities within the planning area there will be no 

direct affect. Potential sodium processing facilities adjacent 

to the planning area could have secondary affects but the size 

and extent of such affects is unknown. 

Monitoring has no direct effect on water quality but would 

help in the early detection of potential watershed concerns and 

subsequent correction of problems. The level of monitoring 

would be approximately the same under all alternatives and 

may increase or decrease depending on the perceived needs of 

a project or area. The more rapid and complete the reclamation of a disturbed site the lower the potential erosion and 

potential water quality degradation. Monitoring is essential is 

in the reclamation of disturbed sites. Without efficient reclamation techniques and timely monitoring by the BLM and 

industry, long-term landscape disruption such as linear scars, 

sand deflation and deposition, surface erosion, and drainage 

degradation could result. 

Off-road vehicle use impacts soil stability as a result of 

compaction of travel surfaces, disruption of vegetative cover, 

and disruption of the soil surface. Recreation within the 

planning area consists primarily of activities that require 

motorized vehicles. Thus, it is closely tied to transportation 

and reclamation, as well as any activities that create new roads 

of any sort. Because of the nature of much of the planning area 

new roads are easily created and road closures rely primarily 

on the public’s willingness to comply. The maintaining of 

existing seasonal closures and the establishment of seasonal 

closures for new roads would help mitigate the disturbance 

caused by road use during wet and muddy periods. 

While difficult to quantify, the economic benefits of watershed and water quality improvements are far reaching. Clean 

water is the basis for many agricultural, recreational, and 

industrial activities. Healthy watersheds help capture, filter, 

and regulate water flow. This is of particular importance in 

high desert environments where precipitation is seasonal and 

later season water flow is vital for many social and economic 

activities. Agriculture is based upon the nutrients stored 

within the topsoil. If this soil is eroded, the nutrients are no 

longer available for production and the downstream users 

have the added expenses of increased sediment, as well as salt 

and nutrient loading. 

The actions taken for special status species would be the 

same under all alternatives. The effect that such actions would 

have upon water and vegetation would depend upon the 

species and locations of the habitat. Actions taken for the 

benefit of aquatic or riparian species would have a more 

noticeable positive effect on water quality than those for 

upland species. 

Surface disturbance is closely tied to water quality. The 

greater the disturbance in time and area and the closer to places 

where the flow of water is concentrated, the greater the 

potential for erosion. Because the amount of development and 

actual location is unknown, the exact amount of disturbance 

is difficult to forecast. 

A greater amount of area is available for development 

under the Preferred Alternative than under the No Action 

Alternative. This could result in a greater amount of surface 

disturbance, but the development plan, as well as the associated transportation and reclamation plans, would help to 

offset this level of disturbance. The higher levels of activity 

would produce greater levels of disturbance but the proposed 

mitigation would most likely help to moderate the effects and 

allow the natural process of healing to occur. The proposed 

evaluation period and creation of an unleased corridor could 

reduce activity in some of the steeper regions of the planning 

area which would help reduce erosion. About 2,450 acres 

would be disturbed over the long term from various activities. 

Most of this disturbance would be reclaimed with a net longterm disturbance of about 600 acres. 

Disturbance from road activity would be similar to that 

which would occur under Alternative B. Maintaining the 

existing seasonal closure and the consideration of seasonal 

closures for new roads would help mitigate the disturbance 

caused by roads and their use during periods when soil 

moisture and runoff may be high. This would reduce adverse 

effects to soils from rutting and damage to roads from vehicle 

use. 

Implementing transportation planning and establishing 

road densities in crucial habitats would benefit water resources. Roads are one of the primary sources of erosion in the 

planning area. They tend to concentrate the overland flow and 

reduce infiltration. They can often be thought of as a set of 

superimposed ephemeral stream channels. As roads become 

more numerous, their effects become cumulative and may 

even work in combination to create greater levels of erosion. 

Road maintenance is also important. Timely maintenance of 

road surfaces can reduce erosion. Maintaining as much of the 

right-of-way in an undisturbed or revegetated state as possible 

would reduce both maintenance cost and erosion. Surfacing 

of major arterial roads with appropriate materials would also 

help limit the potential for soil erosion and reduced water 

quality. The greater detail that would be given to road design 

and dissipation of runoff would assist in the reduction of 

erosive forces and help reduce nonpoint pollution. 

Planning the roads in terms of number, location, and season 

of use should have a marked effect on reducing the level of 

disturbance. Individual projects may be expanded beyond the 

immediate need but the overall disturbance would be less. 

Planning other linear facilities, pipelines, power lines, cables, 

etc., in conjunction with roads would help localize disturbance and reduce the use of linear rights-of-way as access 

320
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

routes. Travel on rights-of-way, not designed for such use, 

can increase erosion by creating additional disturbance. When 

this occurs, vegetation, and soil stability are reduced and the 

potential for water quality degradation increases. The level of 

disturbance would be slightly greater in this alternative than in 

Alternative B, but less than for Alternatives A and No Action. 

Impacts from sedimentation or direct physical alteration of 

stream channels would not be considered significant if BLM’s 

Mitigation Guidelines (see Appendix 2), relevant storm water 

BMPs, and appropriate mitigation measures are applied. If 

significant impacts to area waters from sedimentation are to 

be avoided, attention to control of non-point sources of 

sediment would be necessary. 

There is a potential impact (increased sedimentation) to 

water quality from discharge of hydrostatic test water during 

pipeline testing. This is not expected to produce significant 

impacts because it is short term in nature and the operators 

would be required to comply with WDEQ/WQD regulations. 

There could be water quality impacts from accidental spills. 

Depending on where such a spill occurred, the impacts could 

be significant. 

As a general rule, the greater the vegetation cover, the less 

erosion and the better the water quality. A more diverse 

community is generally healthier. Implementation of standards (for healthy rangeland) and guidelines (for livestock 

grazing) would have an effect upon the vegetative communities. The differences between alternatives may not vary 

dramatically. 

Vegetation removal can adversely impact stream hydraulics. Vegetation removal can cause an augmented flow regime 

which forces the stream channel to readjust its width and depth 

to accommodate larger flows where vegetative conditions are 

impaired. Sedimentation would increase, due to a lack of 

filtering ability of the vegetation. 

Vegetation manipulation to enhance wildlife habitat such 

as controlled burns, mowing, and chemical applications could 

cause short-term impacts to physical and chemical characteristics of soils, increasing erosion susceptibility through the 

loss of both ground cover and litter accumulation. Over the 

long term, areas of treated vegetation should increase over 

pretreatment production levels which would decrease the 

erosion hazard. 

Wildlife habitat management has some effect on land, 

water, and vegetation quality. Sufficient wildlife habitat 

creates a more varied environment that is better able to slow 

and filter overland flow, reduce erosive forces, and recover 

from disturbances. Because wildlife require a wide range of 

vegetation, managing for wildlife habitat would produce 

more diverse communities and a greater chance to reduce 

erosion and improve water quality than either the No Action 

Alternative or Alternative A. Although the level of activity 

under the Preferred Alternative is slightly greater than Alternative B, the amount of protection should be sufficient to 

provide a good diversity of habitats and their associated 

resistance to erosion. 

Preventing fragmentation of habitat would provide for 

undisturbed vegetation communities covering fairly large 

areas. This would continue the natural buffering capability of 

the vegetation communities and result in less runoff, erosion, 

and sedimentation. 

Some long-term impacts may occur to soils, slopes, and 

visual values on public lands due to activities on adjacent 

private lands and vice versa. Silt production and sedimentation could occur; however, this would be minor. Measures to 

control erosion, such as restricting surface disturbance on 

slopes greater than 20 percent and on erosive soils and travel 

management prescriptions, should lessen these impacts and 

should benefit watershed and vegetation resources. 

The wild horse appropriate management levels are within 

the what the land can support, so the management of wild 

horses should have a limited effect if any on water quality or 

erosion. However, increased population size can adversely 

affect watershed resources in a similar fashion as described 

for livestock grazing. 

Groundwater 

The types of disturbances having potential to impact groundwater include oil and gas and coalbed methane drilling, 

completion, and plugging operations and the plugging of 

water wells. Current BLM (43 CFR 3160 - Onshore Oil and 

Gas Operations) and State of Wyoming (Department of Environmental Quality’s Water Quality Rules and Regulations) 

guidelines provide for the protection of groundwater resources. With adherence to these rules and regulations, it is 

unlikely that groundwater quality would be impacted. The 

volume of some groundwater aquifers and possibly some 

surface waters would be impacted during production of coalbed 

methane. The possibility exists for groundwater contamination from spills, and leachate from evaporation ponds and/or 

produced fluid pits. Oil-based drilling mud can contain 

benzene or other hazardous chemicals. To prevent endangering human health and/or further environmental damage, spills 

and/or leachate would be cleaned up by the responsible party 

(43 CFR 3160). 

Coalbed methane development involves dewatering the 

coalbed containing the methane to stimulate gas production. 

Dewatering of the aquifer would be a direct impact, that would 

last until methane production ceased and the aquifer is recharged. Water wells and surface waters connected to the 

impacted aquifer could be impacted by the drawdown of the 

water table. It is unknown whether there is a connection 

between surface waters and the shallow groundwater aquifers 

that would be dewatered to stimulate gas production. A 

hydrological investigation would be conducted by the proponent to determine if there is a connection prior to development. 

Appropriate mitigation would be applied to protect water 

quality and quantity. 

Due to increased restrictions on development, the Preferred Alternative would have less potential to impact groundwater than Alternatives A and No Action. However, this 

alternative would allow more development than Alternative 

B, and would therefore have a higher potential for impacting 

groundwater. 

321
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Core Area 

New oil and gas leases would not be issued within the 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, however, existing leases could be 

developed. Portions of the remaining core area, including the 

connectivity area, would be open to issuance of new oil and 

gas leases. Existing leases within these areas could be 

developed as well. The type of impacts described for the 

general area would be similar within the areas open for 

development. 

Coalbed methane development within the core, especially 

on existing leases within the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, 

would impact certain groundwater aquifers. Dewatering of 

the aquifer would be a direct impact, that would last until 

methane production ceased and the aquifer is recharged. 

Water wells and surface waters connected to the impacted 

aquifer could be impacted by the drawdown of the water table. 

It is unknown whether there is a connection between surface 

waters and the shallow groundwater aquifers that would be 

dewatered to stimulate gas production. A hydrological investigation would be conducted by the proponent to determine if 

there is a connection prior to development. Appropriate 

mitigation would be applied to protect water quality and 

quantity. 

The Preferred Alternative would have a greater potential 

for impacting groundwater within the core and connectivity 

areas than in Alternatives B and the No Action, because the 

amount of development allowed in this alternative is greater. 

However, the Preferred Alternative would have less potential 

for impacting groundwater than in Alternative A. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Based on the information in Appendix 10, the watersheds 

listed in Table 4-18 appear to have a greater potential for 

cumulative impacts than other streams examined. They are 

listed in no particular order. 

Livestock grazing related erosion would most likely be 

influenced by both the management actions in this alternative 

and livestock grazing use and other activities that influence 

the distribution and timing of livestock use. The grazing 

practices under this alternative would provide an opportunity 

for vegetative recovery and expansion. This could result in a 

reduced potential for erosion. Stream banks and riparian areas 

would most likely continue to be the focus of erosion reduction related activities. The greatest potential for erosion 

would occur along streams that had not achieved the minimally acceptable standard of proper functioning condition. 

The potential level of cumulative disturbance to watershed 

values is directly related to the amount, timing, and location 

of surface disturbance. The primary causes of surface disturbance within the planing area are mineral development and 

livestock grazing improvements. Under the Preferred Alternative, the overall level of disturbance would be moderate 

overall, but there could still be areas of concentrated activity 

causing elevated levels of erosion that would need to be 

addressed. 

The potential level of total surface disturbance is greater 

for the Preferred Alternative than the No Action Alternative. 

However the incremental opening of sensitive areas and the 

time allowed for recovery from disturbance would reduce the 

potential erosion by allowing time for surface disturbances to 

heal. 

The cumulative impact on groundwater resources over the 

planning period for oil and gas development is likely to be 

minimal and insignificant given the projected yearly drilling 

rate of 3 to 4 wells per year. Due to the lack of information, 

the cumulative impact on groundwater aquifers due to coalbed 

methane development cannot be determined. Investigation of 

aquifers and their possible connection to surface waters prior 

to development would provide the information necessary for 

determining cumulative impacts and any necessary mitigation. 

Wild Horse Impacts 

Actions to maintain or enhance air quality and monitoring 

of air quality would in most cases have no impact on wild 

horses or their management. Some minor positive benefits to 

wild horses may result from improved air quality. 

The types of impacts from cultural resource management 

under this alternative are similar to those for the No Action 

Alternative; however the magnitude of the impacts could be 

greater. As the intensity level of cultural resource management increases so does the likelihood that more sites would be 

protected by fencing. Fencing would exclude wild horses 

from habitat located within the fenced area. Such fencing 

would have to be designed so as not to limit the free-roaming 

nature of the wild horses. The total area that could potentially 

be fenced is so small as to provide no net or cumulative 

impacts to wild horses, their habitat, or management. 

Prescribed fire, either natural or human-caused, has the 

potential to improve the forage production capacity of sagebrush dominated communities throughout occupied wild horse 

habitat in the planning area. The major short- to mid-term 

impact of fire in wild horse habitats is the conversion of shrub 

dominated sites to grass dominated sites. Horses generally 

prefer grasses and most fire in the planning area would be 

beneficial to wild horses. The frequency of natural fire in this 

area is very low and therefore the potential for lightningcaused ignitions that meet resource objectives is also very 

low. 

Planned ignitions have the potential to improve some of the 

planning area for wild horses. Limitations due to rare plant 

communities, unstable soils, low fuel-loading, greater incidence of non-burnable sites in the portion of the planning area 

included within the Great Divide Basin Wild Horse Herd 

Management Area, and considerations of potential impacts to 

other animal and plant species would probably render any 

impact due to fire management on wild horses negligible. 

The use of materials designated as or considered to be 

hazardous in the exploration and development of oil and gas 

poses a threat to wild horses should they come in direct contact 

with them or consume contaminated forage or water. The 

severity of the impact and whether it would be isolated to one 

or two animals or some larger number is largely dependent 

upon the specific toxins(s) involved. Although the risk that 

322
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

wild horses may be impacted by hazardous materials exists, 

planned actions under this alternative eliminate this potential. 

The development of a transportation plan, location of 

linear facilities adjacent to existing areas of disturbance (roads), 

less anticipated oil and gas activity requiring linear facilities, 

and the opportunity to plan for utility corridors that avoid 

critical areas, mitigate any impacts to wild horses from land 

and realty actions. 

Impacts from livestock grazing under this alternative are 

similar to those for Alternative B except that the level of 

beneficial impact for wild horses and their habitat is lessened. 

Assessment of grazing allotments for conformance with Standards for Healthy Rangelands and implementation of appropriate actions to address non-conformance would be beneficial to wild horses and their habitat. Continuing current 

seasons of use, allowing for sheep to cattle conversion, increasing use limits, and reducing stubble height targets from 

those prescribed under Alternative B render the Preferred 

Alternative less beneficial to wild horses than Alternative B. 

Additional water development inside the Great Divide 

Basin Wild Horse Herd Management Area would benefit wild 

horses as long as greater forage use by domestic livestock does 

not occur. Additional water developments outside the wild 

horse herd management area may serve as an ‘attractive 

nuisance’ drawing horses to areas outside the wild horse herd 

management area exacerbating wild horse management challenges. 

Removal of areas unsuitable for livestock grazing from the 

forage base for domestic livestock would benefit wild horses 

and their habitat. Other beneficial actions under this alternative include the establishment of use limits of 50 percent on 

key upland and riparian forage species, establishing PFC as 

minimum acceptable level for stream function, and the inclusion of riparian desired plant communities in grazing management plans. 

The minimal amount of surface disturbance expected to 

result from predicted oil and gas activity would cause negligible impact to wild horse habitat. Some temporary or 

permanent displacement from areas experiencing increased 

human activity due to mineral development would occur. 

Most of the wild horse herd management area is located in 

areas of low potential for hydrocarbon development and wild 

horses tend to adapt to human presence over time; however, 

exactly where development would occur could have a major 

influence on the level of impact on wild horses. If activity is 

located outside the wild horse herd management area and 

away from critical habitats, there would be negligible impact 

to wild horses. Should activity be increased inside the wild 

horse herd management area and be located on critical habitats, impacts to wild horses due to oil and gas development 

could occur. 

Determination of new leasing on a case-by case basis 

considering the needs of wild horses and their habitat would 

produce benefits to wild horses over Alternative A and the No 

Action Alternative. Closing certain areas to new leasing and 

development activity would provide a beneficial effect to wild 

horses. However, much of the unleased acreage falls outside 

the wild horse herd management area. 

Large-scale mining of locatable minerals would have the 

potential to negatively affect wild horses. Mines by their 

nature are very single use developments that are long term in 

nature. Once a pit is opened the area of the pit no longer 

provides habitat for wild horses. Dredging or placer mining 

causes negative impacts on streams which could pose serious 

threats to the long-term viability of wild horse habitat in the 

wild horse herd management area. Salable mineral activity is 

not expected to have any impact on wild horses. Proposed 

mineral withdrawals (locatable) would prevent negative impacts to wild horses or their habitat on the withdrawn areas. 

Retaining the seasonal Steamboat Mountain closure is 

beneficial to wild horses. Off-road vehicles have the potential 

to seriously impact soil and vegetation in localized areas, and 

are loud and very disturbing to all wildlife including wild 

horses. 

The greatest potential for impact to wild horses and their 

habitat is not from planned actions or legal ORV activity, but 

rather illegal use of all terrain vehicles and other four wheel 

drive vehicles. Any impacts to wild horses due to recreation 

management would be minor and consist of temporary displacement near the back country byway while it is being used. 

Viewing of wild horses in the free-roaming state is a recreational activity encouraged by BLM management of wild 

horses. Interpretive site development would aid in the public’s 

use of wild horse viewing as a recreational activity. 

Many of the planned actions to mitigate or limit impacts to 

surface resources from surface disturbing activities have been 

discussed above. Under all alternatives, controls on surface 

disturbance benefit wild horses and their habitat. The alternatives vary only in the degree of benefit. Alternative B and the 

Preferred Alternative are more beneficial than are the No 

Action Alternative or Alternative A. 

Establishment of a 1/2-mile buffer around the proposed 

wild horse viewing area would protect the public’s ability to 

enjoy their wild and free-roaming horses in a natural setting. 

It would also increase the likelihood that wild horses would be 

in the vicinity of the viewing area more often. Current 

reclamation standards are adequate to mitigate any potential 

impacts to wild horses from reclamation activities. 

Management actions that improve wildlife habitat, particularly for elk, reduce soil erosion improve watershed health 

and promote biodiversity would benefit wild horse habitat 

quality. 

Management actions to stabilize and conserve soils, increase vegetative production, maintain or improve surface 

and ground water quality, and to maintain or improve wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas would benefit wild 

horses and their habitat. Under all alternatives, improvement 

of the soil, vegetation, and water resources benefit wild horses 

and their habitat. The alternatives vary only in the degree of 

benefit. Alternative B and the Preferred Alternative are more 

beneficial than are the No Action Alternative or Alternative A. 

Planned actions in the wild horse program are presently in 

place and would produce no net impact to the managed wild 

horse population or their habitat within that portion of the 

planning area within the Great Divide Basin Wild Horse Herd 

323
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Management Area. Maintaining the existing boundary would 

produce no additional impacts to wild horses. However, those 

horses that presently reside outside the wild horse herd management area are considered excess and are therefore to be 

totally removed. This does have an impact on the individual 

animals but would not affect the managed population within 

the wild horse herd management area. 

The planned actions to improve habitat for wildlife and 

protection from human activity and habitat fragmentation 

would benefit wild horses and their habitat. This benefit is 

common to all alternatives. 

Core Area 

Only a very small portion of the Great Divide Horse Herd 

Management Area lies within the core area, connectivity 

areas, and the ACECs. Due to the limited area of overlap with 

the wild horse herd management area, it is anticipated that no 

impact to wild horses or their habitat would result from these 

activities. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Under all alternatives, no significant cumulative impacts to 

wild horses and wild horse management are anticipated. 

Wildlife Impacts 

Actions under the Preferred Alternative would provide the 

most protection to wildlife except for Alternative B. 

Actions to maintain or enhance air quality and management for Special Status Species plants would generally benefit 

wildlife and their habitats. Activities aimed at restoring 

watersheds and riparian areas in the planning area would 

benefit all wildlife species. 

Actions to protect cultural resources would generally benefit wildlife and their habitats. Avoidance of some cultural 

sites could cause negative impacts to wildlife if avoidance 

results in activity being located in crucial wildlife habitats. 

Prescribed fire in the planning area would benefit many 

wildlife habitats. Treatment of aspen stands with prescribed 

fire has had negative impacts to wildlife in the past due to 

increased use by elk. Any future treatments in this habitat type 

would require fencing to protect this important habitat and to 

allow adequate rejuvenation of the stands. 

Some long-term impacts (15 to 25 years) could occur to 

sage grouse nesting habitat and winter relief areas if large 

acreages are burned with no mosaic (a pattern with lots of 

burned and unburned patches) patterns or edge. Brood rearing 

habitat is generally improved by fires producing a highly 

detailed mosaic pattern. This is due to an increase of forbs and 

insects. 

Increased development of oil, natural gas, and coalbed 

methane in the area would cause decreased opportunities to 

use fire in the planning area due to safety concerns. This could 

negatively affect wildlife. 

Rights-of-ways (such as pipelines, power lines) could 

negatively affect wildlife populations due to the disturbance 

of associated roads, increased access, and associated displacement caused by human presence. Although companies may 

not need to travel pipeline routes, removal or crushing of 

vegetation allows for 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 seasons. Aboveground 

pipelines would cause less impacts to crucial wildlife habitats 

(big sagebrush, mountain shrubs, woodland habitats, stabilized sand dunes). 

New road development increases use by recreationists and 

other public land users, increasing the amount of human 

presence and the potential for harassment of wildlife in the 

area. Very limited activity currently occurs in the area from 

November to June due to the lack of access and lack of snow 

removal. Closing roads during crucial winter periods helps 

limit disturbance to wildlife and retain the limited level of 

activity. 

Communication sites, when located in or near crucial 

habitats, can have significant impacts on those habitats. Access to these sites occurs year-round, even during the crucial 

winter period. Year-round access can result in plowing of 

roads which displaces wintering wildlife and can add to their 

stressed condition, caused by winter conditions. Plowing of 

these roads also allows for more recreational traffic to use 

these areas year round. 

Concentrating pipeline rights-of-ways and storage facilities for condensate and oil would reduce impacts from activities on wildlife and related habitats. Placement of pipelines 

along road corridors would benefit wildlife and would reduce 

impacts from access associated with these activities. 

Displacement of big game during calving and crucial 

winter months due to tanker trucks accessing production 

locations could have significant impacts. Closing of roads 

(see transportation planning) during crucial periods would 

reduce these effects and benefit wildlife. 

Pursuing mineral withdrawals for the Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC, portions of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC, and the 

two northern parturition areas would benefit numerous wildlife species. Mining exploration activity is already occurring 

in and near the parturition areas and high potential exists for 

additional associated mining activity. Withdrawing these 

areas from mining activity would benefit wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. 

Future livestock conversions (sheep to cattle or vice versa) 

would be carefully analyzed. Sustainability reviews would be 

required prior to conversions, which would benefit wildlife 

habitat. 

Not allowing conversions unless it benefits planning objectives would benefit wildlife but not as much as Alternative 

B. Maintaining use levels and moving when levels are 

reached would reduce impacts to wildlife and riparian habitats. 

Not allowing livestock water developments in the core, 

crucial winter ranges, and the connectivity areas would provide the most benefits to big game. Also, protecting waters 

324
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

with fences and developing offsite waters would benefit 

wildlife, especially waterfowl and sage grouse. 

No water development within 1.5 miles of sage grouse leks 

(in addition to the 1/4-mile closure for the lek itself) would 

offer more protection for sage grouse than the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative A but not as much as Alternative 

B. 

Limiting use of key shrub species to 30 percent and riparian 

herbaceous species to 40 percent would benefit wildlife. The 

Preferred Alternative does not benefit wildlife and related 

habitat as much as Alternative B; however, riparian areas 

should improve under this alternative. This would benefit a 

large array of wildlife species. 

Next to Alternative B, this alternative would offer the most 

protection for elk and other big game. Under this alternative 

approximately 85 wells would be drilled. Important habitats 

would be protected with stipulations and some would not be 

leased. Depending on the development of existing leases, 

future leases can be withheld from leasing or may be leased 

with an NSO stipulation. Conducting an evaluation of all 

activities would provide necessary information to identify 

acceptable patterns for future leasing. This would ensure that 

objectives for the planning area would be met, habitat would 

be protected, and fragmentation of habitat minimized. Key 

habitat areas such as the core, connectivity, White Mountain, 

and Split Rock would continue to provide habitat for wildlife 

species. Although some abandonment of habitat may still 

occur, it would be minimized. Withholding leases in crucial 

habitats until after other areas have been explored, developed, 

or reclaimed would temporarily protect corridors. Once an 

area is leased, it would stay leased for 10 years unless it is 

relinquished. Producing leases stay leased until production 

ends (estimated 26 years). 

No impacts are expected from off-road vehicles under 

current management. ORVs do cause localized problems; 

however, if they stay on existing roads and trails and continue 

to follow the seasonal closure, impacts would be minimal. 

Some two-track trails may be closed if new roads are built in 

the same general location to access wells or development 

activities. Seasons of use by ORV users in the Sand Dunes do 

not coincide with periods of use by wildlife species, so no 

adverse effects are anticipated. 

No negative impacts to wildlife are expected from reclamation practices. Implementation of the district reclamation 

plan would benefit wildlife habitats. However, full restoration of habitats would not occur in some areas for more than 

20 years. Alternative B and the Preferred Alternative would 

provide the most benefit to wildlife from reclamation activities as more intensive reclamation practices would be applied. 

Increased access into the planning area due to development 

activities could result in an increase in recreationists also 

accessing the area. This in turn could result in the potential for 

increased poaching, “horn hunting”, and harassment of wildlife. The backcountry byways and Continental Divide Scenic 

Hiking Trail in the planning area should have minimal impacts to wildlife if people stay on identified routes. 

About 2,500 acres would be disturbed by various activities 

over 20 years. Impacts may be especially severe in areas 

where no physical barriers exist to provide cover and relief 

from the disturbance and where activity occurs year round 

during crucial periods. Conducting the evaluation and not 

leasing the entire planning area at one time would reduce 

impacts and fragmentation in key habitat such as the core, 

White Mountain, Split Rock, and connectivity areas, which 

would benefit wildlife in the area, particularly elk and mule 

deer. 

Adverse impacts to raptors, such as nest abandonment, 

could occur when activity is adjacent to or within nesting 

areas. Measures to protect nests and the surrounding habitat 

area provide security for nesting raptors. These protection 

measures also encourage raptors to reuse these areas for 

nesting and raising their young in future years because the 

nests and surrounding habitats are undisturbed. 

Permanent high profile facilities would avoid sage grouse 

leks and the area within 2 miles, eliminating perches for aerial 

predators, which would benefit sage grouse. No new livestock water developments within 1.5 miles of leks (in addition 

to the 1/4-mile closure for the lek itself) would increase 

nesting success due to an increase in residual grass and forb 

cover. Studies have shown that the average distance to sage 

grouse nests from a lek is approximately two miles. Predation 

of nests with insufficient cover (residual grass and forbs) is 

extremely high near leks (Heath, et al. 1997). These benefits 

would be greater than under Alternative A but less than under 

No Action Alternative and Alternative B. 

Most of the disturbed areas would be reclaimed with a 

long-term disturbance of about 365 acres. Reclamation could 

result in altered vegetation communities or introduction of 

undesirable plant species. This would cause negative impacts 

to sage grouse from the degradation of nesting and brood 

rearing habitat if it occurs in sage grouse habitat. 

Application of road densities not greater than 2 miles of 

improved (all weather) road per square mile of habitat would 

provide more habitat benefit than the No Action Alternative 

and Alternative A but would not provide as much protection 

as Alternative B. 

Vehicle-wildlife collisions may be numerous in areas of 

high wildlife use and high human activity. Increased vehicular use of the area would increase the likelihood of collisions. 

Wildlife’s crepuscular (dawn and dusk) habits also increase 

the possibility of collisions during periods of poor visibility 

and peak traffic for commuting workers. Smaller wildlife 

such as rabbits and sage grouse would also experience higher 

mortality from vehicle-wildlife collisions. 

Vegetation that provides adequate cover for parturition, 

nesting, protection from predators, and cover during severe 

winter conditions is limited within the planning area. Mountain shrub areas, aspen stands, and conifer/juniper stands are 

also limited and are generally sought out by wildlife. Mitigation (avoiding important wildlife habitats) may prevent the 

direct loss of these areas, but activities occurring directly 

adjacent to these habitats may make them unusable to wildlife. 

325
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Stabilized sand dune areas in the planning area are used 

heavily and frequently by big game and other wildlife and 

offer some of the most preferred escape cover. Sagebrush 

found in these stabilized sand dune areas are known to reach 

over 6 feet in height and some have been estimated to be over 

300 years old. These areas are also found in large gently 

undulating terrain rather than the narrow drainage bottoms (6-

Mile and Alkali Draw). Allowing any surface disturbing 

activities to occur in these areas would result in these habitats 

being lost for many years beyond the life of this plan. 

Populations of non-native vegetative species would increase as development occurs. More weed species would be 

brought into the area by vehicles, people, and equipment 

resulting in loss of native species in some areas. Due to 

localized surface disturbance in the planning area, weeds are 

primarily found along roads at this time. 

Big game habitat loss results from road use, road construction, facility construction and placement, pipeline construction, field facility maintenance, and disturbance zones around 

these areas. Disturbed acreages would not be fully reclaimed 

and portions would remain unavailable as habitat for some 

wildlife for 20 years or more. Limited rainfall, poor soils, and 

severe winter conditions make reclamation difficult, increasing the time required to re-establish suitable vegetation to predisturbance composition and density. 

There are no anticipated negative impacts from visual 

management activities. Providing protection for visual resources would generally benefit wildlife and their habitats. 

This alternative would provide benefit for wildlife and wildlife habitat due to the amount of area managed as VRM Class 

II (about 332,400 acres). These benefits would be greater than 

the No Action Alternative and Alternative A, but less than 

Alternative B. 

Impacts in the planning area from wild horses would be 

minimal provided their numbers are kept at plan objective 

levels. Wild horses currently occur in the planning area 

outside of identified herd management areas. This compounds problems associated with limited water sources and 

big game crucial winter ranges. Horses concentrate in the core 

during the summer months and compete for available forage 

during winter months. With added livestock competition for 

available water and forage, significant negative impacts are 

expected. Use levels set for livestock would help minimize 

this problem; however, horse numbers would continue to 

grow until their scheduled removal and would continue to 

have negative impacts on crucial wildlife habitats. 

Not leasing areas in the core and connectivity areas until 

migration corridors can be established provides the best 

opportunities to sustain big game populations in the planning 

area. Limiting the numbers of roads under this alternative 

would limit the amount of habitat fragmentation occurring in 

the planning area. 

Riparian management actions under this alternative would 

provide the most benefits to wildlife. Managing the four 

exclosures on Pacific Creek for salmonids would benefit a 

large array of wildlife, especially sage grouse and waterfowl. 

Management of upland and riparian habitats primarily for 

wildlife would provide long-term benefits to wildlife if proposed actions under other resources occurs. Management of 

the flockets for wildlife and vegetation enhancement would 

benefit wildlife, especially waterfowl, sage grouse, and amphibians. 

Impacts to Fisheries Resources 

Actions to maintain or enhance air quality and monitoring 

of air quality would in most cases positively benefit fisheries 

resources in the long term. 

The mitigation measures applied to protect cultural sites 

are expanded in most cases under this alternative. Many 

cultural sites occur in riparian areas. Where this occurs, the 

expanded mitigations would positively benefit fisheries by 

restricting surface disturbance for a greater area around the 

sites. Excavations of cultural sites, however, if they occur at 

or near streams, can cause short- to long-term negative impacts to these areas. Erosion could increase and sedimentation 

of streams could occur if not adequately mitigated (e.g., 

seeding, protective barriers, etc.). No activity of this type is 

anticipated at this time but if it should occur a site specific 

mitigation plan must be developed to mitigate any negative 

impacts (i.e., reclamation, seeding, re-contouring, sediment 

barriers, etc.). 

Prescribed fire actions benefit watersheds in the long term 

by providing for plant diversity and health. Healthy watersheds benefit riparian areas and in turn water quality and 

fisheries. There are short-term negative impacts to water due 

to sedimentation, erosion, nutrient enrichment of the water 

(could be beneficial in some low productivity waters), shade 

removal, particulate emissions, etc. Short- and long-term 

benefits include nutrient recycling in soils, increased age and 

species diversity of plants, improved water quality (after 2 to 

3 years), etc. No prescribed fires are currently planned but it 

is anticipated that they would occur during this plan. 

Wildfire and resultant suppression activities generally 

have greater negative impacts to watersheds and streams. 

Usually areas burned in these cases are greater in extent, more 

“solid block” (less mosaic), hotter burning (causing much 

more vegetation to be eliminated), etc. This would tend to 

cause greater erosion, sedimentation of streams, and a possible change from a desired plant community. The increase in 

full suppression areas for wildfires would provide additional 

benefits by decreasing acreage burned. 

Actions to prevent accidents and spills of hazardous materials would positively benefit fisheries through protection of 

the riparian area and preventing direct contact with streams. 

The fact that hazardous materials (i.e., oil and gas) are being 

produced in this area presents a threat of such accidents or 

spills occurring. Until an accident occurs there is no negative 

impact to fisheries. Mitigation and cleanup of spills rarely are 

able to recover a riparian area to its original condition in a short 

period of time and damage to fisheries and water quality varies 

with the event. 

Lands actions such as rights-of-way for linear actions 

(pipelines, roads, utilities) and other surface disturbing ac326
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

tions such as well pads, etc., can adversely affect watershed 

resources, riparian areas, and fisheries. This is because of the 

increased erosion and sedimentation from surface disturbance. Aquatic habitats are not suitable for disposal unless 

opportunities exist for land exchange for lands of equal or 

better value (functional and dollar value). Functional value of 

these resources would be determined by the appropriate 

wildlife, fisheries, and watershed personnel. In an exchange 

there should be no impact (positive or negative) unless it 

allowed for better management of the resource. In this 

circumstance the impact would be positive. 

Water diversions have had negative impacts to fisheries 

and fish habitat in the past. In some cases, streams have been 

completely dewatered for periods of time rendering the stream 

unusable as fish habitat and in some cases making the riparian 

area non-functional. There are no plans for new diversions in 

the future but should proposals be presented they would of 

necessity take into consideration the functionality of the 

stream, riparian area and associated fisheries habitat. 

Rights-of-way concentration areas and avoidance areas 

would be identified that would minimize the impacts to a 

larger area. This should serve to decrease erosion and other 

impacts to sensitive resources. Areas identified for withdrawal from mineral development would also benefit aquatic 

areas by increasing the acreage prohibited from that type of 

surface disturbance. Streams in withdrawal areas would be 

protected from placer mining. Increased emphasis on proper 

planning of access to public lands would provide for decreased erosion and sedimentation to rivers, streams and 

riparian areas. 

Fisheries are directly affected by the condition of riparian 

areas. Please refer to the Riparian/Wetland section under 

Vegetation Management in this chapter. Riparian condition 

influences the water quality and instream habitat. Not only are 

the fisheries affected within the boundary of the JMH but 

downstream as well, especially with respect to sedimentation 

effects in the Big Sandy River. As riparian condition declines, 

so to does fish habitat quality. 

The RMP removed AUMs for grazing from special management exclosures. This should allow for the maintenance of 

the riparian area in the upper 4 exclosures (hay meadow) on 

Pacific Creek and maintain the fish habitat for trout. Managing these exclosures for the maintenance of suitable riparian 

and instream fish habitat would allow for the continuation and 

expansion of a fishable salmonid population. Implementation 

of Standards and Guidelines appropriate actions should benefit fisheries and fish habitat in and for the long term. 

The impacts under this alternative may not provide as 

quick of a recovery for degraded riparian areas and fish habitat 

as in Alternative B, although it would still occur. Implementation of livestock grazing standards and appropriate actions 

would be sufficient to recover degraded riparian areas, maintain or improve fishery habitat and improve water quality. 

Ponds for livestock watering could be installed where 

appropriate and allowable but there probably would not be as 

many as Alternative A. Water depletion effects to the endangered Colorado River fishes outside the project area are 

covered in the Green River RMP (see also Alternative A). 

Under this alternative it is assumed that 85 wells would be 

drilled in the Reasonable Foreseeable Development scenario 

(RFD). This would mean there would be up to 2,100 acres of 

surface disturbance. This amount of disturbance would only 

have a minimal impact if stringent mitigation measures were 

followed (as described in the RMP and the No Action Alternative in Chapter 2). Again, transportation planning within 

the area would serve to limit or mitigate the impacts to streams 

and riparian areas as would directional drilling (decreases the 

number of pads) and other possible mitigation measures (NSO 

and CSU stipulations, etc.). 

Additionally, the drilling of these wells would require local 

water sources for drilling and completion. Water depletions 

are important because the water from portions of the planning 

area is part of the habitat for endangered fish 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 been part of the surface flows of the 

Colorado River or Platte River, respectively, or of its tributaries (though that would not always be the case). The estimate 

for the amount of water needed to drill and complete each well 

is 2.0 acre-feet. Of the 85 wells in this alternative, 15 are 

shallow coalbed methane (described below), 5 are deep coalbed 

methane wells located entirely within the Great Divide Basin 

(Red Desert), and the remaining 65 are standard deep gas 

wells. For these 65 wells it is estimated that 75 percent would 

be within the Green River Basin, 23 percent would be within 

the Great Divide Basin (Red Desert), and 2 percent would be 

within the Sweetwater River drainage (Platte River). Water 

use for these 65 wells would total 130 acre-feet in 20 years or 

6.5 acre-feet/year. This would total 4.9 acre-feet/year in the 

Colorado River drainage and 0.13 acre-feet/year in the Platte 

River drainage. 

There are 15 coalbed methane wells that may be drilled on 

existing leases within the planning area within the next 3 to 5 

years. These are shallow wells (around 900 to 1,000 feet) that 

would be drilled in close proximity to each other in the sand 

dunes area (all within the Colorado River drainage). Drilling 

these at 5 wells per year would add approximately 2.5 acrefeet of depletion to the above total (shallow wells would use 

an estimated 0.5 acre-feet each) during the years they are 

drilled. Since they are to be drilled in a short time frame, their 

water use is not averaged out over the 20-year implementation 

of the JMH plan. The effect on surface waters in the Colorado 

River drainage created by water extraction from the aquifer in 

the process of coalbed methane production is unknown at this 

time. At the time of implementation of these wells that 

information would have to be provided so that adequate 

mitigation measures could be applied, if any are needed. (At 

the time the first well is drilled, it may provide sufficient 

“produced water” to drill all the rest of the wells.) 

The depletion of water from the Colorado River drainage 

and its effect on threatened and endangered fish species 

downstream is described in the Green River RMP Record of 

Decision (see page 209, USDI 1997) and the Biological 

Assessment (Appendix 11) for this document. 

327
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Hard rock mining (locatables) could pose significant threats 

to aquatic resources, especially when involving dredging or 

placer mining. The highest potential for this type of activity 

is in the Oregon Gulch area. Although there is no commercial 

activity anticipated at this time there is active prospecting in 

the area with the potential to create accelerated erosion. Fish 

habitats in the areas that are proposed for withdrawal would be 

protected from degredation, destruction, and sedimentation, 

and not be subject to impacts from this activity. 

Surface disturbances can cause increased erosion and 

sedimentation in riparian areas and streams. Fisheries are 

directly affected by the condition of the riparian area as 

described under Livestock impacts. Portions of the core area 

and big game migration corridor areas would be closed to 

leasing; this would protect streams in those areas from any 

new surface disturbances due to drilling. 

Demand for other types of mineral development (salables) 

such as gravel pits, etc., would increase with gas development 

but these areas would be located away from riparian areas and 

streams and should have negligible impact to these resources. 

No coal or sodium extraction is expected, thus no impacts 

are anticipated. Effects from exploration activities would be 

minimal. Geophysical activities currently have sufficient 

protective stipulations in the Green River RMP to eliminate 

impacts to riparian areas and streams (fisheries). 

No impacts are expected from off road vehicles under 

current management. ORVs do cause significant localized 

damage to wetlands and riparian areas when operated outside 

of management prescriptions (i.e., existing roads and trails, 

designated roads and trails, and closed areas). Industry 

personnel predict a four-fold increase in “4-wheeler” sales in 

the next 5 years and additional negative impacts may occur if 

that holds true. 

Outdoor recreation centered around water bodies can affect bank stability along lakes and streams. Lack of channel 

stability can affect the stability of the riparian zone on which 

most camping and other activities occur. Compaction and or 

loss of the riparian area greatly reduces streambank stability 

which in turn increases sediment, salt, and phosphate loads. 

The protective measures in place in the Green River RMP 

for special status plant species would only have positive 

benefits to riparian areas and fisheries. There are no T&E fish 

species within the planning area; however, any actions to 

benefit these species would also be of benefit to riparian areas. 

Water depletion in the Colorado River system affects habitat 

for T&E fish species downstream of the planning area. Information on this can be found in the Biological Assessment and 

is covered in the Green River RMP Record of Decision, 

October 1997 (see page 209; USDI 1997). 

Types of vegetation manipulation other than fire (chemical 

and mechanical) would have similar impacts as fire management. Generally, riparian areas are buffered by 100 feet or so 

to help offset the short-term increase in erosion. Long-term 

benefits are expected if management and mitigation stipulations are followed as prescribed in the Green River RMP. 

Since the minimum acceptable condition for riparian areas 

is Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), and most of this 

planning area is not in this condition, increased attention to 

this could only benefit riparian areas and subsequently fisheries. 

Weed management activities could have positive or negative effects. Positive effects would occur by decreasing 

competition with riparian plants as long as key riparian plants 

are not accidentally targeted. Adverse effects could occur if 

chemicals used for treatment are introduced into the water. 

Generally a buffer zone away from surface waters is used 

when chemicals are applied. Biological or mechanical methods of weed control usually have no long-term adverse effect. 

Adequate protection and stipulations are present in the Green 

River RMP. 

There is no impact anticipated from visual management 

activities. 

Most watershed/water quality management related activities are aimed at restoration and enhancement of watersheds, 

including riparian areas. These activities generally are a 

positive benefit to riparian areas and fisheries. Negative 

impacts, if they occur, usually come as a result of inadequate 

design of dams or instream structures, or other watershed 

practice. No specific activities of this nature are planned 

currently, but site specific stipulations would be developed 

and applied if they should occur. 

As stated in other sections, the 500-foot buffer from the 

edge of riparian areas, wetlands, and 100-year floodplains 

applies to surface disturbing activities unless specifically 

designed and mitigated to benefit these areas. All other 

management stipulations as developed in the Green River 

RMP apply. This should result in positive impacts instead of 

negative. 

No negative impacts are anticipated from wild horses with 

management under the Green River RMP. If horse population 

objectives are exceeded, then negative impacts to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat would occur. 

Only positive long-term benefits are anticipated from 

wildlife management activities. Prescribed fire impacts to 

benefit watershed, vegetation, and habitat are described in the 

other sections. There are no specific fisheries activities 

planned in the planning area. Stipulations to protect and 

enhance wildlife habitat includes riparian areas and streams 

and result in positive impacts (e.g., increased plant species 

diversity and age structure, increased density, better production, decreased erosion, runoff and sedimentation, more available habitat, better water quality, etc.). 

All other management actions and restrictions developed 

in the Green River RMP apply. This should result in positive 

impacts for riparian areas and fisheries. The four hay meadow 

exclosures on Pacific Creek would be managed for salmonids 

which would benefit fisheries. 

Core Area 

Closing portions of the core area to surface disturbing 

activities, oil and gas leasing, and other activities would 

reduce the negative effects of fragmenting habitat and displacing animals, and provide protection for some of the most 

328
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

crucial habitat, particularly elk and mule deer wintering and 

parturition areas. It would also provide the wildlife with some 

amount of refuge from the disturbance caused by increased 

road density and use by industry and recreationists. 

The impacts to fisheries in the core area would be the same 

as described under the general impacts for the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Management actions under this Alternative would result in 

fewer adverse impacts to wildlife habitats than the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative A but more than Alternative B. 

Developments and human presence would continue to 

remove and fragment wildlife habitats to some degree. Demands on public lands from recreationists would continue to 

increase, resulting in less un-occupied and undisturbed habitats and more access into crucial habitats which would increase displacement over the long term, but to a smaller degree 

than would occur under Alternative A. 

Seasonal constraints would be used to mitigate impacts to 

wildlife from human activities during crucial periods and 

provide short-term protection for wildlife. Long-term maintenance and operations activity in crucial wildlife habitats 

would continue to cause displacement of wildlife from crucial 

habitats, including disruption of nesting, fawning and calving 

areas, and crucial big game winter habitats. Increased access 

for recreationists due to development of new roads, especially 

all-weather roads that provide year-round access, would magnify the negative impacts to wildlife and their habitats for the 

life of the project. These impacts would be reduced by 

establishing road density limits for all-weather roads through 

transportation planning and closing 37,240 acres to leasing 

and 56,040 acres to surface occupancy. When added to 

nondiscretionary leasing closures, about 120,240 acres would 

be closed to leasing and development activity. 

Surface disturbing activities would continue to cause longterm losses of wildlife habitat. Overall, less acreage would be 

disturbed than under the No Action Alternative and Alternative A. 

Adverse impacts to crucial wildlife habitats (e.g., riparian 

areas, crucial winter ranges, parturition areas, game bird 

winter concentration areas, etc.) from livestock grazing would 

greatly increase if all current nonuse AUMs were activated. 

These adverse impacts would be severe in crucial winter 

ranges where other commodity uses such as mining or oil and 

gas development is taking place. Placement of livestock into 

these crucial habitats or concentrating livestock in crucial 

habitats where vegetation has been decreased due to commodity development would result in less forage available for big 

game animals during winter periods. This would be especially 

critical in severe winters. Not developing livestock water in 

crucial habitats or within 1.5 miles of sage grouse leks (in 

addition to the 1/4-mile closure for the lek itself) would 

benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat. Removal of forage in 

these crucial habitats from livestock water development would 

then not occur. These impacts could be further reduced 

through implementation of new AMPs and/or revision of 

management in old AMPs to include riparian objectives, and 

implementation of actions associated with standards and 

guidelines assessments. 

Limiting livestock use to 40 percent on upland key species, 

30 percent on key riparian shrub species, and 40 percent (or 6-

inch height) on riparian herbaceous species would further 

benefit wildlife use of riparian areas. 

Potential exists for minor impacts to the migrational capabilities of the Sublette antelope herd. Fragmentation of habitat 

areas and displacement from existing migration corridors due 

to roads and activity would have the greatest effect. This 

could be especially significant when winter conditions are 

extremely severe (similar to the winters of 1978 and 1983). 

Conducting a resource evaluation and ensuring that leasing 

and development meet the resource objectives of maintaining 

habitat should minimize these adverse effects. 

Management prescriptions for wildlife resources, watershed, visual resources, and off-road vehicle use would provide 

long-term benefits to wildlife populations and habitats. Fire 

(natural or prescribed) would result in a short-term loss of 

habitat, but would benefit habitat in the long run if it results in 

a detailed mosaic burn pattern. Fires (natural or prescribed) 

resulting in a more solid pattern burn could result in long- term 

(15-25 years) negative impacts to wildlife. Fire could result 

in a long-term loss of habitat and could be considered an 

unavoidable adverse impact to the habitat if livestock graze 

the burned area immediately after the fire. 

Surface mining can result in an irreversible irretrievable 

loss of wetlands and springs, and although mitigation occurs, 

the original site is lost. Withdrawal of some of these areas 

would reduce this effect. Major road development also results 

in irretrievable losses of habitat as they are generally permanent structures; however, transportation planning would reduce these effects. 

Habitat fragmentation, particularly for big game, would 

occur in some areas, especially in areas with many access 

roads and surface disturbances. Transportation routes tend to 

dissect habitats and can act as barriers to some species, 

especially in severe winter conditions. This can also increase 

the accessibility to the general public into areas that have 

previously been somewhat inaccessible to vehicles. This 

would become more important and increase adverse effects to 

wildlife as increased demands for use of public lands occur. 

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. This could diminish the ability to maintain current 

population objectives for big game species. Again, transportation planning and the establishment of road density limitations in some crucial habitats would help to reduce this overall 

effect. 

Managing wildlife habitat to prevent fragmentation and 

allow continued use and access to crucial habitats through 

evaluation, timing and sequencing of activities would also 

reduce adverse effects. 

329
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A summary of impacts to the individual species that may be 

affected by actions in the planning area follows. 

Impacts to wintering antelope and antelope migration 

would be minimized under this alternative. 

The Steamboat elk herd is very susceptible to displacement 

by human activities because of the lack of hiding and escape 

cover. Continued development proposals and other permanent uses in the Steamboat Mountain, Essex Mountain, and 

Jack Morrow Hills areas would affect this herd. Some 

displacement of elk would still occur; however, total abandonment of habitats, especially key habitat in the core, should 

not occur. Road construction and increased access into 

remote areas would also increase use by the general public 

adding to the adverse impacts to this desert elk herd. Mitigation such as remote or off-site facility placement, and seasonally restricting human activity to reduce access and traffic in 

crucial habitat and calving areas is critical to reducing adverse 

effects. 

Studies have shown that there is direct competition for 

forage between mule deer and cattle for saltbush and winterfat 

on crucial winter range. Although use by cattle generally 

occurs in the spring or summer months, low plant vigor has 

generally resulted in little regrowth which makes these preferred vegetation types unavailable during winter months. 

Studies have also shown that sagebrush makes up a large 

component of the deer’s winter diet; however, this does not 

mean deer prefer it over other shrub species such as serviceberry, mountain mahogany, and bitterbrush. Control of wildfire is largely responsible for the loss of key shrub species and 

the even-aged condition of sagebrush communities. 

Increasing amounts of vegetation removal in crucial winter 

range by development activity compounds the problem of 

poor crucial winter range condition. Although many acres are 

returned to production by reclamation practices, almost all of 

this acreage contains forage either unusable by deer or of a 

different composition that may not provide the same nutritional benefits as the original forage. Shrubs planted during 

reclamation may take many years to return these habitats to a 

condition that provides usable forage for the deer. Loss of 

vegetation due to development activities has resulted in a 

reduction in available habitat and can result in increasing 

competition between livestock and wildlife for remaining 

vegetation. Oil and gas and other developments (pipelines, 

powerlines) also result in decreased opportunities to use fire 

as a treatment tool to rejuvenate decadent plant communities, 

due to safety concerns. 

Although mule deer are probably more tolerant of human 

activities than elk and impacts would be reduced in this 

alternative, it is still unlikely the population objective for this 

herd could be met. The habitat at this time is not capable of 

achieving the population objective for this herd, with the 

development that is occurring in this portion of the herd area. 

Also, because this herd area is predominantly a desert type 

environment, areas for good fawn rearing are very limited. 

Direct competition between elk and deer for these parturition 

and winter use areas is probably more prevalent here than in 

most herd areas. Therefore the capability of the habitat to 

meet the objectives for this herd could be affected. 

With the management proposed in this alternative, the 

effects from surface disturbing and disrupting activities would 

be minimized; however, with the competition between deer 

and elk and the activity and uses already occurring in the area, 

population objectives may still not be met. 

Fisheries 

Assumptions under this alternative require very stringent 

mitigation measures and “tools” to be applied that protect and/ 

or correct adverse conditions in riparian/wetland areas (and 

thus fishery habitat). Progress in reversing downward trends 

and achieving the Desired Plant Community objectives would 

be expected to be very rapid. 

Withdrawal from mineral entry leasing eliminates impacts 

to those areas from mining claim activity. The stringent 

mitigation measures and guidelines that are assumed in this 

alternative for all other activities would allow riparian/wetland areas to recover or reach Desired Plant Community 

objectives very rapidly. 

Special Management Areas 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC and Special Recreation Management Area 

In the western portion, there may be residual adverse 

impacts to the dunal ponds or “flockets” from livestock 

grazing. The Preferred Alternative may restrict water development in over half of the planning area and in part of the 

grazing allotment in this area. Livestock would need to water 

somewhere which may increase use on the dunal ponds. This 

could be a significant impact if this use impairs the wilderness 

suitability of the area. Range management practices such as 

herding may need to intensify to move cows off these areas. 

In the eastern portion, management prescriptions and restrictions would be designed to preserve and protect the 

geological, cultural, visual, and wildlife values associated 

with the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC. Implementation of the 

prescribed measures would reduce or minimize impacts associated with mineral development, lands actions, and off-road 

vehicle use. Residual impacts include: 

Displacement of wildlife, predominantly elk and deer, 

would occur through off-road vehicle activity and oil and gas 

activities. Displacement from off-road vehicle activity would 

be most prevalent during the summer and fall. Displacement 

from oil and gas activity would be year round. 

Loss of vegetation on stable dunes would potentially occur 

through development of oil and gas reserves and through 

facilities associated with oil and gas. Ten to 15 coalbed 

methane wells could be drilled on existing leases. In the 

process of coalbed methane production, large volumes of 

water are pumped from the aquifer at that level. It is unknown 

at this time if the aquifer at this level is directly connected to 

the surface water in the dunal ponds and wet meadows. If it 

is, there may be an adverse effect of drying up the riparian 

areas. This would not only affect the riparian plants but all of 

the wildlife that depends on those plants, insects, and surface 

water. 

330
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Ten (10) to 15 coalbed methane wells has the potential to 

adversely affect the scenic quality of the area. Ten (10) to 15 

new wells and the associated facilities could jeopardize the 

VRM class II management rating of the area. As more oil and 

gas development occurs, more effects to visual quality would 

occur. Mitigation efforts should intensify such as screening 

structures, use of environmentally acceptable colors on facilities, requiring off site faculties, placing pipelines and roads in 

existing right-of-ways, etc. Adverse effects would occur to oil 

and gas operations due to increased costs and lost drilling 

opportunities. 

As development of the coalbed methane wells occur, BLM 

would monitor the health and safety issues associated with 

increase development in the ORV open area. Efforts would be 

made to mitigate hazards by working with industry to notify 

the ORV users of the location of hazards. Efforts would be 

made not to reduce the size of the open area, but that would be 

dictated by the level of new development. Surface facilities 

(e.g., pipelines, snow fencing, etc.) would create safety hazards to the off-road vehicle users. If the open area is reduced 

in size to 5,500 acres because of coalbed methane development this would be considered a significant adverse impact to 

the off-road vehicle program and the objective of the Special 

Recreation Management Area. 

Dune ponds and related riparian habitat would continue to 

be affected by livestock and wildlife use. 

The relatively pristine portion of the eastern area of the 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC that has no development, including the base of Steamboat Rim, would be managed to protect 

big game habitat, vegetation communities, visual, and recreational resources. 

Benefits that would be realized through the management 

prescriptions and restrictions include the protection of sensitive cultural resource sites, such as Crookston Ranch, and the 

protection of the Native American religious and important 

geological values associated with the Sand Dunes and the 

Boars Tusk, and about 23,980 acres closed to coal exploration. 

Additional benefits would occur by expanding the Sand 

Dunes ORV parking area to accommodate the larger number 

of users using the area and providing user friendly facilities. 

Rights-of-way would avoid the ACEC which would reduce 

the effects of rights-of-way construction. Due to the shifting 

nature of the sand, pipelines in particular could become a 

hazard to recreation users as pipelines tend to become exposed. Impacts would be reduced through right-of-way 

avoidance. 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

Portions of the ACEC would be open to further consideration for oil and gas leasing and development provided adequate habitat and protection of sensitive resource values 

could be provided. This would benefit these resource values, 

however, costs of oil and gas operations would increase. 

Timing and sequencing of federal oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development may be required. Without specific 

mitigation such as remote monitoring, pad drilling, directional drilling, and centralized tank batteries the areas where 

activity occurs would be lost to elk use for the life of the 

activity. 

Limitations on leasing would greatly enhance efforts to 

manage heritage resources of all kinds, and especially respected areas identified by Native American traditional elders. Case-by-case evaluation of areas for future leasing, and 

leasing with stipulations such as NSO would somewhat enhance BLM’s ability to protect some kinds heritage resource 

values, especially respected areas identified by Native American traditional elders. 

Additional prescriptions applied to development activities 

on existing leases would somewhat enhance BLM’s ability to 

manage and protect all kinds of heritage resources, and 

especially areas identified as respected places by Native 

American traditional elders. Case-by-case consultation with 

Native American traditional elders would allow for enhanced 

protection of respected places. Additional consultation would 

likely enhance communication between BLM managers and 

Native American representatives, and BLM sensitivity to 

Native American resource protection needs. 

Following the transportation plan and placing pipelines 

and other linear facilities above ground next to or in road 

corridors would be key to minimize effects to wildlife habitat 

and other management objectives. Other important mitigating measures would be locating operations next to the Freighter 

Gap County Road to minimize impacts from human disturbance in parturition and crucial winter periods. Not connecting roads and allowing pipelines and other linear facilities 

from Steamboat Rim down LaFonte and Johnson Canyons 

would minimize fragmenting habitats and protect parturition 

and crucial winter grounds. 

New road development due to industry may directly increase use by recreationists and other public land users, 

increasing the amount of human presence and the potential for 

harassment of wildlife in the area. Very limited activity 

currently occurs in the area from November to June due to the 

lack of access and lack of snow removal. To protect wintering 

wildlife, roads would not be plowed. Over-the-snow vehicles 

would be required to access well locations to minimize stress 

to the animal during crucial periods. 

Maintaining closure of Steamboat Mountain ACEC to 

communication sites would significantly enhance efforts to 

manage heritage resources, especially Native American respected places. 

NSO requirements, seasonal restrictions and CSU constraints on additional acres would significantly enhance BLM’s 

efforts to manage and protect heritage resources of all kinds. 

These prescriptions also benefit management of other sensitive resources. 

Retaining the 16,000-acre off-road vehicle seasonal closure on Steamboat Mountain would benefit deer and elk 

populations by reducing or eliminating human disturbance 

during birthing periods. Limiting ORV traffic to designated 

roads and trails would significantly enhance BLM efforts to 

manage and protect heritage resources of all kinds. 

331
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Closing a smaller area to material sales than that closed in 

the No Action Alternative would slightly diminish BLM’s 

ability to manage and protect heritage resources of all kinds. 

Coal exploration activities would not appreciably affect BLM 

efforts to manage ACEC values. Pursuing mineral withdrawals on portions of Steamboat Mountain would benefit numerous wildlife species and cultural resources. 

Livestock management would in the long term generally 

enhance efforts to manage wildlife resources and heritage 

resources of all kinds. However, short-term impacts would 

occur, particularly in riparian areas. 

Managing the area for VRM class II values would mitigate 

some adverse effects from development and help retain the 

relevant and important ACEC value which include wildlife 

and cultural resource values. 

Not expanding the wild horse herd management area 

would somewhat diminish BLM’s ability to manage heritage 

values associated with this resource which have been identified by Native Americans and others. 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC 

Requiring proposed communication sites on Pacific Butte 

to conform with prescriptions in place for the South Pass 

Historic Landscape would enhance BLM efforts to manage 

and protect certain classes of heritage resources, especially 

the South Pass Historic Landscape viewshed. Additionally, 

the Green River RMP and other management document 

prescriptions would significantly enhance BLM efforts to 

manage and protect heritage resources of all kinds. 

A complete assessment of the amount of exploration and 

development activity that could occur if restrictions were not 

in place can not be made. This is because very little is now 

known about the specific details about prospective locations 

of oil and gas traps in the area. An unknown number of 

potential drilling locations would not be available due to the 

proposed no surface occupancy restrictions in part of the 

ACEC. Extra drilling and development costs would be 

required to meet restrictions placed on activity in this area. 

Extra costs would include relocating well pads; redesigning 

access routes, well pads, and production facilities; and 

directionally drilling some wells to reach potential reservoirs 

from off-site locations. Impacts from leasing restrictions 

could be significant if future analysis indicates no surface 

occupancy areas have high exploratory drilling potential. 

White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC 

Management actions would protect the rock art and surrounding 500 acres which would address Native American 

traditional cultural and religious concerns. No development 

would be allowed unless it were for the benefit of the cultural 

resource. Long-term benefits would be realized by restricting 

any activity that could degrade the site. Benefits would also 

be provided to the public and especially the local communities 

through the educational opportunities provided by the area. 

Unauthorized uses could damage rock art and impact area 

values. No impacts would occur to oil and gas development 

due to protecting this small area. Any development activity 

that may occur could easily avoid this area. Preparing a 

recreation project plan would provide further protection of the 

petroglyph resources. 

Red Desert Watershed Area 

Livestock water developments would not be constructed in 

portions of the Red Desert Watershed Area that contain the 

core, connectivity areas, or big game winter ranges. This 

would reduce the effects of livestock water development 

construction and livestock use of the immediate and surrounding area. However, this would limit the use of such developments as a grazing management tool would could adversely 

affect livestock operations. 

Portions of the core, connectivity areas, and the Split Rock 

area would be closed to fluid mineral leasing to protect 

important wildlife values. This would adversely affect oil and 

gas operations. 

Geophysical activities in sensitive areas would be limited 

and measures would be applied to protect sensitive resources 

(timing limitations, avoidance, restrictions on vehicle use and 

explosive charges, etc.). In areas closed to surface disturbing 

activities, the core area, and sensitive areas, activity could 

occur on existing roads and trails in conformance with transportation planning. 

Mineral material sales would not be allowed in big sagebrush/scurfpea vegetation communities which would protect 

this important habitat. 

Important wildlife habitat in the core, connectivity areas, 

and big game crucial winter ranges would be protected by 

establishing road densities for all weather roads. 

No surface occupancy restrictions would benefit the special status plant species found on Bush Rim. 

The Red Desert Watershed Area would be managed for 

Class II and III VRM values which would help maintain the 

area’s vast open space. 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Cultural And Paleontological Impacts 

Analysis 

Impacts on cultural resources from air quality management, fire management, hazardous material management, 

monitoring and reclamation practices, off-road and recreation 

uses, special status species management, vegetation management, and wild horses would be the same as described for the 

Preferred Alternative. 

While it is relatively easy to avoid affecting many kinds of 

archaeological and historical sites it can be considerably more 

difficult to avoid effects to respected places. Consultation has 

taken place with traditional elders concerning several specific 

localities, and more generically concerning respected places 

in general. Traditional elders have made suggestions concerning avoidance of respected places. Viewshed is an 

important component of many respected places and efforts 

would be made to protect visual resources associated with 

332
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

respected places. While it may not always be possible to avoid 

all effects to respected places, the BLM would follow an 

orderly process of consultation with traditional elders, as well 

as with the Wyoming SHPO and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation to arrive at the best alternative for 

managing all kinds of heritage resources on BLM lands. 

The procedures for complying with the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and the Wyoming Protocol to the BLM 

National Programmatic Agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are designed to take these factors 

into account when managing resources that are considered 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places. Resources that are not eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places may still be important and require 

some level of management effort. 

The impact on cultural resources from lands and realty 

management would be similar to those described for the 

Preferred Alternative. Seasonal restrictions and other mitigative measures applied to lands and realty actions generally 

have beneficial effects to cultural resources by limiting or 

otherwise controlling surface disturbing activities. Special 

management prescriptions for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, such as the South Pass Historic Landscape and 

White Mountain Petroglyphs are generally protective in nature and tend to benefit cultural resources. 

Cultural resources in general would be somewhat vulnerable to damage from rights-of-ways, permits and leases in 

certain areas including Indian Gap, Monument Ridge, White 

Mountain, and the face of Steamboat Mountain. Areas identified as respected places by Native Americans, and the 

surrounding terrain could suffer from surface disturbing activities. The negative effects of these changes in the landscape 

could be somewhat, but probably not totally, mitigated. 

Withdrawals prescribed in the Green River RMP would 

slightly enhance efforts to protect heritage resources of all 

kinds. Locatable mineral development has a potential to 

impact efforts to manage heritage resources; this is especially 

so with regard to South Pass Historic Landscape and Native 

American respected areas. 

Access acquisition prescribed in the Green River RMP 

would slightly improve efforts to manage heritage resources 

of all kinds. 

Dispersed livestock grazing generally is fairly benign so 

far as impacts to cultural resources are concerned. Severe 

overgrazing can accelerate erosion and thus destroy the soil 

matrix in which archaeological resources are situated. Overgrazing could also adversely affect places such as the South 

Pass Historic Landscape by drastically changing the vegetative component of the viewshed. However, grazing within 

regulated limits usually would not adversely affect cultural 

resources. 

Managing water for livestock operations can affect cultural resources. Spring improvements and construction of 

reservoirs can destroy archaeological resources because they 

disturb the soil matrix in which they are situated. Effects from 

construction of new livestock improvement facilities, such as 

reservoirs and spring improvements, would not occur, which 

would benefit cultural resources. Generally, spring developments tend to be more detrimental than other kinds of water 

developments because the water source was often attractive to 

prehistoric and historic inhabitants of the region. Conversely, 

reservoirs are usually situated in drainage bottoms that tend to 

have been disturbed by alluvial action and are less likely to 

have soil deposits that could harbor intact archaeological 

materials. 

Piping water from springs generally is beneficial to cultural resources both because it protects the natural appearance 

and setting of the water source and because it prevents 

livestock trampling in the immediate area. However, trampling can be increased in localized areas around troughs, 

fences, water gates, saltblock placements and similar facilities 

that tend to concentrate livestock in small areas. This accelerated trampling can sometimes be detrimental to cultural 

resources. 

Livestock rubbing against rock art panels, and historic 

structures such as those at Crookston Ranch and the Rock 

Cabin could severely damage, or completely destroy those 

resources. 

Surface disturbances caused by mining, quarrying, construction of oil and gas well locations, pipelines and other 

mineral development related facilities can destroy archaeological and historical resources. They can also change important cultural resource settings such as South Pass Historic 

Landscape. Pre-authorization inventory and evaluation requirements usually allow facilities to be authorized in such a 

way as to avoid direct effects to cultural resources. However, 

inventory is not required prior to some mining operations 

conducted pursuant to the 1872 Mining Act. Sometimes these 

operations have the potential to destroy significant cultural 

resources. Occasionally, inventory fails to identify archaeological or historic resources which then become vulnerable to 

destruction by surface disturbing activities resulting from 

mineral development. 

In the planning area, the region of stabilized sand/silt sheet 

deposit north and west of White Mountain is especially 

vulnerable to this kind of impact because archaeological 

resources are known to be buried in the soil deposit with no 

surface expression. Surface disturbing activities in this area 

are especially prone to disturb buried archaeological sites. 

Furthermore, these kinds of sites as exemplified by the Finley 

and Krmpotich Sites are tremendously important to archaeological science. This is because those sites are very intact 

manifestations of some of the earliest cultures (e.g., Folsom, 

Goshen, et al.) in North America. The proximity of this region 

to the Pinedale Glaciation (the last of the great Pleistocene 

glacial advances) undoubtedly has some association with the 

preservation of these very ancient cultural materials in this 

area. Add to this the presence of skeletal remains of several 

species of extinct Pleistocene fauna (Bison bison antiquous 

and Camelops sp.), in the area and the tremendous scientific 

potential of the region becomes readily apparent. 

This (no action) alternative projects 89 new oil and gas 

wells within the planning area. Any wells and associated 

333
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

facilities within the area of stabilized sand/silt deposit, would 

have a high potential for development to impact extremely 

important archaeological resources. 

Native American respected places can be adversely affected by surface disturbances within viewsheds a considerable distance away from the actual religious site. This is 

especially the case if unusual landscape features such as Boars 

Tusk, North Table Mountain, and Steamboat Mountain are 

within the viewshed of the respected place. Similarly, the 

surrounding landscape is an important part of many Native 

American respected places such as White Mountain 

Petroglyphs and other rock art sites. This is because those 

sites may have been used, in part, for shamanistic purposes in 

which the setting of the site was as important as the site proper. 

These kinds of heritage resources differ from more typical 

archaeological and historical sites because of their sacredness 

to Native Americans, and also because adverse effects to them 

cannot be mitigated by the recovery of scientific information. 

If any of the 89 projected oil and gas wells in this alternative 

and their associated facilities are within the viewshed associated with these respected places, adverse effects to the sites 

would probably be unavoidable. 

There would be a slight potential for salable mineral 

development to adversely affect heritage resource values. 

Geophysical activities can sometimes be detrimental to 

cultural resources. However, pre-authorization inventory and 

avoidance can usually allow the geophysical operation to be 

conducted in such as way as to avoid affecting most kinds of 

cultural resources. However, special restrictions may be 

necessary in the area of stable sand/silt soils and around 

Native American respected places. Furthermore, requirements of the newly proposed four dimensional geophysical 

operations may make it much more difficult to avoid impacting all types of cultural resources. 

Geophysical operations would have a slight potential to 

impact heritage resources of all kinds. 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations would generally enhance protection of all kinds of heritage resources. 

Transportation planning would generally enhance efforts to 

protect heritage resources of all kinds. 

Visual resource management can have tremendous positive effects to cultural resources because it allows protection 

of viewsheds associated with historic resources such as South 

Pass Historic Landscape, and with sites of concern to Native 

American such as White Mountain Petroglyphs. Heritage 

resources with visual values such as some areas identified by 

Native American traditional elders as respected places are 

vulnerable to adverse effects by remaining within a VRM 

Class III status. 

Usually efforts to manage watershed and soils are very 

beneficial to cultural resources because they lessen erosion 

which can destroy both archaeological and historic sites. On 

rare occasions, treatments such as waterbars could damage 

cultural resources. This can easily be prevented by prior 

inventory and evaluation of cultural resources. 

Most wildlife management practices are either beneficial 

or benign to cultural resources. Generally, things like seasonal restrictions tend also to protect cultural resources to 

some degree. Fire manipulation practiced could have a 

negative effect on cultural resources in some cases (see Fire 

Management). The animal images at White Mountain 

Petroglyphs and other rock art sites in the region illustrate 

Native American concern for wildlife. Native American 

elders have expressed appreciation of BLM wildlife management efforts. 

Core Area 

Impacts on cultural resources from management of the 

following resources would be the same as described for the 

general impact discussion: air quality, cultural, fire, hazardous materials, land and realty, livestock grazing, transportation, vegetation, visuals, and wildlife. No additional development in the core would greatly enhance BLM’s ability to 

manage heritage resources. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Avoid effects to cultural resources is the BLM preferred 

method of managing cultural resources relative to other activities. There may be rare cases where it is not possible to avoid 

effecting cultural resources. In cases where the resource that 

would be effected is an archaeological site it may be possible 

to mitigate the adverse effect by retrieving a significant 

portion of the scientific data that the site contains. However, 

data recovery mitigation can be expensive and time consuming. Since data recovery would need to occur prior to 

activities that would destroy the archaeological resource in 

question this approach is usually an impediment development 

efforts. With two exceptions standard avoidance and mitigation strategies should result in little impact to most kinds of 

heritage resources under the no action alternative. 

The first exception is a region within the Jack Morrow Hills 

study area that is especially prone to having very significant 

archaeological resources which would be very costly and time 

consuming to mitigate. That area, called the Paleosol Deposition Area, would likely suffer much greater impacts than the 

remainder of the study area should development occur. The 

second exception is areas identified by Native American 

traditional elders as respected places. The viewshed surrounding these places is a critical component of the heritage 

resource. It would be difficult to avoid adverse effects to 

respected places if development activities are proposed under 

the no action alternative. 

Paleontological Impacts 

The type of direct and indirect impacts described in the 

Preferred Alternative are the same for all alternatives. The 

magnitude of the impacts under each alternative increases or 

decreases proportionally with the increase or decrease in 

surface disturbance and establishment of new roads. The 

projected development under the No Action Alternative would 

be greater in the general area compared to the Preferred 

Alternative and Alternative B but less when compared to 

334
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative A. Therefore, the magnitude of the impacts would 

be greater under the No Action Alternative than under the 

Preferred Alternative and Alternative B but not as great as 

would be anticipated under Alternative A. 

Under the No Action Alternative, known scientifically 

significant fossil sites would not be closed to surface disturbing activities. Failure to close these sites would increase the 

potential for the sites to be impacted. Under this alternative, 

preserving them for future study would not be assured. 

Core Area 

No new oil and gas or livestock project development would 

occur within the core area; therefore, the magnitude of the 

impacts would be the lowest of any alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The type of cumulative impacts described in the Preferred 

Alternative would be the same for the No Action Alternative. 

However, these impacts would be concentrated outside the 

core area, unlike any other alternative being analyzed. 

Fire Impacts 

The impacts to fire management activities would be the 

same as described for the Preferred Alternative except that 

fewer restrictions for resource protection would be applied to 

fire management activities. 

Lands Impacts 

Right-of-way holders would have some flexibility and 

opportunity for locating and routing rights-of-way under this 

alternative. However, right-of-way placement would be impacted by exclusion, avoidance, and no surface occupancy 

areas, and those areas with seasonal restrictions. 

The exclusion of rights-of-way within the South Pass 

Historic Landscape vista (about 23,640 acres) would have a 

major impact if activity should increase in this area since 

rights-of-way in exclusion areas would not be allowed unless 

mandated by law. Large avoidance areas would have a similar 

impact as avoidance of these areas may require a longer route 

which would affect other offsite areas and increase costs to the 

applicant. About 34 percent of the planning area would be an 

avoidance area for rights-of-way and about 5 percent would 

be excluded from rights-of-way activity. Additional mitigation may also be applied to activities that may occur in all 

avoidance areas, also increasing project costs and the amount 

of time needed to complete projects (Table 4-19). 

No surface occupancy areas (about 30,580 acres or 5 

percent of the planning area) preclude placement of rights-ofway because surface disturbing and disrupting activities are 

not allowed. Most of these areas are small and scattered 

throughout the planning area and can be easily avoided. Large 

areas with NSO restrictions have the same effect as large 

exclusion areas. 

Areas closed to communication site location (about 43,400 

acres) preclude placement of these types of facilities. If 

alternate locations cannot be found, this can cause gaps in 

communication signals and inefficient communication coverage of areas. 

Seasonal restrictions and other mitigation measures to 

protect resource values and threatened and endangered species (T&E) would impact rights-of-way by restricting location or timing of construction. 

The possibility of high dust levels resulting from use of 

unpaved access roads would necessitate stipulations to control dust. All construction rights-of-way as well as access road 

rights-of-way would include a stipulation requiring that the 

holder meet Federal and State air quality standards. 

Land tenure adjustments would occur only if the benefits 

outweigh any adverse impacts, and if there are no significant 

impacts which cannot be mitigated. About 4,721 acres have 

been identified as possibly suitable for disposal/acquisition.

 The withdrawal of lands identified in the RMP (about 

37,290 acres) would preclude disposal, entry, and mineral 

location in those areas (Table 4-20). Withdrawals for more 

than 5,000 acres would require notification of Congress. 

Existing withdrawals would be reviewed, and those which no 

longer serve the purpose for which they were withdrawn (oil 

shale and coal) would be revoked. These lands would then be 

open for disposal, entry, and mineral location. About 211,130 

acres would be open to mineral location that previously were 

not available for this activity. Potential for mining claim 

activity is low except in the South Pass Area. This action 

would benefit mining claimants by allowing mining claim 

activity on areas that were previously closed. 

There is adequate vehicle access on the existing roads and 

trails to the lands in the planning review area. Closing or 

restricting specific areas to protect public health and safety 

should not cause severe adverse effects to vehicle users 

because so much of the area is currently accessible and such 

closures would likely be few. Implementing the ORV designations would keep vehicles on designated routes which could 

result in traveling further to get to a destination, but should not 

preclude accessing an area. Foot and horse traffic would not 

be affected. 

Impacts to rights-of-way and other lands actions for the 

South Pass Historic Landscape would be the same as discussed in the general impact section. 

The impacts to rights-of-way for the Oregon Buttes and 

White Mountain PetroglyphsACECs would be the same as 

discussed for exclusion and areas with NSO restrictions. The 

impacts to other lands actions would be the same as discussed 

for the general area. 

Core Area 

Since no new activities would be allowed within the core 

area (80,410 acres), no new rights-of-way would be issued for 

actions within the core and activities would have to avoid the 

area. Large avoidance areas would require routing rights-ofway around the core area. This would affect other offsite areas 

and could increase costs to the applicant. Land tenure, 

withdrawal, and access impacts would be the same as described for the general area. 

335
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Impacts 

The combined actions of no new development in the core, 

about 189,000 acres of avoidance, much of it connecting, and 

about 27,120 acres of exclusion area (and about 43,400 

excluded from communication sites) would affect rights-ofway placement. Long linear rights-of-way particularly would 

be affected by potentially long reroutes increasing construction costs. 

Withdrawal of 37,290 acres would preclude disposal, 

entry, and mineral location. Revocation of 211,130 acres of 

oil shale and coal withdrawals would allow for entry and 

mineral location, and consideration of land disposal. No new 

development within the core area would result in no new rightof-way needs from within the core. 

Lands would be irreversibly lost to the public land base 

when sold or exchanged; however, under exchanges, lands of 

comparable value would be obtained. 

Livestock Grazing Impacts 

Impacts to livestock grazing from air quality management, 

cultural and paleontological management, healthy rangelands, livestock grazing suitability, wild horses, monitoring 

and reclamation practices, recreation and off-road vehicle 

use, special management area management, special status 

species management, threatened and endangered species 

management, weeds, wilderness management, xxxx would be 

the same as described in the Preferred Alternative. 

A total of 74 gas wells are predicted in this alternative and 

15 shallow coalbed methane wells. Considering the pads and 

associated roads, pipelines and other necessary disturbances 

the total acres of surface disturbance of about 2,300 acres 

(about 3.5 sections) seems minimal. However, three and one 

half sections of potential forage loss could result in minor 

livestock reductions over the life of the plan. The long-term 

acreage loss of about 380 acres would decrease the effects and 

would be minimal. 

Impacts to livestock from hard rock mining (locatables), 

gravel or other pits (salables), and coal, sodium, or oil shale 

exploration and development (leasables) would be the same as 

described in the Preferred Alternative. These activities would 

not pose a concern for livestock production and management. 

With the increase of production, the likelihood of a hazardous spill would increase over the Preferred Alternative. However, mitigation to contain and cleanup any spill or accident as 

soon as possible, should keep any effects minimal. 

Lands management, such as rights-of-way, would affect 

livestock the same as under the Preferred Alternative. Additionally, about 27,210 acres would be closed to rights-of-way 

which would benefit livestock by protecting available forage. 

Salting for distribution of livestock could require some 

effort in planning and proper placement but would aid in the 

distribution of forage utilization and reduce impacts to other 

resources such as wildlife, water quality, and riparian resources. Reduced distance restrictions from water and sensitive plant species would provide more management flexibility 

than under the Preferred Alternative. 

Vegetative treatments beneficial to wildlife would also be 

beneficial to livestock. Burning or using chemicals to reduce 

sagebrush would only increase the forage for both livestock 

and some species of wildlife; however, no new treatments for 

livestock under the No Action Alternative would adversely 

affect livestock management. 

No livestock management facilities would be developed. 

This would limit the number and type of management tools for 

livestock grazing management. 

Authorized grazing use would not exceed the recognized 

permitted use. For analysis purposes, anticipated actual use 

would range from approximately 13,038 AUMs (1998 base 

year usage) to the total permitted use of 26,032 AUMs. The 

average between the two amounts is 19,535 AUMs (17,379 

cattle and 2,156 sheep). Again, for analysis purposes, this 

grazing level was held constant throughout the planning 

period. 

Historically areas within the planning area have been used 

below their adjudicated levels of 26,032 AUMs. Average use 

from 1994 through 1998 have been 9,851 AUMs with an 

average non-use of 5,661 AUMs. 

Present classes of livestock grazing the planning area are 

broken down as 22,767 cattle AUMs and 3,265 sheep AUMs. 

Conversions from sheep to cattle have normally been granted 

until 1998. Under this alternative no changes in adjudicated 

permitted use would occur. Conversion in class would be 

analyzed. No new or additional impacts to livestock grazing 

are expected under the No Action Alternative. 

The current season of use would continue. The current 

permits have the grazing period from May 1 through December 31 of each year. Seasons of use vary from allotment to 

allotment. No impact to livestock grazing from changes in 

season of use is expected for this alternative. 

Grazing plans would be prepared as necessary and would 

address riparian desired plant community objectives and 

proper functioning condition. All plans would be developed 

with guidelines in all aspects of multiple use and rangeland 

management. All plans would be in accordance with the 

Green River Resource Management Plan and any other relative plans. 

New riparian pastures would not be established which 

could limit management options in the grazing plans, reducing management flexibility. 

Livestock grazing would not be adversely affected by the 

continued utilization limits set at 50 percent for upland and 

riparian species. Except for riparian areas, most of the area has 

been grazed at these levels for several decades. Generally, 

vegetation monitoring in the planning area has shown either 

an increase in production of vegetation on uplands and static 

to downward trends in riparian vegetation depending on 

allotment or area. Some areas have been rested for a period of 

5 years due to regulatory actions which may have contributed 

to an increase in production. These areas show little or no use 

336
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

and the increased production has in most cases helped the 

health of the rangeland. Other areas where problems exist 

would continue to see overutilization and unsatisfactory vegetative condition. 

An increase in water developments could help in controlling livestock, making available previously unused livestock 

forage. Not developing water sources in the area would 

decrease management options for providing improved distribution through water availability. Existing waters would 

continue to be used, concentrating livestock for long periods, 

and may result in overutilization. Management options for 

meeting standards and guidelines and taking appropriate 

action could also be adversely affected. Use of forage in other 

areas may be necessary to mitigate overuse of certain riparian 

areas. 

Livestock would be affected by riparian/wetlands management due to potential loss of watering sources and/or limitations on duration of grazing. Livestock have the potential to 

degrade these systems if not moved to other locations. These 

locations would need additional off-site watering sources to 

accommodate the needs of livestock. If a riparian area or 

wetland is used to the utilization limits addressed under the 

livestock grazing management section of this document, 

livestock would either be moved to another area or have the 

potential to be removed from the allotment before the grazing 

season is over. This could result in an economic impact to the 

livestock operators. 

With no development of reservoirs, pipelines and other 

water improvements, livestock would continue to concentrate 

in the riparian and wetland areas. Impacts would continue 

until utilization levels are reached, and livestock would be 

removed. Water hauling would help improve livestock distribution. 

For a detailed socioeconomic impacts discussion of the 

livestock industry, see Socioeconomic Impacts. Under the No 

Action Alternative, 347,580 cattle AUMs and 43,120 sheep 

AUMs would be available for livestock grazing during the 20-

year life of the project. The total economic impact of livestock 

grazing would be $24.4 million. Employment in the livestock 

sector would be 274 annual job equivalents earning $16,373 

average per year. The AUMs of livestock grazing are 92 

percent of the No Action Alternative. AUMs available for 

livestock grazing on an annual basis under the Preferred 

Alternative represent an increase over the baseline year 1998 

and the 5-year average of 1994-1998. 

A lack of transportation planning could adversely affect 

livestock grazing activity through surface disturbance removing more forage. 

Wild horses would not affect livestock grazing activities. 

Under the No Action Alternative, wildlife habitat management would not affect livestock grazing patterns or distribution. Maintaining renewable resources for wildlife habitat 

would affect livestock operations in the short term. An 

increase in production of grasses is expected causing increased forage and distribution of livestock. 

Distribution patterns may be affected by watering areas 

such as wells, pipelines, reservoirs, etc., and the inability to 

develop new water sources. 

Management actions for species such as mountain plovers 

or special status species should not affect livestock grazing. 

The habitats for these species do not conflict with livestock 

grazing use. 

Sage grouse need a stubble height of at least 8 inches for 

nesting and brood-rearing cover. Maintaining this minimum 

stubble height could impact livestock grazing operations. 

Elk would only compete with livestock for forage. This 

could result in competition for forage. Both elk and cattle 

generally diets overlap. 

Core Area 

Impacts to livestock grazing in the core area would be the 

same as described in the general impact discussion. In 

particular, surface use constraints and management practices 

precluding construction of rangeland improvements may prevent improvement of livestock distribution patterns. This 

would affect the Pacific Creek, Steamboat Mountain, Sands, 

Bush Rim, and Fourth of July allotments. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Actions taken under this alternative could result in a shortterm reduction in use as the area and time available for grazing 

would be limited. This potential impact would be greater than 

Alternative A, but less than the Preferred Alternative and 

Alternative B. The projected increase in forage production 

could help to offset this loss in the long term. 

Minerals Impacts 

Leasables - Oil and Gas and Coalbed Methane 

Resources 

Oil and gas and coalbed methane development would be 

restricted or prohibited as the result of conflicts with environmentally related resource values. This cumulative impact is 

due to the restriction categories: 

• no leasing, 

• no surface occupancy, 

• seasonal access restrictions, and 

• controlled surface use restrictions. 

Conflicts with other mineral resources can restrict development of the hydrocarbon resource. No conflicts with other 

mineral resources are expected over the life of this plan. 

Approximately 34 percent of the planning area would be 

designated no leasing. Leasing would be prohibited within 

wilderness study areas and additional leasing would be prohibited within the core area. 

In areas of no surface occupancy, surface disturbing activities are prohibited. About 5 percent of the planning area 

would be affected by this restriction (Map 21 and Table 2-10). 

337
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Access to hydrocarbon resources located beneath these areas 

must be accomplished by drilling deviated or horizontal wells, 

which may not always be economically feasible. Directional 

drilling would increase well cost. 

About 60 percent of the planning area is affected by 

seasonal restrictions (Map 11). Seasonal restrictions limit oil 

and gas activities to certain time periods during the year. 

Activities can be prohibited from between 2 and 9 months out 

of the year depending on the purpose of the time limitation, 

and number and kind of overlapping seasonal restrictions. 

This restriction is applied to leases in order to protect, big 

game winter ranges, certain calving and parturition areas, 

raptor habitat, mountain plover nesting, and sage grouse 

nesting areas (Table 2-10). Most of the seasonal restriction 

overlaps occur during the spring and early summer. 

Controls on surface disturbing activities are applied to 

leases to mitigate adverse impacts. The effect of surface use 

restrictions can range from no effect, to added mitigation and 

reclamation requirements, to moving well locations, all the 

way to prohibiting exploration and development activity. The 

magnitude of the impact is generally not known until a well 

has been proposed. About 56 percent of the planning area 

would be affected by these controlled surface use restrictions 

(Table 2-10 and Map 22). 

The reasonable foreseeable development scenario projected that 202 wells (192 oil and gas wells and 10 coalbed 

methane wells) could be drilled in the planning area if no 

restrictions were applied. The impacts of the restrictions on 

this projection are: 

1. an unknown number of coalbed methane wells may not be 

drilled due to the combined restrictions resulting from no 

leasing, no surface occupancy and controlled surface use 

mitigation and reclamation requirements, 

2. an estimated direct loss of 32 percent of the potentially 

drilled oil and gas wells (61 wells) through no leasing, 

3. an estimated indirect loss of 35 percent of the potentially 

drilled oil and gas wells (67 wells) because restrictions (no 

leasing, surface occupancy stipulations, and mitigation 

and reclamation requirements) over almost all of the planning area are expected to discourage industry from initiating exploration and development, 

4. increased operating costs related to trying to get access for 

drilling those available well locations and transporting 

production obtained, 

5. in the short term (through 2007), the number of producing 

wells could increase from 48 wells (46 oil and gas wells and 

2 coalbed methane wells)to 61 wells (56 oil and gas wells 

and 5 coalbed methane wells, 

6. in the long term (through 2017), the number of producing 

wells could decrease to 43 wells (38 oil and gas wells and 

5 coalbed methane wells). 

Impacts of Fewer Wells 

About 74 wells (43 producing wells) are expected to be 

drilled and 128 wells would not be drilled during the 20-year 

analysis period. The new producing wells would account for 

additional royalty and tax revenue to government. The 38 new 

oil and gas wells could have a total reserve of 83.6 billion 

cubic feet of gas. The projected reserves of the expected 5 new 

producing coalbed methane wells is not known. 

The unavailable production from the oil and gas wells not 

drilled represents unrealized royalty and tax revenue. Sixtyeight of the 128 wells would be expected to produce and they 

could recover 150 billion cubic feet of gas. Unrealized 

revenue could be on a total reserve of 150 billion cubic feet of 

gas from these potential producing wells. Potential revenue 

from undrilled coalbed methane wells is unknown, since the 

number of potential undrilled coalbed methane wells could 

not be determined. Opportunities for direct and indirect 

employment would also be reduced with fewer producing 

wells. 

Time Delays Related to Restrictions 

Barlow and Haun (1994) project an increased demand for 

clean-burning, affordable, natural gas in the area of the planning area. This increased demand coupled with slower 

drilling response time, due to high level of restriction on 

activity, does not allow for timely development of drilling 

programs. This adversely impacts economics for companies 

trying to develop the resource. Seasonal access restrictions 

increase the time needed to acquire seismic data, drill individual wells, and develop discovered fields. These delays do 

not generally prevent an individual operator from developing 

the resource, but they do increase costs of field development 

and slow the industry’s response time to attractive increases in 

product prices. These time delays coupled with the many 

other restrictions on activity in the planning area are expected 

to discourage interest in the area and cause some wells to not 

be drilled. Barlow and Haun (1994) found that “cumulative 

costs associated with access in the NEPA process can add 

$9,500 to $21,000 on a per well basis.” 

Significance of Impacts to Oil and Gas Activities 

Significance criteria 1, 2, and 3 would be met for the No 

Action Alternative. Two fields (Nitchie Gulch and Pine 

Canyon) lie in or partially in the planning area. They both 

exceed the 5 billion cubic feet of gas criteria. The Nitchie 

Gulch Field contains 48 wells (see RFD) and the Pine Canyon 

Field contains 22 wells (George 1992). The well average per 

field in this area is 35. In comparison, a natural gas field in 

southwestern Wyoming typically includes 30 to 200+ wells 

(Barlow and Haun 1994). It appears that at least one average 

field would not be developed due to direct impacts of not 

leasing and due to indirect impacts of applying surface use 

restrictions. Possibly as many as three fields would not be 

developed due to these restrictions 

About 67 percent of expected potential exploration and 

development activity could not occur due to restrictions. The 

threshold was determined to be a loss of 25 percent of the 

potential exploration and development activity. 

About 67 percent of expected reserve additions would not 

occur due to restrictions. The significance threshold was 

determined to be a loss of 25 percent of the potential reserves. 

338
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The total number of producing wells would decrease by 17 

percent over the 20-year study period. This did not meet the 

significance criteria of a reduction of 25 percent in the number 

of producing wells. 

Core Area 

Impacts as a result of restrictions in the Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC and Steamboat Mountain ACEC are the same as for the 

core area since they lie within it. Types of impacts determined 

for the planning area as a whole, also apply to this area. No 

further leasing or drilling activity is permitted in this area. 

Much of the Nitchie Gulch Field lies within the core area. 

A detailed reservoir analysis would need to be performed to 

determine the additional wells that could be drilled in this 

field. The core area makes up about 14 percent of the planning 

area. If potential wells were proportioned across the planning 

area, then 14 percent (27 wells) of the proposed wells could be 

expected to be drilled here if access were allowed. Some wells 

would be drilled as development wells within the Nitchie 

Gulch Field and some as part of another field (possibly as 

extensions of one or more of the small one- or two-well fields 

already present). It does not appear that development of an 

entire field would be precluded as a result of not allowing 

additional activity in the core area. The criteria #1 impact 

threshold would probably not be exceeded. 

Significance criteria #2 and #3 impact threshold levels 

would be exceeded within the core area since 100 percent of 

any expected new exploration and development activity would 

be precluded. When considered as part of the entire area, the 

expected 14 percent decrease in activity just in the core area 

would not exceed the 25 percent threshold for either of these 

two criteria. 

Forty wells have been completed as gas producers in the 

core area. Thirty of these wells still produce. With restrictions 

on leasing and exploration and development activity, no new 

wells could be drilled to replace depleted producers. Over the 

long term, 29 (97 percent) of these wells are expected to be 

abandoned, leaving only one producing well. The significant 

impact threshold for criteria #4 would be exceeded when 25 

percent (8 wells) are abandoned. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Impacts include those expected from all oil and gas development. Present impacts are due to 48 existing producing 

wells. Short-term impacts (1998-2007) expected are: 14 new 

exploratory unit proposals; 42 new wells; 22 new producing 

wells; 20 drilled and abandoned wells; and 7 abandoned 

producing wells. At the end of 2007 there would be 63 

producing wells in the planning area. This would be an 

increase of 15 wells (10 conventional and 5 coalbed methane 

wells) over the December 1997 total of 48 wells. 

Long-term impacts (1998-2017) expected are: 28 new 

exploratory unit proposals; 74 new wells; 39 new producing 

wells; 35 drilled and abandoned wells; and 42 abandoned 

producing wells. At the end of 2017 there would be 45 

producing wells in the planning area. This would be a 

decrease of three wells (an increase of 5 coalbed methane 

wells and a decrease of 8 conventional wells) over the December 1997 total of 48 wells. 

Leasables (Other Than Oil and Gas and 

Coalbed Methane), Locatables, and Salables 

Leasables - Coal 

A limited amount (10 to 15 acres) of exploration drilling is 

projected within the Coal Occurrence and Development Potential area during the latter part of the planning period (Map 

47). The coal potential area is located in the extreme southern 

portion of the planning area and includes portions of the 

general and core areas. The core area would be closed to 

exploration, surface mining, and the construction of surface 

facilities related to underground mining. Activity would 

occur only in that portion of the coal potential area located 

outside the core area (south and east of Steamboat Mountain 

ACEC and south of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC). Where 

exploration is permitted, it would be subject to surface constraints to protect other resource values (Table3-8). 

Exploration drilling would have the same surface constraints as any other surface disturbing activity occurring 

within the planning area. Such restrictions result in an 

increased cost of operations and may preclude exploration 

altogether. Where exploration is precluded, isolated coal 

bodies would not be mined in the short and long term. 

Cumulative Impacts Same as described for the general 

impact discussion. 

Leasables - Sodium 

The sodium brine potential area occurs outside the core 

area in the extreme western portion of the planning area (Map 

47). Generally, impacts to development of this resource are 

created by constraints on related surface facilities. Thus, 

impacts would occur from air, water, wildlife, cultural, and 

visual resource management prescriptions. These resource 

objectives would increase the cost of development and may 

inhibit some further development in this area. Specifically, 

the number of facilities and their locations may be relocated 

or even denied. Development of the sodium brine would 

result in an irreversible irretrievable loss of the resource. 

Cumulative Impacts Same as described for the general 

impact discussion. 

Locatables 

The withdrawals recommended in the Green River RMP 

(USDI 1997) impact mineral location activities. As much as 

37,290 acres of public land would be pursued for withdrawal 

(Table 4-20). Public land withdrawals bar a potential claimant 

from locating a mining claim on public lands. Withdrawal of 

these lands from mineral location would exclude them from 

any additional locatable minerals exploration and development, other than on claims already existing in these areas at the 

time of withdrawal. The BLM has the option of pursuing 

validity exams on any existing claims. Should they be found 

invalid, they would be declared null and void on that basis 

(and should they be found valid, such claims could be mined 

and/or patented). 

339
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

ACECs, WSAs, and lands closed to ORV use open to 

mineral entry would affect the mining law program to a lesser 

extent. Potential claimants may locate mining claims in these 

areas, but any activity other than casual use requires a Plan of 

Operations and the posting of a bond. Approximately 109,530 

acres of existing ACECs, 117,060 acres of WSAs, and 2,810 

acres closed to ORVs would require this Plan of Operation. 

The largest impact to mining claimants in these areas would 

be on Notice level operations or operations disturbing 5 acres 

or less. Notice level operations outside these areas receive a 

lower level review by the BLM, and a claimant can usually 

proceed with activities without much delay. Once inside one 

of these special management areas, a plan of operations is 

required and a more intensive review by the BLM is required. 

The claimant is delayed until cultural, wildlife, and threatened 

and endangered plant and animal surveys are conducted and 

mitigation is developed to address any concerns. Impacts to 

other resources, such as livestock grazing and recreation, 

would also be considered. This environmental review can 

take more than 90 days to complete due to limited winter 

access to conduct the proper surveys. In addition to the time 

delays, developed mitigation would likely increase the cost of 

developing mining claims. 

About 211,130 acres of existing withdrawals (oil shale and 

coal) would be revoked and may become available for mineral 

location, which would result in a benefit to mineral location 

activities. 

Cumulative Impacts Same as described for the general 

impact discussion. 

Salables 

The Green River RMP (USDI 1997) closed 207,850 acres 

or about 33 percent (Table 4-21) of the public land within the 

planning area to the sale of mineral materials. Areas that 

remain open to development of mineral materials contain 

primarily shale, claystone, and sandstone and very little, if 

any, sand and gravel. Where construction requirements 

specify a certain type of material not found within the planning area, alternate sources outside the planning area are 

mined and hauled to the construction site. 

The Green River RMP FEIS also describes areas where 

surface disturbance is constrained (in Table 2-8). These 

controlled surface use areas would adversely impact the 

access to and use of the surface for recovery of mineral 

materials. Mitigation measures would increase the cost of 

doing business, limit timing of activities, and may preclude 

some activities in both the short and long term. 

The disposal of mineral materials from the existing Wyoming Department of Transportation pit along Wyoming Highway 28 would eventually result in the depletion of materials 

at this site, necessitating the establishment of a new site(s). 

Core Area Similar conditions prevail in the core area to that 

of the general area. The Green River RMP deferred making 

the decision to permanently close to mineral material sales in 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC (43,310 acres) until completion 

of the JMHCAP. Steamboat Mountain is capped by lava, 

which could be crushed and used as road base except under the 

No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts The cumulative effect on the mineral 

materials resource under this alternative is a reduction in the 

total amount of materials available from within the planning 

area, with a continued use of existing reserves. 

Geophysical 

Geophysical exploration includes gravity, geomagnetic, 

and seismic reflection surveys. Appendix 7-2 of the Green 

River RMP EIS contains a complete discussion of each survey 

type. Under the No Action Alternative, geophysical exploration could occur in some areas inside and outside the core area. 

These activities would be allowed only after a site-specific 

analysis was completed. The Green River RMP set restrictions, such as limiting the use of vehicles and explosive 

charges (Table 4-22) in sensitive resource areas inside and 

outside the core. Sensitive resources include; Boars Tusk, a 

portion of White Mountain Petroglyphs, Crookston Ranch, 

developed recreation sites and the ORV parking lot in the 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, raptor nesting sites, portions of 

South Pass Historic Landscape, Oregon Buttes ACEC, special 

status plant species habitat, Tri-Territory Marker, Native 

American respected sites, Wilderness Study Areas, and recreation interpretive sites. Some of these areas, such as the 

WSAs, would be open to foot traffic only. 

Under the No Action Alternative, geophysical activities 

would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Detailed analysis 

of the potential restrictions would not be available prior to 

development of exploration proposals. Given the potential 

resource conflicts between wildlife, cultural, vegetation, and 

recreation resources and geophysical activities, the direct 

impact would be an increase in the cost of operations from 

mitigating impacts to these resources. The cost of geophysical 

activities would increase due to controlled surface use restrictions, time delays, and seasonal restrictions. 

The Green River RMP identified certain areas that would 

remain open to leasing but closed or restricted to geophysical 

activities. This situation may indirectly affect overall development of oil and gas resources in those areas and potentially 

increase the amount of surface disturbance associated with 

development. If subsurface information can not be retrieved 

through conventional geophysical means, then operators assume a higher risk during exploration and development of 

these areas. The presence or absence of geophysical data can 

mean the difference between more efficient development, 

with fewer, more productive wells and missing the reservoir 

entirely. Areas that would remain open to leasing but closed 

or restricted to geophysical activities may incur less efficient 

development resulting in more surface disturbance than would 

otherwise occur were geophysical data available. 

Core Area 

Under the No Action Alternative, the core area would be 

closed to further oil and gas development and the issuance of 

new leases. Geophysical activities would be allowed, even 

within the Steamboat Mountain ACEC, but would not likely 

occur given the need for information would no longer exist. 

340
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impacts of the No Action Alternative on 

geophysical operations would be an overall increase in cost to 

the operator from mitigation and the potential for more surface disturbance to occur as more wells may be drilled to 

delineate a reservoir due to a lack of geophysical data. These 

impacts would occur primarily within the southern half of the 

general area, exclusive of the core. The southern half of the 

planning area has a moderate to high potential for oil and gas 

and includes the majority of the areas where geophysical 

activities would be prohibited or restricted, yet would remain 

open to leasing. 

Off-Road Vehicle Impacts 

Approximately 80 percent of the planning area is available 

for off-road vehicle (ORV) use. Wilderness Study Areas, 

candidate plant sites, and some cultural sites or 20 percent of 

the planning area is closed to ORV use creating a small impact 

to this type of recreation. 

There are hundreds of miles of roads and trails available for 

the public to use. All-terrain vehicle (ATV) use, specifically 

four wheelers, has been increasing and is anticipated to 

continue to increase. A leader in the Utah BlueRibbon 

Coalition has predicted that in the next three to five years ATV 

use will increase 300 to 400 percent. 

The Sand Dunes ORV open area would continue to operate 

as an open off-road vehicle play area. It is anticipated that the 

existing small, one-hole vault toilet would be replaced with a 

bigger toilet. The existing parking lot would be expanded to 

accommodate the increased use the area is receiving. This 

would relieve congestion and make the site more user friendly. 

There is a possibility that more improvements to the site could 

be made such as an off loading ramp, picnic tables, fire rings, 

and wind shelters. However, all this would be subject to 

appropriated dollars which have not been available in recent 

years. 

The Sand Dunes ORV open area lies in the eastern third of 

the Sand Dunes Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

ATV users (i.e., sand rails, all-terrain vehicles) are allowed to 

drive anywhere on the 10,500-acre active sand dune area. 

Presently, there are 17 producing gas wells, two pipelines, 

several storage tanks, and numerous access roads in the area 

creating health and safety issues. See the impact analysis for 

the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Long-term beneficial effects would result from the large 

amount of area available to off-road vehicle use. The off-road 

vehicle user enjoys few restrictions on vehicle use. 

Recreation Impacts 

Visitor use in the planning area will continue to grow based 

on population increases in the Intermountain West. Visitation 

to Wyoming’s National Parks and Forests is increasing and 

the public would be looking to the BLM-administered lands to 

get away from the crowds. It is anticipated that as developments occur, populations increase, and other traditional recreation use areas become saturated, the integrity of setting and 

opportunity for unconfined and solitary recreation experiences would diminish. Non-consumptive recreation days are 

projected to increase by two percent per year during the 

planning period. About 1.18 million resident and nonresident 

non-consumptive recreation days would be used in the 20-

year analysis period. 

The BLM-administered lands in the planning area are 

noted for the undeveloped, wild nature of recreation opportunities. The only developed sites are the Sand Dunes Off-Road 

Vehicle Area and the interpretive sites along the Oregon/ 

Mormon Pioneer/California/and Pony Express National Historic Trails. The White Mountain Petroglyphs cultural site is 

in need of a site plan to control visitor use. This site could be 

developed within the life of the plan. 

Managing for the continued availability of outdoor recreational opportunities, meeting legal requirements for health 

and safety of visitors, and mitigating conflicts between different types of resource users would solve many of the current 

problems. Meeting the long-range needs of the public and 

utilization of recreation resources would be pursued. 

Low-investment, resource-dependent opportunities such 

as backcountry byways, watchable wildlife, and wild horse 

viewing would be pursued in the area. 

Development activities could impact elk, deer, antelope, 

and sage grouse populations. Lowered wildlife populations 

could directly affect the number of permits issued by the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. This could affect the 

quality of the recreation experience. 

Cumulative Impacts 

It is anticipated that as developments occur, populations 

increase, and other traditional recreation use areas become 

saturated, more demands would continue to be placed on 

recreation sites and facilities in the planning area. 

Some hunting opportunities may diminish for the general 

public but these would be less than the Preferred Alternative. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

The JMHCAP economic analysis was based on a 20-year 

planning period (1998-2017) with 1998 as the base year. In 

addition to looking at economic impacts by affected resource 

by alternative, cumulative economic effects are summarized 

for the short-term (1998-2007) and the long-term (1998-

2017) portions of the planning period. The short-term and 

long-term cumulative effects for Alternative A, Alternative B, 

and the Preferred Alternative were compared with the impacts 

for the No Action Alternative on a percentage basis. All dollar 

figures used for evaluating impacts in the socioeconomic 

analysis are in current dollars. Economic tables which were 

used for the analysis in the document are on file at the Rock 

Springs Field Office. 

341
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oil and Gas 

Sixty-four oil and gas wells and 20 coalbed methane wells 

would be drilled over the 20-year period of 1998 to 2017. 

Almost 116 thousand barrels of oil and 84,177 MMCF of 

natural gas would be produced. The total economic impact for 

drilling and production would be approximately $246 million. 

Employment produced by the oil and gas activity over the life 

of the project would be 711 annual job equivalents with a total 

earnings of about $23 million. On an annual basis, about 36 

jobs earning a range of salaries of $27,180 to $34,921 would 

be supported. Economic impacts to oil and gas activities 

under the No Action Alternative are basically comparable to 

the Preferred Alternative, less than Alternative A, and more 

than Alternative B. 

Livestock Grazing 

Annual grazing AUMs were based on the average of the 

baseline year actual use (13,038 AUMs) and the total permitted use (26,032 AUMs). The average of the two amounts was 

19,535 AUMs (17,379 cattle and 2,156 sheep). This grazing 

level was held constant throughout the planning period. 

Under the No Action Alternative 347,580 cattle AUMs and 

43,120 sheep AUMs would be available for livestock grazing 

during the 20-year life of the project. The total economic 

impact of livestock grazing would be $24.4 million. Employment in the livestock sector would be 274 annual job equivalents earning $16,373 average per year. 

Recreation 

Average elk hunter days would remain constant over the 

planning period at 424 hunter days per year. The 424 hunter 

days would include 65 nonresident days (15.3 percent) and 

359 resident days (84.7 percent). Average deer and antelope 

hunter days are the same as the Preferred Alternative. 

Non-consumptive recreation day impacts are the same as 

the Preferred Alternative. 

Under the No Action Alternative, 1.18 million resident and 

nonresident non-consumptive recreation days would be used 

in the 20-year life of the project. The total economic impact 

of the non-consumptive nonresident recreation days would be 

$62.7 million. About 19,040 nonresident hunting days (elk, 

deer, and antelope) with a total economic impact of $6 million 

would be realized over the life of the project. Employment in 

the recreation sector would be 875 annual job equivalents 

earning approximately $12,521 average per year. 

Short-term Cumulative Impacts (1998-2007) 

and Comparison of Alternatives 

See Table 4-14 in the Preferred Alternative impacts section 

for short-term physical outputs 

The No Action Alternative is basically comparable to the 

Preferred Alternative and represents a midpoint between 

Alternative A and Alternative B. 

See Table 4-15 in the Preferred Alternative impacts section 

for short-term economic effects. 

Long-term Cumulative Impacts (1998-2017) 

and Comparison of Alternatives 

See Table 4-16 in the Preferred Alternative impacts section 

for long-term phhsical outputs. 

The No Action Alternative is basically comparable to the 

Preferred Alternative and represents a midpoint between 

Alternative A and Alternative B. 

See Table 4-17 in the Preferred Alternative impacts section 

for long-term economic effects. 

The No Action Alternative is basically comparable to the 

Preferred Alternative and represents a midpoint between 

Alternative A and Alternative B. 

Special Status Plant Species Impacts 

The impacts to special status plant species from air quality 

management, fire management, hazardous materials management, coal and sodium exploration, monitoring practices, 

recreation uses, special management areas, vegetation management, wild horses, and wildlife habitat management would 

be the same as described for the Preferred Alternative. Factors 

that adversely affect air quality (e.g., emissions from industrial sites, airborne particulate, etc.) may also affect special 

status plant species, especially if source areas are located near, 

upwind, or adjacent to actual plant locations or potential 

habitat areas. Generally, mitigation and management actions 

associated with air quality management would benefit and 

protect special status plant locations and potential habitat 

areas. 

Measures under this alternative call for avoidance of cultural sites to be essentially the same as under the Preferred 

Alternative. Searches for special status plants prior to disturbing the surface would be likely to prevent most impacts to 

these species and their habitats. 

Impacts from land and realty actions would be similar to 

those described for the Preferred Alternative. No activity 

within the core area would provide additional protection to 

species in the core area. Not concentrating activities in some 

areas (outside the core) could disturb currently unaffected 

areas. However, conducting searches prior to activity would 

provide for protection of special status plants. 

Activities such as salting or other activities which concentrate livestock, chemical control of noxious weeds, and conversions of sheep to cattle could contribute to an irreversible 

irretrievable loss of the plant populations. Management 

prescriptions, including searches for special status plant species and no surface occupancy requirements in actual plant 

locations, would prevent impacts to special status plant species from range improvement projects such as wells, reservoirs, and fences. 

Salting stations or other apparatus that concentrate livestock activity could damage or remove any of the special 

342
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

status plant species. With present livestock numbers, there 

seems to be insignificant impacts to known special status plant 

species locations. However, if livestock numbers were increased to the full authorized level, animals would be forced 

to use areas not presently grazed and special status plant 

species could be impacted. Riparian areas may provide 

habitat for special status plant species such as the Ute ladies’-

tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Livestock could have a negative impact on this species where riparian areas do not meet 

Proper Functioning Condition. 

Conversions from cattle to sheep could alter grazing patterns and forage preference, as would season of use changes. 

Special status plant species locations and potential habitat 

could be impacted by such management actions. Sheep camps 

could cause concentration of animals and adverse impacts to 

these populations. 

Under this alternative weeds would generally tend to 

increase with continued livestock use alongside roads, trails, 

and riparian areas. Chemical control of noxious weeds could 

impact special status plant species populations. Roadside 

spraying could impact populations of the large-fruited 

bladderpod (Lesquerella macrocarpa) on the Tri-Territory 

Road near Bush Rim. Spraying of riparian areas for whitetop 

(Lepidium latifolium) could also negatively impact populations of the Ute ladies’-tresses should populations occur there. 

Appropriate measures to meet rangeland health standards 

and guidelines would beneficially impact special status plant 

species by improving degraded native plant communities, 

providing desirable habitat. Protecting springs and seeps with 

appropriate fencing would provide additional potential special status plant habitat by maintaining healthy native plant 

communities in these areas. 

Planned drilling of 89 wells outside the core area should not 

have significant impacts on special status plant species due to 

applied mitigation methods. Special status plant locations 

would be managed under a No Surface Occupancy requirement. Clearance surveys in potential special status plant 

habitat prior to surface disturbing activities and avoidance of 

special status plant species populations would help ensure that 

these species would be protected and impacts minimized. 

Activities that would avoid slopes would potentially benefit special status plants as many of them are located on rims, 

slopes and windswept uplands. Unintentional uprooting and 

squashing damage from vehicular use, and physiological 

effects of associated dust settling on the plants would contribute to negative impacts. 

Winter use could directly remove or destroy habitat, if 

populations are not avoided or if searches could not be 

performed prior to designating winter use areas. 

Maintaining the closure of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

to mineral material sales would aid in ensuring that this area 

remains viable as special status plant habitat. In addition, the 

big sagebrush/scurfpea communities would be protected under a No Surface Occupancy requirement. 

Special status plant species locations would be closed to 

mineral material sales. These actions would prevent damage 

to plant populations already inventoried. Potential special 

status plant habitat would be searched and if plants are found, 

would be avoided, reducing these impacts to an insignificant 

level. 

Special status plant species and their habitat would be open 

to mining claims until mineral withdrawals were secured. 

Clearances for known special status plant species and their 

potential habitat outside ACECs or for casual use activity of 

less than 5 acres, would not always be performed, and avoidance may not be required on all mining claims. Development 

of mining claims could significantly impact these species 

through an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources to mining activity, if the activity occurs on areas 

occupied by special status plant species. 

Withdrawing the 2,650 acres of habitat for the large-fruited 

bladderpod from new mining claims and mineral material 

sales would reduce the level of impact to this species to an 

insignificant level. 

Special status plants and their habitat are closed to off-road 

vehicle use, such as those used for geophysical exploration. 

Searches would be required in previously unserved areas prior 

to geophysical exploration to determine the presence of special status plants. If found, they would be avoided. These 

habitats are also closed to explosives and blasting. Impacts to 

these species from this activity are expected to be insignificant. 

Actual plant locations (about 2,680 acres) would be closed 

to off-road vehicles. Off-road vehicle use in potential habitat 

areas would be limited to existing roads and trails; therefore, 

impacts to special status plant species populations would be 

minimal; however, unauthorized off-road vehicle use does 

occur and could impact current populations and potential 

habitat. 

Achievement of the revegetation objectives under reclamation would replace native plant communities in the long 

term, providing healthy habitat for colonization and expansion of special status plant species. Monitoring of disturbed 

sites would enhance reclamation success. 

Actions taken to attain Proper Functioning Conditions and 

restricting surface disturbing activities in riparian areas and 

wetlands would restore and maintain healthy, native riparian 

plant communities, providing additional potential habitat for 

special status plant species, especially the Ute ladies’-tresses. 

Transportation plans would be beneficial to special status 

plant populations as known locations would be incorporated 

into the plans and these plant locations would then be avoided. 

Conducting clearance surveys prior to designating access 

routes would also help protect special status plant species, as 

roads and pipelines could be routed around special status plant 

species locations. Rehabilitation of unused roads and trails 

would stabilize areas and could restore habitat. Some loss of 

actual and potential special status plant habitat from vehicular 

use could occur and vehicular access across cushion plant 

communities, rims, slopes and other sensitive areas where 

special status plants are commonly found could impact these 

plants. 

343
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Management actions described to protect visual quality 

would generally benefit or not impact special status plant 

species populations or potential habitat. 

In general, practices to conserve and stabilize soils would 

help maintain healthy ecosystems which can support special 

status plant species. 

Core Area 

Continuing the no surface disturbance management inside 

the core area would reduce or eliminate most types of negative 

impacts to special status plant populations. Continued protective actions specific to ACECs would also reduce potential 

impacts to special status plant populations. Known locations 

of the large-fruited bladderpod (Lesquerella macrocarpa) 

would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if 

they meet the relevance and importance criteria to be considered for inclusion with the Special Status Plant Species 

ACEC. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Activities such as wildfire suppression, salting or areas 

where livestock concentrate, chemical control of noxious 

weeds, geophysical activity in potential habitat areas, off-road 

vehicle use, increased recreation use, trampling by large 

animals, and conversions of sheep to cattle could contribute to 

an irreversible irretrievable loss of the plant populations. 

Development activities, such as those associated with recreation sites and minerals actions, could have an impact on 

special status plant species in areas where several different 

resource concerns may limit options for placement of mineral 

development facilities. However, increased inventory for 

these species in areas projected for development could provide more information about rare plant species and their 

status. 

Restrictions on wildfire suppression, geophysical activity, 

and off-road vehicle use would reduce the level of impact. 

Activity on existing mining claims and unauthorized uses 

could result in an irretrievable loss of plant populations and 

habitat. Withdrawing acres with known special status plant 

species populations or habitat from new mining claims and 

mineral material sales would reduce the level of impact. 

However, unauthorized uses could still have some adverse 

effects on special status plant species. 

Intensive development could cause greater impacts to 

special status plant species because of more conflicting demands on the land and its resources. Although avoidance is 

the preferred form of mitigation, avoidance of special status 

plant populations would become increasingly difficult with 

more concentrated levels of developments and associated 

activities, potentially leading to listing these species as Threatened or Endangered. 

Should new special status plant species be identified, they 

would be managed under the same prescriptions described 

above for the known species. Known locations of special 

status species would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to 

determine if they meet the relevance and importance criteria 

to be considered for ACEC designation. 

Vegetation/Woodlands/Weeds and 

Riparian/Wetland Resources Impacts 

Impacts to Vegetation/Woodlands/Weeds 

Impacts from air quality management, cultural and paleontological resource management, hazardous material, healthy 

rangelands, geophysical exploration, monitoring and reclamation practices, off-road vehicles, recreation use, special 

status species management, vegetation/woodlands, watershed management, wild horses, and wildlife habitat management would be the same as described in the Preferred Alternative 

Impacts would be similar to those described for the Preferred Alternative. More acres could be burned in the big 

sagebrush/scurfpea plant communities as these areas would 

not be full suppression areas. 

Impacts from lands and realty management would be 

similar to those described for the Preferred Alternative; however, less acreage would be identified for withdrawal from 

mineral entry which would provide less protection to vegetation. 

Livestock grazing systems would be designed to achieve 

desired plant communities. If current use levels are maintained, these actions would probably have a long-term positive impact on uplands and riparian areas. The vegetation 

types that would be most affected by livestock grazing would 

include the saltbush, low density sagebrush, high density 

sagebrush, aspen, riparian, grassland, and greasewood classifications. 

Direct impacts to vegetation would increase under this 

alternative with increased livestock use, although implementation of standards and guidelines would mitigate these impacts to some degree. Both riparian and upland species would 

decline in vigor, age and structural diversity, and composition 

with prolonged seasonal use, higher livestock numbers, or 

livestock conversions. 

Currently, under the No Action Alternative, within the 

allotments that cover the planning area, there are 26,032 

active permitted use AUMs of which about 13,000 were used 

in 1998. Some localized overuse of forage would continue, 

primarily in riparian zones, and around watering holes and 

dunal ponds. Localized overuse of forage can result when an 

area is grazed by too many animals or for too long a period of 

time. When forage is overused, plants cannot provide for their 

own growth, maintenance, and reproduction, so they are 

eventually replaced by less desirable species, many of which 

produce little or no forage value. If actual livestock use levels 

increase to active permitted use of 26,032 AUMs over the next 

20 years, more widespread overuse of forage could be expected in riparian areas as well as on uplands. If current 

management were to continue, which is primarily season long 

cattle use (see Livestock Management in Chapter 3), it is 

anticipated that riparian area condition would remain static in 

trend and not move toward proper functioning condition. See 

the Riparian section of these Vegetation Impacts for further 

discussions. 

344
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Trampling and use of dune ponds and adjacent riparian 

habitat by livestock would continue to occur. These areas are 

ecologically fragile and can easily deteriorate from sustained 

surface disturbing activities such as livestock watering and 

from livestock grazing. 

Season of use changes or increased use of previously 

lightly used areas could result in significant reductions in the 

existing forage base for wildlife. In addition, use in stabilized 

dune areas could cause blowouts and destabilization of the 

dunes by removing vegetation needed to hold the sand. 

Rangeland water project construction and implementation 

would not occur under this alternative, so no vegetation would 

be affected by these actions. Areas around existing water 

sources receive more utilization than the adjacent uplands 

with increased bare ground, weed invasion, and soil erosion. 

This would continue in the long term as no new waters would 

be developed. Stock ponds which fail have the potential for 

infestation of weeds until natural plant succession proceeds. 

Mechanical manipulation of vegetation (chaining, chemicals, contour furrowing, ripping, etc.) has not been identified 

but has not been ruled out. These activities would result in a 

change in vegetation composition and would temporarily 

remove target species. Chemicals used to remove sagebrush 

and noxious weeds could impact nontarget vegetation on 

localized areas. 

Fencing would be used to manage livestock grazing to 

improve forage and habitat condition on upland and wetland 

sites. Range condition should improve on localized areas 

where fences are used to implement AMPs or better distribute 

livestock. In wetlands, fencing would control livestock use 

and improve habitat and watershed condition. More diverse 

vegetation would be produced and soil erosion would be 

reduced. 

Livestock conversions from sheep to cattle would generally cause additional utilization of riparian vegetation. Conversions from cattle to sheep would generally result in greater 

utilization of upland areas and shrub species. 

Allocation of unallotted forage, or changes in season of use 

would open new areas to livestock grazing and forage utilization. Increased utilization in these areas could result in species 

composition changes or a decrease in vegetative production 

and vigor. 

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. Declines in soils conditions, plant cover and 

species composition encourage the invasion and growth of 

noxious weeds. 

Early spring grazing would also negatively impact range 

grass and forb species by the trampling of wet soils, uprooting 

seedlings, and mechanical injury to both mature plants and 

new seedlings. 

A total of 89 wells are predicted in this alternative. Construction of drill pads, roads, facilities, pipelines, powerlines, 

and other structures associated with oil and gas operations 

would result in the loss or removal of vegetation from 2,300 

acres over the next 20 years. Reclamation of disturbed sites 

would be accomplished on approximately 1,900 acres; therefore, total net loss of vegetation is expected to be approximately 380 acres over the next 20 years. 

Placing well locations or access roads in stabilized dunes 

would cause direct loss of anchoring vegetation, creating 

active dunes which may not stabilize with natural vegetation 

within the analysis period (20 years). One such stabilized 

dune plant community, the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea 

association is not known to exist elsewhere in the country. 

Disturbance of this plant community would likely result in the 

long-term loss of this unique vegetation type for the life of this 

plan. 

Activities associated with coalbed methane projects are 

expected to remove vegetation from approximately 229 acres 

over the next 10 years. Reclamation of disturbed sites is 

expected to occur on approximately 177 acres; therefore, 

there would be a net long-term loss of vegetation from 

approximately 52 acres. 

Some mitigation measures (such as directional drilling and 

limiting the number of well pads per section) may not be 

applied if costs are unreasonable on existing leases. Restricting the types of mitigation to be applied could increase 

impacts. The acres of disturbance shown above assumes that 

each well would have a pad, road, and pipeline. 

Big sagebrush/scurfpea and other mountain shrub communities would be open to coal exploration and some development under this alternative. Removal of the plants and 

deterioration of their habitat would have long-term negative 

impacts on these communities through direct removal of the 

plants, and the long re-establishment times required by these 

shrubs. 

Areas of sensitive vegetation, such as the big sagebrush/ 

scurfpea communities, would be open to sodium exploration 

activities, potentially causing direct negative impacts to these 

plants and their habitats by removing the plants and long-term 

loss of habitat. Big sagebrush/scurfpea and other sensitive 

plant communities would be open to mineral material sales, 

potentially causing removal of the plants and deterioration of 

the habitat. 

Known rare plant communities, such as the only known 

community of big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea and good representative areas of sagebrush-grass communities, could be lost 

to mining claim activity as mineral withdrawals would not be 

pursued and no special protection currently exists for them. 

The majority of the few aspen communities in the planning 

area (the northern elk birthing areas) would be open to 

location, resulting in direct removal of the trees, and conversion of the habitat to non-woodlands. Location of mining 

claims on Steamboat Mountain (within the ACEC) would 

cause potential destruction of the springs and seeps located in 

these areas, and direct loss of the significant vegetative 

resources they support. 

Management actions described to protect visual qualities, 

special management areas, wildlife habitat, watershed values 

345
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

and to reduce channel erosion would generally benefit and 

protect native vegetative communities. In addition to lands, 

livestock grazing, and minerals activities, some short-term 

disturbance of vegetation could be expected due to construction of wildlife habitat and watershed improvement projects. 

Activities in the stabilized dunes would have long-term effects on the shrubs, as containerized shrub seedlings would 

not be required, therefore taking an extra 20 to 50 years for 

shrubs to re-establish. 

Weeds are expected to increase under this alternative as a 

result of surface disturbing activities. Weeds have direct, 

negative impacts to native vegetation that, 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. The first, and only, known occurrence of leafy 

spurge (a particularly persistent and noxious plant species) in 

the Rock Springs Field area was observed in the Honeycomb 

Buttes area. Extensive infestations of perennial pepperweed 

on Jack Morrow and Pacific Creek, and a population of leafy 

spurge in the Honeycomb Buttes area would likely increase 

with continued activity such as livestock use. 

Surface disturbing activities such as those associated with 

roads, pipelines, well pads, coal and sodium exploration, 

locatable mineral exploration and development, and mineral 

material sales would disturb about 2,500 acres in the long 

term. Reclamation practices would restore vegetation to all 

but about 600 acres in the long term. Although vegetative 

reestablishment would occur, some original plant communities would not be reestablished for more than 20 years. This 

particularly applies to shrubland communities and the big 

sagebrush/scurfpea communities and stabilized sand dunes. 

Impacts are not expected to be significant because few of these 

communities would be disturbed with current management 

actions. 

The effects from travel management action would be 

similar to the Preferred Alternative, except there would be 

fewer seasonal road closures and limitations on riparian area 

crossings. There would be more impacts to vegetation than 

under the Preferred Alternative. 

Impacts to Riparian/Wetland Resources 

Impacts to riparian/wetland resources from air quality 

management, hazardous materials, healthy rangelands, offroad vehicle use, recreation use, special status species, vegetation management, watershed management, wild horses, and 

wildlife habitat management would be the same as described 

in the Preferred Alternative. 

Management of cultural sites is generally for the protection 

or preservation of such sites. These types of actions, if they 

occur near riparian areas, generally would benefit these also. 

However, excavation of cultural sites in or near riparian areas 

could cause short- to long-term negative impacts. Erosion 

could increase and sedimentation of streams could occur if not 

adequately mitigated (e.g., seeding, protective barriers, etc.). 

No activity of this type is anticipated at this time but if it should 

occur a site specific mitigation plan must be developed to 

mitigate any negative impacts (i.e., reclamation, seeding, recontouring, etc.). 

The impacts of fire management activities would be similar to the Preferred Alternative; however, additional acres 

could be burned since there would be fewer full suppression 

areas. 

Impacts from lands and realty management actions would 

be similar to the Preferred Alternative; however, fewer acres 

would be considered for withdrawal from mineral entry, and 

there would be fewer avoidance areas for rights-of-way which 

would allow impacts to sensitive resources. 

For wetlands and riparian areas, the minimum standard is 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). Stream (lotic) inventories began in 1995 and were completed in 1999. The ratings 

for lentic riparian areas (bogs, marshes, ponds, wetlands, and 

wet meadows) have not been completed. Twenty percent 

(16.5 miles out of 79.95 miles) of the stream (lotic) riparian 

areas in the Jack Morrow Hills planning area are in PFC. A 

significant portion (40 percent) is in upward trend and an 

equally significant portion (40 percent) is in downward or 

“not apparent” trend. These data were collected in 1995-6 

when a significant amount of non-use by livestock was occurring. Not all of the poor conditions in riparian areas are due 

to livestock grazing; however, livestock grazing, roads, and 

water diversions create the most significant impacts to the 

riparian areas in the planning area. However, it is known that 

season long use by livestock, concentrates use around riparian 

areas during the hot season, and that later fall use tends to be 

adverse to riparian plants. 

Rotations of livestock are not well established in any of the 

allotments and season long use results. Such concentrations 

and extended use tends to increase erosion, accelerate headcuts, 

decrease streambank stability, convert shrub communities 

(where they have the potential to exist) to a more herbaceous 

community, etc. 

Within the allotments that cover the planning area, there 

are 26,032 AUMs of active permitted use of which about 

13,000 were used in 1998. If current management were to 

continue, it is anticipated that riparian areas would remain 

static in their ecological progression or trend and not move 

toward proper functioning condition. 

The assumptions for this alternative are that utilization 

levels would not exceed 50 percent for uplands and riparian 

areas as an end of the year measurement and that active AUMs 

would remain where they are. With these levels of use, it may 

not be possible to recover degraded riparian areas and move 

them toward a proper functioning condition or to maintain 

healthy conditions. Not allowing water developments in 

select areas may render some areas unsuitable for grazing use 

by livestock. This may also affect the use in riparian areas if 

no other actions are taken to protect them. 

Guidelines for appropriate turn out dates (boot stage on 

plants), an active permitted use level of an average of 17,941 

AUMs (which is the 5-year average), riparian vegetation 

utilization not to exceed levels of 40 percent on shrubs, 35 

346
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

percent “relative use” on herbaceous plants or an 8-inch 

stubble height, eliminating any season long grazing, conducting suitability reviews, taking aggressive appropriate actions 

for Standards and Guidelines that would bring riparian health 

to PFC, all would benefit riparian health and productivity. It 

is assumed that under the actions substantial progress toward 

riparian health and Desired Plant Communities would be 

achieved. 

Surface disturbances can cause increased erosion and 

sedimentation in riparian areas and streams. Stipulations are 

in place to locate fluid mineral developments a minimum of 

500 feet away from wetlands, riparian areas, 100-year floodplains, etc. This helps to create an adequate buffer zone of 

vegetation from these areas to trap sediment (and potential 

hazardous materials) and spread out runoff water. Placing 

disturbances inside of this margin is highly discouraged and 

cannot take place without additional stringent mitigation 

(such as, barriers, closed drilling systems, special grading and 

runoff controls, etc.). Placement of facilities in riparian areas 

and wetlands is prohibited. Linear crossings by pipelines is 

allowed with special considerations (see ROD Appendix 5-1, 

page 157). This would keep impacts from sedimentation to a 

minimum. 

A total of 74 deep oil and gas wells are predicted in this 

alternative. Considering the pads and the associated roads, 

pipelines, and other necessary disturbances, the total acres of 

surface disturbance of around 2,200 acres seems minimal. 

Although some of these wells would be “scattered” throughout the area, some may end up being “clustered” in areas of 

greatest production or potential. This could increase erosion 

and concentrate runoff in certain drainages. The specific level 

of impact cannot be determined because specific locations for 

activities are unknown. With adequate mitigation, though, 

and by adhering to the stipulations currently allowed, the 

negative impacts to riparian areas, wetlands and fisheries 

should be low. Because of the increase in road and well pad 

density within watersheds (which would result in augmented 

flows in channels and streams) and because of the current 

instability of the riparian areas and soils, it is imperative that 

stringent mitigation measures and construction practices be 

adhered to in order not to have a negative impact. Some 

mitigation measures (such as directional drilling and limiting 

the number of well pads per section) may not be able to be 

applied if costs are unreasonable on existing leases. Restricting the types of mitigation to be applied could increase 

impacts. The acres of disturbance shown above assumes that 

each well would have a pad, road, and pipeline. 

In addition, 15 coalbed methane wells would be drilled on 

existing leases. They would be clustered in the sand dunes 

area. These are shallow wells (900 to 1,000 feet deep). In the 

process of coalbed methane production, large volumes of 

water are pumped from the aquifer at that level. It is unknown 

at this time if the aquifer at this level is directly connected to 

the surface water in the dunal ponds and wet meadows. If it 

is, there may be an adverse effect of drying up the riparian in 

the area. This would not only affect the riparian plants but all 

of the wildlife that depends on those plants, insects, and 

surface water. 

Hard rock mining (locatables) could pose significant threats 

to aquatic resources, especially when involving dredging or 

placer mining. The highest potential for this type of activity 

is in the Oregon Gulch area. Though there is no commercial 

activity anticipated at this time there is active prospecting in 

the area with the potential to create accelerated erosion. 

Demand for other types of mineral development (salables) 

such as gravel pits, etc., would increase with gas development 

but these areas would be located away from riparian areas and 

streams and should have negligible impact to these resources. 

No coal or sodium extraction is expected, thus no impacts 

are anticipated. 

Geophysical activities currently have sufficient protective 

stipulations in the Green River RMP to eliminate impacts to 

riparian areas and streams. 

Core Area 

No new surface disturbance in the core would reduce shortand long-term impacts to vegetation. Road densities would 

not be established, allowing additional disturbance in special 

management areas outside the core. Livestock grazing could 

increase, affecting vegetation communities. Livestock grazing on stabilized dunes would be detrimental to native plant 

species, and would likely cause areas of destabilization, loss 

of native plants and acceleration of weed invasions. Implementation of use levels and assessment of standards and 

implementation of guidelines would reduce this effect. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Management actions implemented to control dust along 

dirt roads would permit vegetation to be more productive and 

vigorous. Localized overuse of forage would continue and 

could increase if full livestock permitted use is authorized. 

Riparian areas should improve over the long term, as proper 

functioning condition is achieved. 

Both short- and long-term impacts would occur from not 

constructing rangeland improvement projects. Vegetation 

would not be removed for such improvements which would 

benefit the vegetation communities; however, a long-term 

adverse effect to overall vegetation production could occur, 

through a lack of improved livestock use distribution. 

Surface disturbing activities would remove vegetation 

from an estimated 2,500 acres. An estimated 1,900 acres 

would be reclaimed. After reclamation, roughly 600 acres 

would be disturbed in the long term. 

Both short- and long-term impacts to vegetation would 

result from anticipated increased recreational activity. With 

road closures and transportation planning, off-road vehicle 

use may be restricted to specific roads and trails, or areas may 

be closed to off-road vehicle use. 

Vegetation and habitat quality would improve in some 

areas. However, more surface disturbance from development, recreational, and ORV activities would occur. Impacts 

could become greater when high intensity development occurs over broader areas. One result could be a reduction in 

347
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

forage availability and, consequently, livestock and wildlife 

use. Weeds would also increase and in some places, impacts 

would be considered long term due to the difficulty of eradicating established weed infestations. 

Surface disturbing activities and uses in the stabilized dune 

areas would cause an increase in wind erosion of soil and longterm loss of vegetation. Disturbance of the unique big 

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea plant community on the stabilized 

dunes would likely result in the long-term loss of portions of 

this unique vegetation type. 

Lands actions (rights-of-way for roads, pipelines, water 

diversions, well pads), livestock management and minerals 

development of all types have the greatest individual impact 

to riparian/wetlands. The combination of these actions compounds the effects that this vegetative type has to accommodate. Effects include increased peak flows, increased sediment loads, chemicals, decreased vigor in plants, structural 

changes in plant communities, unstable stream banks, etc. 

Under this alternative, all current possible mitigation measures to correct problems in riparian/wetland areas are not 

being applied. With the assumptions of this alternative in 

effect, reversing the downward trends or correcting the problems in the riparian areas might be achievable but the progress 

may be very slow. 

Visual Resource Management Impacts 

No additional development in the “core” would maintain 

the current Visual Resource Management classes in the Sand 

Dunes and Steamboat Mountain ACECs. 

The initiation of a program to improve the visual quality of 

the oil fields would benefit the visual resources in those areas 

and, in many cases, would benefit other resources such as soil, 

watershed, and vegetation. The avoidance of identified areas 

which are not suitable for linear rights-of-way would protect 

the sensitive visual resources in these areas. 

Protecting National Historic Trails and other trails by not 

allowing visual disturbance, by applying surface constraints 

to important cultural sites, and limiting geophysical vehicles 

to designated roads and trails in the South Pass Historic 

Landscape would enhance visual values and protect the visual 

sensitivity of these resources and areas. 

Not allowing surface mining activities and surface occupancy areas around the Boars Tusk and the Steamboat Mountain-Killpecker Dune Fields, including the wild horse viewing 

area, would retain and enhance visual resources found in the 

area. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Same as described for the general impact discussion. 

Watershed/Water Quality Impacts 

The impacts on watershed values and water quality from 

air quality management, cultural and paleontological management, hazardous materials, monitoring and reclamation 

practices, economic benefits, special status species, and wild 

horses would be the same as described in the Preferred 

Alternative. 

The impact on watershed values and water quality from fire 

management activities would be the same as described in 

Alternative A. Fire suppression activities and the associated 

potential for increased erosion from suppression activities and 

potential long-term benefits would be similar to the Preferred 

Alternative but would differ in that aggressive fire suppression would not occur in the big sagebrush-scurfpea areas. 

Implementation of Standards and Guidelines for Healthy 

Rangelands would reduce the effects to watersheds and water 

quality from surface disturbing activities, recreation uses, and 

livestock grazing. The differences between the alternatives 

can be expressed in the level of conflict that could occur 

between the actions that would take place under each alternative and the goals set forth by Standards and Guidelines. The 

No Action Alternative would create a level of conflict between proposed actions and Standards and Guides somewhere 

between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative A. 

The overall impacts on water quality from lands and realty 

actions would be similar to those described in the Preferred 

Alternative. As most of the disturbances associated with 

communication sites would be away from riparian areas and 

streams, the effects of the creation and maintenance of communication sites would be less than an equivalent disturbance 

located closer to water courses. The disturbance created by 

the creation and maintenance of communication sites has the 

potential to affect watershed values and water quality, as does 

any disturbance. 

Transportation corridors would not be limited as in the 

Preferred Alternative and Alternative B, which could create 

more disturbance over a wider area. The overall disturbance 

would most likely be closer to Alternative B than Alternative 

A. More areas would be open to consideration for communication sites and impacts could be greater than described for the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Livestock grazing has a major influence on land and stream 

conditions and thus erosion and water quality. Implementation of existing programs (primarily standards for healthy 

rangelands and guidelines for livestock grazing management), as well as the management actions in this alternative 

would aid in improving watershed. 

Livestock grazing, roads, and water diversions can alter 

conditions in riparian areas. However, not all of the impaired 

conditions in riparian areas are a direct result of livestock 

grazing. For riparian impacts, see Vegetation Impacts. 

Activities that decrease plant vigor can increase erosion 

and decrease water quality. Depending on the actions taken, 

specific areas may show some changes, positive or adverse, 

but the overall trend would be closely related to the level of 

surface disturbing activities. 

Impacts to soils from grazing can be caused by 

overutilization of riparian and upland areas leading to soil 

compaction and vegetative removal. This can lead to loss of 

the soil surface, rill, and gully formation which could impact 

water quality through more rapid runoff and higher sediment 

loads. 

348
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Livestock could contribute to the degradation of areas that 

might cause further concern depending on their location. 

Areas in very erodible soil structure could have the possibility 

of washing, blowing, or being removed from further beneficial purposes. 

The rate of progress towards achieving water quality goals 

would be closer to the Preferred Alternative than Alternative 

A under the No Action Alternative. 

Road construction could change the patterns of overland 

flow and increase erosion. In addition to concentrating 

surface flows by interrupting natural surface flow patterns and 

concentrating them in ditches and culverts, roads and well 

pads reduce groundwater infiltration through soil compaction. This can increase the erosive potential of runoff events 

by creating a shorter period of runoff and an increased volume. 

Drainage ditches, culverts, and surfacing can channelize surface flows and direct them away from the road surface. While 

this helps protects the road surface, it can also increase erosive 

potential along the path of concentrated flow. Proper design, 

construction, and maintenance reduce the erosive potential 

for road and well pad areas but do not fully compensate for the 

concentration of flows. 

Impacts to surface water quality from oil and gas development are generally the result of unsuccessful reclamation and/ 

or increased runoff from pads and roads, destabilizing drainages. With effective monitoring from industry and management from the BLM, most individual well sites and mines 

should have only a short-term impact on watershed stability. 

Other concerns which could arise include: sedimentation, 

soil contamination, salt and phosphate loading, groundwater 

contamination, bank and channel instability, loss of aquifers, 

augmented flows, and water disposal. 

Because of the areas that would be closed to gas and oil 

development the amount of disturbance to the surface from 

these actions under the No Action Alternative would be closer 

to the Preferred Alternative than Alternative A. This would be 

reflected in the rate of achieving water quality goals 

The effects of coalbed methane development would be 

similar to those described for the Preferred Alternative. In 

comparison to the other alternatives, there is a moderate 

potential for disturbance and water quality degradation. The 

closure of the core area would limit the area of development 

and thus the area disturbed. 

The overall impacts from the extraction of mineral materials would be similar to those described for the Preferred 

Alternative. Because much of the development is unknown, 

the exact amount of disturbance is difficult to forecast. However, the Steamboat Mountain ACEC would remain closed to 

mineral material sales which would reduce the potential for 

erosion from mineral materials activities. 

Surface disturbance impacts associated with coal exploration would be similar to those described in the Preferred 

Alternative. Areas closed to coal exploration activities (about 

218,420 acres) would not be affected (Table 3-8). The 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC would remain closed to coal 

exploration activities. 

About 10 acres would be disturbed from sodium exploration and development activities. Surface disturbance in the 

long term would be about 3 acres. Wastewater ponds would 

not occur within the planning area, so no direct impacts would 

occur from ponds associated with water disposal. About 

218,420 acres would be closed to sodium prospecting. No 

impacts would occur in these areas. 

The impacts of ORV and recreation use would be similar 

to those described for the Preferred Alternative. Impacts 

would be moderate because of the maintenance of seasonal 

road closures and the development of planned recreational 

sites. The exact level of disturbance is unknown. 

Surface disturbance is closely tied to water quality. The 

greater the disturbance in time and area and the closer to places 

where the flow of water is concentrated the greater the 

potential for erosion. Because much of the development 

would take place on a case-by-case basis, the exact amount of 

disturbance is difficult to forecast. 

The No Action Alternative would allow for moderate 

development in areas outside the core. The area would see an 

increase in surface disturbance that would be moderated by 

transportation planning. A lack of road densities would have 

some adverse effect; however, this would be reduced by the 

closure in the core area. About 2,500 acres would be disturbed 

over the long term from various activities. With reclamation, 

most of this disturbance would be reclaimed with a net longterm disturbance of about 550 acres. 

Roads are one of the primary sources of erosion in the 

planning area. They tend to concentrate the overland flow and 

reduce infiltration. They can often be thought of as a set of 

superimposed ephemeral stream channels. As roads become 

more numerous, their effects become cumulative and may 

even work in combination to create greater levels of erosion. 

Road maintenance is also important. Timely maintenance of 

road surfaces can reduce erosion. Maintaining as much of the 

right-of-way in an undisturbed or revegetated state as possible 

would reduce both maintenance cost and erosion. Surfacing 

of major arterial roads with appropriate materials would also 

help limit the potential for soil erosion and reduced water 

quality. By not applying road densities, there is a greater 

potential for erosion than if the number and position of roads 

were planned. 

As a general rule, the greater the vegetation cover, the less 

erosion and the better the water quality. A more diverse 

community is generally healthier. Implementation of standards (for healthy rangelands) and guidelines (for livestock 

grazing) would have an effect upon the vegetative communities. The differences between alternatives may not vary 

dramatically. 

Vegetation removal can adversely impact stream hydraulics. Vegetation removal can cause an augmented flow regime 

which forces the stream channel to readjust its width and depth 

to accommodate the larger more rapid flows where vegetative 

conditions are impaired. Sedimentation would increase, due 

to a lack of filtering ability of the vegetation. 

Vegetation manipulation to enhance wildlife habitat such 

as controlled burns, mowing, and chemical applications could 

349
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

cause short-term impacts to physical and chemical characteristics of soils, increasing erosion susceptibility through the 

loss of both ground cover and litter accumulation. Over the 

long term, areas of treated vegetation should increase over 

pretreatment production levels which would decrease the 

erosion hazard. 

Under the No Action Alternative, vegetative conditions 

would most likely remain static. Overall progress towards the 

stated goals would most likely be static to moderate with a 

relatively high sensitivity to disturbance. 

Wildlife habitat management has some effect on land, 

water and vegetation quality. Sufficient wildlife habitat 

creates a more varied environment that is better able to slow 

and filter overland flow, reduce erosive forces, and recover 

from disturbances. 

The existing Green River RMP and standard mitigation 

provide for a level of habitat diversity that would most likely 

contain all the required elements but would be under greater 

stress and have less opportunity to expand than that proposed 

under the Preferred Alternative or Alternative B. 

Groundwater 

Oil and gas and coalbed methane activities have the highest 

potential for impacting groundwater and surface water quantity and quality. Refer to the groundwater discussion in the 

Preferred Alternative for a detailed description of the possible 

impacts and specifically, the hydrological investigations that 

may be necessary for coalbed methane development. Under 

the No Action Alternative, the core area would be closed to 

new oil and gas and coalbed methane activities, while the area 

outside the core including the connectivity area would be open 

to new development with fewer restrictions compared to the 

Preferred Alternative and Alternative B. Consequently, more 

oil and gas and coalbed methane development is projected for 

the general area under the No Action Alternative than in these 

other alternatives. Therefore, the potential for impacting 

groundwater and possibly surface water resources would be 

greater than that projected for the Preferred Alternative and 

Alternative B. The No Action Alternative would be comparable to Alternative A with respect to the level of restrictions 

and areas open to development. The impacts would be similar 

between these two alternatives. 

Core Area 

No new oil and gas or coalbed methane development 

would occur within the core. Therefore, no impacts, as 

described in the Preferred Alternative, would be anticipated, 

except as may occur with continued operation of existing 

facilities. Continued operations may result in accidental 

spills. Spills would be cleaned up by the responsible party (43 

CFR 3160). 

Compared to the other alternatives, the No Action Alternative would have the least potential for impacting groundwater 

and surface water resources within the core area. All other 

alternatives would allow some level of new development to 

occur, where as, this alternative would not allow any new 

development. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impact summary for the baseline watershed analysis would be the same as described for the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Livestock grazing related erosion would most likely continue to be influenced by implementation of individual grazing practices and other activities that influence the distribution 

and timing of livestock use. Stream banks and riparian areas 

would most likely continue to be the focus of erosion reduction related activities. The greatest potential for erosion 

would occur along streams that had not achieved the minimally acceptable standard of PFC. 

Surface disturbing activities would most likely occur in 

areas with high oil and gas potential. Given that the core area 

is closed to further development under this alternative, existing disturbances within the core would continue and most if 

not all new disturbances would occur outside the core area. As 

the resource distribution determines the level of activity, this 

might cause a more rapid development of some areas outside 

the core but the amount of disturbance would be about the 

same. This more rapid development in limited areas could 

cause a local increase in overland flow and potential erosion. 

The potential level of cumulative disturbance to watershed 

values is directly related to the amount, timing, and location 

of surface disturbance. The primary causes of surface disturbance within the planning area are mineral development and 

livestock grazing improvements. Under the No Action Alternative, the overall level of disturbance would be low in the 

core area because of the lack of development activity but 

higher in the surrounding areas. Some of the streams within 

the planning area are recovering or have reached the minimum 

condition of PFC while others are showing less than desired 

results. This alternative would most likely produce an overall 

level of disturbance close to that of the Preferred Alternative. 

The higher levels of activity outside the core area, coupled 

with increased pressure from recreational activities, could 

create a zone of concentrated disturbance that could raise the 

level of concern affects over that of the Preferred Alternative. 

The cumulative impact on groundwater resources over the 

planning period for oil and gas development is likely to be 

minimal and insignificant given the projected yearly drilling 

rate of 4 to 5 wells per year. Due to the lack of information, 

the cumulative impact on groundwater aquifers due to coalbed 

methane development cannot be determined. Investigation of 

aquifers and their possible connection to surface waters prior 

to development would provide the information necessary for 

determining cumulative impacts and any necessary mitigation. 

Wild Horse Impacts 

The impact on wild horses from air quality management, 

fire management, hazardous materials, off-road vehicle and 

recreation use, reclamation practices, wild horse management, and wildlife habitat management would be the same as 

described for the Preferred Alternative. 

The management of cultural sites and properties is generally low impact and relegated to relatively small areas. Even 

350
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

under the most intense management (excavation) the amount 

of acreage disturbed is very small. These activities are not 

anticipated to have measurable impact on the forage resource 

for wild horses. The most likely impact to wild horses is 

temporary displacement while human activity occurs on the 

site. Once activity ceases, the horses would quickly re-occupy 

the area. Horses quickly adapt to human activities that are 

regular and long term in nature. 

Numerous activities, such as pipelines, utility corridors, 

and other linear rights-of-ways, have the potential to impact 

wild horses and their management. These impacts involve the 

removal of vegetative cover and disturbance caused by human 

activity. 

Standards for reclamation of linear surface disturbances 

are adequate to mitigate any potential impact to wild horses 

through vegetative removal. Impacts due to the actual location of linear facilities and the attendant human activity that 

goes with them are more problematic. 

Without restriction on the actual location of these types of 

facilities it is likely that they would be located in areas of 

important habitat for wild horses. The most important of these 

are permanent water sources. Linear facilities would not be 

located on a pond; however if located immediately adjacent to 

a water source, could reduce its utility or totally preclude wild 

horse use of the water, if human activity is too disturbing. An 

impact such as this becomes cumulative when more animals 

must use fewer water sources and therefore less habitat, at 

some point competition would ensue, animals would die, and 

habitat quality may be altered for wild horses and other 

species. 

Assessment of grazing allotments for conformance with 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands and implementation of 

appropriate actions to address non-conformance would be 

beneficial to wild horses and their habitat. Other appropriate 

actions proposed for livestock grazing may include additional 

fencing. Very little fencing presently exists within the wild 

horse herd management area and the entire planning area. 

Fencing within the wild horse herd management area could 

cause negative impacts to wild horse use of traditional habitats 

disrupting migration patterns and overall wild horse distribution. However, by policy any new fences in the wild horse 

herd management area can not interfere with the wild and freeroaming nature of the wild horses. 

Reductions in livestock use has the most potential to 

produce benefits to wild horses and their habitat in the short 

term. Under this alternative this tool would only be used if it 

is the only appropriate action that can address non-conformance with the standards for healthy rangelands and guidelines 

for livestock grazing. Any forage or water use competition 

between wild horse and domestic livestock would continue. 

Current seasons of use by domestic livestock would continue. There would be no additional impact to wild horses 

from this action. 

Changes in class of livestock could be beneficial to wild 

horses or produce negative impacts. Whether the actual 

impact is positive or negative, and the scope of the impact is 

largely dependant upon what class of animal is being considered. Generally, dietary overlap, and habitat preference 

between wild horses and cattle are greater than for wild horses 

and sheep. Therefore, as a rule, if cattle are converted to sheep 

it would benefit wild horses. Conversely, conversion from 

sheep to cattle would have negative impacts on wild horses. 

Removal of areas unsuitable for livestock grazing from the 

forage base for domestic livestock would benefit wild horses 

and their habitat. Other beneficial actions under this alternative include the establishment of use limits of 50 percent on 

key upland and riparian forage species, establishing PFC as 

minimum acceptable level for stream function, and the inclusion of riparian desired plant communities in grazing management plans. 

The decision to not conduct vegetation treatments, where 

these treatments have the potential to improve wild horse 

habitat is a negative impact. To construct no new range 

improvements is mostly positive to wild horses with the 

exception of water developments within the wild horse herd 

management area where additional water would improve 

habitat quality and wild horse distribution. 

The minimal amount of surface disturbance expected to 

result from predicted oil and gas activity would cause negligible impact to wild horse habitat. Some temporary or 

permanent displacement from areas experiencing increased 

human activity due to mineral development would occur. 

Most of the wild horse herd management area is located in 

areas of low potential for hydrocarbon development and wild 

horses tend to adapt to human presence over time; however, 

exactly where development would occur could have a major 

influence on the level of impact on wild horses. If activity is 

located outside the wild horse herd management area and 

away from critical habitats, there would be negligible impact 

to wild horses. Should activity be increased inside the wild 

horse herd management area and be located on critical habitats, impacts to wild horses due to oil and gas development 

could occur. 

Large scale mining of locatable minerals would have the 

potential to negatively affect wild horses. Mines by their 

nature are very single use developments that are long term in 

nature. Once a pit is opened the area of the pit no longer 

provides habitat for wild horses. Dredging or placer mining 

causes negative impacts on streams which could pose serious 

threats to the long-term viability of wild horse habitat in the 

wild horse herd management area. Salable mineral activity is 

not expected to have any impact on wild horses. 

Many of the planned actions to mitigate or limit impacts to 

surface resources from surface disturbing activities have been 

discussed in other sections (minerals, reclamation, livestock 

grazing, and lands and realty management). Under all alternatives, controls on surface disturbance benefit wild horses 

and their habitat. The alternatives vary only in the degree of 

benefit. Alternative B and the Preferred Alternative are more 

beneficial than are the No Action Alternative or Alternative A. 

Establishment of a one-half mile buffer around the proposed wild horse viewing area would protect the public’s 

ability to enjoy their wild and free-roaming horses in a natural 

351
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

setting. It would also increase the likelihood that wild horses 

would be in the vicinity of the viewing area more often. 

Developing Desired Plant Communities within grazing 

allotments that provide adequate forage for wild horses would 

be beneficial. Most vegetative treatments would have positive impacts on wild horses and their habitat. 

Management actions to stabilize and conserve soils, increase vegetative production, maintain or improve surface 

and ground water quality, and to maintain or improve wetlands, floodplains and riparian areas would benefit wild 

horses and their habitat. Under all alternatives, improvement 

of the soil, vegetation, and water resources benefit wild horses 

and their habitat. The alternatives vary only in the degree of 

benefit. Alternative B and the Preferred Alternative are more 

beneficial than are the No Action Alternative or Alternative A. 

Core Area 

The impact on wild horses would be the same as described 

for the Preferred Alternative. Only a very small portion of the 

Great Divide Horse Herd Management Area lies within the 

core area, connectivity areas, and the ACECs. Due to the 

limited area of overlap with the wild horse herd management 

area, it is anticipated that no impact to wild horses or their 

habitat would result from these activities. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Under all alternatives, no significant cumulative impacts to 

wild horses and wild horse management are anticipated. 

Wildlife Impacts 

Effects from air quality, cultural, fire, off-road vehicles, 

reclamation, recreation, special status species plants, surface 

disturbance, vegetation, watershed/water quality, and wild 

horse herd management would be the same as described for 

the Preferred Alternative. 

The effects from lands and realty actions would be similar 

to those discussed in the Preferred Alternative. In addition, 

preventing activity in the core area would benefit wildlife and 

wildlife habitats by preventing disturbance and disruption in 

this area. 

Although no surface disturbance would occur in the core 

under this alternative, potential exists for increased access 

into the core due to roads surrounding this area being opened 

year round by adjacent oil and gas development, coalbed 

methane development, and increased mining activities. 

Steamboat Mountain, Oregon Buttes, and Continental Peak 

would be closed to communication sites which would benefit 

big game, especially during winter periods. 

Locatable mineral activity (mining) in and around parturition areas in the Oregon Buttes area has the potential to 

decrease the availability of these areas for calving and fawning. This particularly applies to the activities that might occur 

in or near aspen stands associated with the parturition areas. 

These areas are also important to a variety of raptors, neotropical 

birds, and other wildlife and is a rare habitat type in the 

planning area. Although current 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. 

The effects from livestock grazing would be similar to 

those discussed in the Preferred Alternative except that no 

new livestock water developments would be authorized. This 

would benefit big game species by reducing the competition 

for forage, while helping sage grouse by increasing the residual herbaceous cover needed for nesting and brood rearing. 

No surface disturbing activities in the core area would 

protect some of the most pristine and important habitat for all 

wildlife species that inhabit the planning area. However, the 

core area alone can not support big game numbers agreed to 

by BLM, WGFD, and the public under this alternative. Leasing outside the core with the prescriptions listed in Table 2-10 

would not adequately protect big game habitat or assure a 

viable elk herd would still occur in the area due to habitat 

fragmentation and human disturbance. 

Under this alternative, 89 wells would be drilled over the 

life of the plan. Because the core area is unavailable under this 

alternative, most development would occur within the migration corridors identified by the WGFD. This would increase 

traffic and add additional oil/gas field activities into the field 

of view of the Steamboat Mountain elk herd and other wildlife 

species. Seasonal mitigation for surface disturbing activities 

(November 15 to April 30 for crucial winter range and May 1 

to June 30 for parturition areas) would not provide adequate 

long-term protection for big game. Normal operations and 

activities conducted during the production phase and during 

crucial winter periods could interfere with big game use of 

winter ranges. In addition, animal access (migration) to key 

winter ranges could be disrupted or interrupted, resulting in 

risk to the long-term survival of the area’s elk herd. These 

impacts could include abandonment of habitat, increased 

mortality, and a decrease in successful fawn and calf rearing. 

Lack of constraints on road densities under this alternative 

would likely eliminate elk use from areas with road densities 

greater than 0.5 mile of all weather roads per square mile. 

Studies have shown elk areas on the Bighorn National Forest 

that averaged 0.43 mile of road per square mile, while areas 

that had road densities greater than 0.5 mile of road per square 

mile showed greatly reduced use by elk (Sawyer 1997). This 

study was conducted where forested habitat occurs. There is 

much less cover for elk in the planning area, and disturbance 

due to roads is expected to be greater. 

Plowing of roads in the winter and early spring would 

adversely affect big game use of wintering habitats. Habitats 

could be abandoned and big game could receive additional 

stress from being displaced during harsh winter conditions. 

Visual resource management effects would be the same as 

the Preferred Alternative, except that fewer acres would be 

managed as VRM Class II. 

Not offering any new oil and gas leases in the core area 

352
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

would provide the best long-term protection for wildlife and 

wildlife habitat in this area; however, leasing outside the core 

and development outside the core could adversely affect 

wildlife populations, particularly elk, to the point where the 

population may not be sustained in this area. Potential exists 

for adverse impacts to the connectivity area and further 

fragmentation of this habitat from developments outside the 

core. Riparian management would benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat, but not to the extent of Alternative B and the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Continued livestock grazing practices could adversely 

affect wildlife and wildlife habitat, especially with continued 

early turnout dates. Not constructing livestock grazing improvements should benefit wildlife habitat as no surface 

would be disturbed, and livestock would not concentrate in 

areas with water developments. However, continued concentrations could occur on existing water sources as no new 

developments would be constructed. 

Maximum road densities would not be established and 

transportation planning would be minimal, which would 

adversely affect wildlife and wildlife habitat outside the core 

area. 

Impacts to Fisheries Resources 

The effects to air quality management, hazardous materials 

management, off-road vehicle management, recreation resource management, special status species management, vegetation management, visual resource management, watershed/water quality management, and wild horse herd management would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. 

Management of cultural resources are generally for the 

protection or preservation of such sites. These types of 

actions, if they occur at or near streams, generally would also 

benefit these also. Impacts from excavations of cultural sites 

as described in the Preferred Alternative would apply for this 

alternative also. 

Impacts from lands and realty management actions would 

be similar to those described for the Preferred Alternative. 

There would be more surface disturbance with realty actions 

in the No Action Alternative. Adequate mitigation (barriers, 

culverts, re-vegetation, etc.) would be implemented in order 

to keep the negative impacts short term. The lack of avoidance 

areas for rights-of-way would allow impacts to sensitive 

resources. 

Fisheries are directly affected by the condition of riparian 

areas. Refer to the Riparian/Wetland section under Vegetation Management in this chapter. As riparian condition 

declines, so too does fish habitat quality. 

The RMP removed AUMs for grazing from special management exclosures. This should allow for the maintenance of 

the riparian area in the upper 4 exclosures (hay meadow) on 

Pacific Creek and maintain the fish habitat for trout. Recovery 

of degraded habitats would not be as rapid as with the 

Preferred Alternative but otherwise impacts are the same. 

The drilling of gas wells would require local water sources 

for drilling and completion. It is assumed that all water used 

for drilling and completion of wells within the Green River 

and Sweetwater River basins would have been part of the 

surface flows of the Colorado River or Platte River, respectively, or of its tributaries (though that would not always be the 

case). The estimate for the amount of water needed on each 

deep well is 2.0 acre-feet. Of the 89 wells in this alternative, 

15 are shallow coalbed methane, 10 are deep coalbed methane 

wells located entirely within the Great Divide Basin (Red 

Desert), and the remaining 64 are standard deep gas wells. For 

these 64 wells it is estimated that 75 percent would be within 

the Green River Basin, 23 percent would be within the Great 

Divide Basin (Red Desert), and 2 percent would be within the 

Sweetwater River drainage (Platte River). Water use for these 

64 wells, would total 128 acre-feet in 20 years or 6.4 acre-feet/ 

year. This would total 4.8 acre-feet/year in the Colorado River 

drainage and 0.13 acre-feet/year in the Platte River drainage. 

The water depletion effects of the 15 shallow coalbed methane 

is the same as described in the Preferred Alternative. 

There are 15 coalbed methane wells that may be drilled on 

existing leases within the planning area within the next 3 to 5 

years. The impact of these wells is described in the Preferred 

Alternative. 

The depletion of water from the Colorado River drainage 

and its effect on T&E fish species downstream is described in 

the Green River RMP Record of Decision (see page 209, 

USDI 1997) and the Biological Assessment (Appendix 11) for 

this document. 

Impacts from other types of mineral activity are the same 

as described in the Preferred Alternative. 

Only positive long-term benefits are anticipated from 

wildlife management activities. Prescribed fire impacts to 

benefit watershed, vegetation, and habitat are described in the 

other sections. There are no specific fisheries activities 

planned in the planning area. Stipulations to protect and 

enhance wildlife habitat includes riparian areas and streams 

and result in positive impacts (e.g., increased plant species 

diversity and age structure, increased density, better production, decreased erosion, runoff and sedimentation, more available habitat, better water quality, etc.). 

All other management stipulations as developed in the 

Green River RMP apply. This should result in positive 

impacts for riparian areas and fisheries. 

Core Area 

Under this alternative, the core area (about 80,410 acres) 

would be closed to oil and gas leasing, development, surface 

disturbing and disruptive activities. This would benefit wildlife and their crucial habitats in many ways and would make 

maintenance of this elk herd population objective very likely. 

The impacts to fisheries are the same described in the general 

impacts for the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Management actions under this alternative would result in 

fewer adverse impacts to wildlife habitats than Alternative A, 

but more than Alternative B. Protection would be provided in 

353
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

the core area; however, developments and activities outside 

the core area would adversely affect wildlife habitat, particularly big game habitat. 

Developments and human presence would continue to 

remove and fragment wildlife habitats outside the core area, 

areas closed to leasing (about 197,470 acres), and closed to 

surface uses (about 30,580 acres). Demands on public lands 

from recreationists would continue to increase, resulting in 

less unoccupied and undisturbed areas which would increase 

wildlife displacement over the long term. More access would 

be provided into crucial habitats which would cause additional displacement. 

With 117,000 acres of nondiscretionary closure, about 

197,410 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing and 

development. 

Although about one-third of the planning area would be 

closed to leasing or surface disturbing and disrupting activities, not all of the closed areas occur in crucial habitats, nor are 

they interconnected. This development could occur in crucial 

habitats and in areas that connect these crucial habitats (connectivity area), fragmenting habitat and displacing wildlife. 

Seasonal constraints would continue to be used to mitigate 

impacts to wildlife from human activities during crucial 

periods and provide short-term protection for wildlife. Longterm maintenance and operations activity in crucial wildlife 

habitats would continue to cause displacement of wildlife 

from crucial habitats, including disruption of nesting, fawning 

and calving areas, and crucial big game winter habitats. 

Increased access for recreationists due to development of new 

roads would magnify the negative impacts to wildlife and 

their habitats. This would make the protection of the core area 

and related crucial habitat more important. 

Surface disturbing activities would continue to cause longterm losses of wildlife habitat. Overall, less acreage would be 

disturbed than under Alternative A, but more than Alternative 

B or the Preferred Alternative. 

Adverse impacts to crucial wildlife habitats (e.g., riparian 

areas, crucial winter ranges, parturition areas, game bird 

winter concentration areas, etc.) from livestock grazing would 

increase if all current nonuse AUMs are activated. These 

adverse impacts would be severe in crucial winter ranges 

where other commodity uses such as mining or oil and gas 

development is taking place. Placement of livestock into 

these crucial habitats or concentrating livestock in crucial 

habitats where vegetation has been decreased due to commodity development would result in less forage available for big 

game animals during winter periods. This would be especially 

critical in severe winters. These impacts could be reduced 

through implementation of new AMPs and/or revision of 

management in old AMPs to include riparian objectives and 

implementation of actions associated with standards and 

guidelines assessments. 

Potential exists for impacts to the migrational capabilities 

of the Sublette Antelope herd; however, these effects should 

not be significant. Fragmentation of habitat areas and displacement from existing migration corridors due to roads and 

increased activity could occur; however, this development in 

crucial antelope habitat is anticipated to be minimal. Adverse 

impacts could occur when winter conditions are extremely 

severe (similar to the winters of 1978 and 1983). Sufficient 

habitat and open space would continue to be provided for 

antelope under this Alternative. 

Management prescriptions for wildlife resources, watershed, visual resources, and off-road vehicle use would provide 

long-term benefits to wildlife populations and habitats. Fire 

(natural or prescribed) would result in a short-term loss of 

habitat, but could benefit habitat in the long term. Wildfire 

could result in a long-term loss of habitat and aspen stands if 

these areas are not fenced following a fire. Livestock would 

not be allowed to graze the burned area immediately after the 

fire, which would benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Surface mining can result in an irreversible irretrievable 

loss of wetlands, springs, and parturition areas, and although 

mitigation occurs, the original site is lost; however, only about 

53 acres are anticipated to be disturbed by mining exploration 

activity. Major road development also results in irretrievable 

losses of habitat as they are generally permanent structures. 

The impacts from road development would be less than from 

Alternative A. 

Habitat fragmentation, particularly for big game, would 

occur in some areas, especially in areas with many access 

roads and surface disturbances. Transportation routes tend to 

dissect habitats and can act as barriers to some species, 

especially in severe winter conditions. This can also increase 

the accessibility to the general public into areas that have 

previously been somewhat inaccessible to vehicles. This 

would become more important and increase adverse effects to 

wildlife as increased demands for use of public lands occur. 

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 

spacing (40- and 80-acre spacing) would preclude use of some 

of these areas by wildlife species, especially deer and elk. This 

could diminish the ability to maintain current population 

objectives for big game species; however, protection of the 

core area and associated habitat would mitigate some of these 

effects. 

A summary of impacts to the individual species that may be 

affected by actions in the planning area follows. 

Activity in the planning area would not significantly affect 

antelope migration. The main migration area is on the western 

edge of the planning area, which has low to moderate potential 

for mineral development and activity in the crucial winter 

range is not anticipated to be significant. Activities in main 

migration areas during winter periods can cause stress to the 

herd, which could have a direct effect on the physical condition of the animals upon arriving on crucial winter range, and 

their ability to survive severe winter conditions. 

Accessibility and usability of crucial winter range is not the 

only contributing concern for this antelope herd. Accessibility and use of summer and transition ranges could also become 

more of a problem in the future. 

354
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The Steamboat elk herd is very susceptible to displacement 

by human activities because of the lack of hiding and escape 

cover. No development proposals and other permanent uses 

in the core area makes maintenance of this herd population 

objective very likely. Road construction and increased access 

into remote areas outside the core could also increase use by 

the general public impacting this desert elk herd. With 

effective mitigation (such as remote or off-site facility placement, and seasonally restricting human activity to reduce 

access and traffic) applied to activity in crucial habitat and 

calving areas, the herd objective levels could be sustained. 

Studies have shown that there is direct competition for 

forage between mule deer and cattle for saltbush and winterfat 

on crucial winter range. Although use by cattle generally 

occurs in the spring or summer months, low plant vigor has 

generally resulted in little regrowth which makes these preferred vegetation types unavailable during winter months. 

Studies have also shown that sagebrush makes up a large 

component of the deer’s winter diet; however, this does not 

mean deer prefer it over other shrub species such as serviceberry, mountain mahogany, and bitterbrush. Control of wildfire is largely responsible for the loss of key shrub species and 

the even-aged condition of sagebrush communities. 

Increasing amounts of vegetation removal in crucial winter 

range by development activity compounds the problem of 

poor crucial winter range condition. Although many acres are 

returned to production by reclamation practices, almost all of 

this acreage contains forage either unusable by deer or of a 

different composition that may not provide the same nutritional benefits as the original forage. Shrubs planted during 

reclamation may take many years to return these habitats to a 

condition that provides usable forage for the deer. Loss of 

vegetation due to development activities has resulted in a 

reduction in available habitat and can result in increasing 

competition between livestock and wildlife for remaining 

vegetation. Oil and gas development and other developments 

(powerlines, pipelines) also result in decreased opportunities 

to use fire as a treatment tool to rejuvenate decadent plant 

communities, due to safety concerns. 

The population numbers for Steamboat herd are below the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department objective level. Although deer are probably more tolerant of human activities 

than elk, any large increase in development activities such as 

those associated with oil and gas development, could affect 

meeting the objective for this herd unit. The habitat at this 

time may not be capable of achieving the population objective 

for this herd given the development activity that has occurred 

in this portion of the herd area. However, closing the core area 

to surface disturbing and disruptive activities would reduce 

adverse effects to mule deer. Also, because this herd area is 

predominantly a desert type environment, areas for good fawn 

rearing are scarce. Direct competition between elk and deer 

for these parturition and winter use areas is probably more 

prevalent here than in most herd areas. 

Fisheries 

Lands actions (rights-of-way for roads, pipelines, water 

diversions, well pads), livestock management and minerals 

development of all types have the greatest individual impact 

to fisheries. The combination of these actions compounds the 

effects that the riparian area and the streams have to accommodate. The health of the riparian areas is related to water 

quality and the quality of fishery habitat. Effects include 

increased peak flows, increased sediment loads, chemicals, 

decreased vigor in riparian plants, structural changes in riparian plant communities, unstable stream banks, etc. Under this 

alternative, currently, all possible mitigation measures to 

correct problems in riparian/wetland areas are not being 

applied. With the assumptions of this alternative in effect, 

reversing the downward trends or correcting the problems in 

the riparian areas might be achievable but the progress may be 

very slow in coming and not constitute a “significant” rate. 

Special Management Areas 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC and Special Recreation Management Area 

Impacts would be the same as described in the Preferred 

Alternative, except the effects from oil and gas and coalbed 

methane development would not occur and the ORV open 

area would not change in size. Adverse effects would occur 

to oil and gas operations due to increased costs and lost drilling 

opportunities. 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

Under this alternative, existing oil and gas leases would not 

be developed and new leases would not be issued. Under this 

alternative, impacts from oil and gas activities would be less 

than any of the other alternatives; however, impacts to oil and 

gas operations would be greatest for this alternative. 

Closing Steamboat Mountain ACEC to communication 

sites and mineral material sales would enhance BLM efforts 

to manage wildlife, visual, and heritage resources of all kinds. 

No additional withdrawals than those identified in the 

RMP would preclude the opportunity for future withdrawals 

which could slightly diminish BLM’s ability to manage and 

protect wildlife resources and heritage resources of all kinds. 

The benefits from livestock grazing management actions 

would not be as great as for the Preferred Alternative. 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC 

The Green River RMP and other management document 

prescriptions would significantly enhance BLM efforts to 

manage and protect heritage resources of all kinds. 

An assessment of the amount of exploration and development activity that could occur if restrictions were not in place 

can not be made. An unknown number of potential drilling 

locations would not be available due to this restriction. Extra 

drilling and development costs would be required to meet 

restrictions placed on activity in this area. Extra costs would 

include relocating well pads; redesigning access routes, well 

pads, and production facilities; and directionally drilling 

some wells to reach potential reservoirs from off-site locations. Impacts from restrictions placed just on lands in this 

355
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

ACEC would not be great enough to meet established significance criteria. 

White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC 

Impacts to the White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC would 

be the same as those described for the Preferred Alternative. 

Red Desert Watershed Area 

No livestock water developments would be constructed 

throughout the area. This would reduce the effects of livestock water development construction and livestock use of the 

immediate and surrounding area. However, this would limit 

the use of such developments as a grazing management tool 

and could adversely affect livestock operations. These effects 

would be more than for the Preferred Alternative. 

Portions of the watershed would be closed to oil and gas 

leasing which would benefit sensitive resources but adversely 

affect oil and gas operations. 

Road densities for all weather roads would not be established which could adversely affect wildlife, cultural, and 

other sensitive resource values through increased road construction and traffic. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Cultural Impacts 

Impacts to cultural resources from air quality management, 

fire management, hazardous materials, monitoring and reclamation practices, off-road vehicle and recreation use, special 

status species management, vegetation management, and wild 

horses would be the same as described in the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Impacts to cultural resources from cultural resource management actions would be the same as described in the No 

Action Alternative. 

Seasonal restrictions and other mitigative measures applied to lands and realty actions generally have beneficial 

effects to cultural resources by limiting or otherwise controlling surface disturbing activities. Special management prescriptions for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, such 

as the South Pass Historic Landscape and White Mountain 

Petroglyphs are generally protective in nature and tend to 

benefit cultural resources. 

Impacts to cultural resources from rights-of-way authorizations would be the same as described in the No Action 

Alternative. Cultural resources in general would be somewhat vulnerable to damage from rights-of-ways, permits and 

leases in certain areas including Indian Gap, Monument 

Ridge, White Mountain and the face of Steamboat Mountain. 

Areas identified as respected places by Native Americans, and 

the surrounding terrain could suffer from surface disturbing 

activities. The negative effects of these changes in the 

landscape could be somewhat, but probably not totally, mitigated. 

Impacts to cultural resources from withdrawals would be 

the same as described in the No Action Alternative. Withdrawals prescribed in the Green River RMP would slightly 

enhance efforts to protect heritage resources of all kinds. 

Access acquisition prescribed in the Green River RMP 

would slightly improve efforts to manage heritage resources 

of all kinds. 

Dispersed livestock grazing generally is fairly benign so 

far as impacts to cultural resources are concerned. Severe 

overgrazing can accelerate erosion and thus destroy the soil 

matrix in which archaeological resources are situated. Overgrazing could also adversely affect places such as the South 

Pass Historic Landscape by drastically changing the vegetative component of the viewshed. However, grazing within 

regulated limits usually would not adversely affect cultural 

resources. 

Managing water for livestock operations can affect cultural resources. Spring improvements and construction of 

reservoirs can destroy archaeological resources because they 

disturb the soil matrix in which they are situated. Generally, 

spring developments tend to be more detrimental than other 

kinds of water developments because the water source was 

often attractive to prehistoric and historic inhabitants of the 

region. Conversely, reservoirs are usually situated in drainage 

bottoms that tend to have been disturbed by alluvial action and 

are less likely to have soil deposits that could harbor intact 

archaeological materials. 

Piping water from springs generally is beneficial to cultural resources both because it protects the natural appearance 

and setting of the water source and because it prevents 

livestock trampling in the immediate area. However, trampling can be increased in localized areas around troughs, 

fences, water gates, salt block placements and similar facilities that tend to concentrate livestock in small areas. This 

accelerated trampling can sometimes be detrimental to cultural resources. 

Livestock rubbing against rock art panels and historic 

structures such as those at Crookston Ranch and the Rock 

Cabin could severely damage, or completely destroy those 

resources. 

Impacts to cultural resources from minerals management 

activities would be similar to those described in the No Action 

Alternative. Development of 125 projected oil and gas wells 

and associated facilities would approximately double the 

chances for these activities to adversely affect cultural resources of all kinds. Enhanced management prescriptions, 

including additional 1/4 mile protection around areas identified by Native Americans as respected places would mitigate 

these potential adverse effects to some degree. 

There would be a slight potential for salable mineral 

development to adversely affect heritage resource values. 

Locatable mineral development has a potential to impact 

efforts to manage heritage resources; this is especially so with 

regard to South Pass Historic Landscape and Native American 

respected areas. 

356
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts to cultural resources from geophysical exploration 

activities would be the same as described in the No Action 

Alternative. Geophysical operations would have a slight 

potential to impact heritage resources of all kinds. 

Impacts to cultural resources from surface disturbing activities would be similar to those described in the No Action 

Alternative. However, impacts would be somewhat greater as 

more surface disturbing activities associated with livestock 

facility development and mineral development would occur. 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations would generally 

enhance protection of all kinds of heritage resources. 

Impacts to cultural resources from transportation planning 

would be similar to those described in the No Action Alternative. Transportation planning would generally enhance efforts to protect heritage resources of all kinds. However, more 

roads and facilities could be placed in a wider variety of areas, 

which has the potential to affect a greater number of cultural 

resources. 

The impacts to cultural resources from visual resource 

management would be similar to those described for the No 

Action Alternative. Changing the VRM class for farmlands 

within Eden Valley from Class III to Class IV would not 

appreciably affect heritage resources in that area. 

Impacts to cultural resources from watershed management 

activities would be the same as described in the No Action 

Alternative. 

Adverse effects to wildlife and riparian habitat would be 

somewhat detrimental to the overall appreciation of heritage 

resources within their environmental context. 

Core Area 

Impacts on cultural resources within the core area would be 

the same as described for the general area. More activity 

would occur in the core area than under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for the 

No Action Alternative, except the 1/4 mile avoidance radius 

around Native American respected places would lessen potential impacts to those heritage resources. However, there 

would be a greater amount of surface disturbance overall 

which could increase disturbance of cultural resources. 

Paleontological Impacts 

Compared to any of the alternatives being analyzed, Alternative A would allow the most ground disturbance, both 

inside and outside the core area. New oil and gas leases would 

be issued throughout the planning area, with some having a no 

surface occupancy stipulation. Existing oil and gas leases 

would be developed in the core and general area. As in the No 

Action Alternative, transportation planning would not include 

road density limitations. Yearlong access to oil and gas 

facilities would be allowed. Under this alternative, known 

scientifically significant fossil sites within the planning area 

would be closed to surface disturbing activity, which would 

effectively preserve them for future study. 

The type of direct and indirect impacts described for the 

Preferred Alternative are the same for Alternative A. The 

magnitude of the impacts under Alternative A would be the 

greatest of any alternative. 

Core Area 

Alternative A opens more public land to development 

within the core area than any other alternative being analyzed. 

Activities associated with new oil and gas leases and existing 

leases and new livestock grazing developments all contribute 

to the additional acreage that could be disturbed. The magnitude of the impact from this development would be the 

greatest among the alternatives. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The type of cumulative impacts described in the Preferred 

Alternative would be the same for Alternative A. The magnitude of these impacts would be the greatest among any of the 

alternative being analyzed. 

Fire Impacts 

The impacts to fire management activities would be the 

same as described for the Preferred Alternative except that the 

fewest restrictions for resource protection would be applied to 

fire management activities. 

Lands Impacts 

Right-of-way holders would have the most flexibility and 

opportunity for locating and routing rights-of-way under this 

alternative. However, right-of-way placement would be impacted by exclusion, avoidance, and areas closed to surface 

occupancy, and those areas with seasonal restrictions. The 

effects would be the least under this alternative as fewer acres 

would be considered avoidance or exclusion areas. 

The exclusion of rights-of-way within the South Pass 

Historic Landscape vista (about 23,640 acres) would continue 

to have a major impact if activity should increase in this area 

since rights-of-way in exclusion areas would not be allowed 

unless mandated by law. Large avoidance areas would have 

a similar impact as avoidance of areas may require a longer 

route which would affect other offsite areas and increase costs 

to the applicant. About 146,180 acres or 26 percent of the 

planning area would be avoidance areas for rights-of-way and 

about 27,120 acres or 4 percent of the planning area would be 

excluded from rights-of-way activities. Additional mitigation 

may also be applied to activities that may occur in all avoidance areas, also increasing project costs and the amount of 

time needed to complete projects (Table 4-23). 

Areas closed to surface occupancy (about 30,580 acres or 

5 percent of the planning area) preclude placement of rightsof-way because surface disturbing and disrupting activities 

are not allowed. Most of these areas are small and scattered 

throughout the planning area and can be easily avoided. Large 

357
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

areas with NSO restrictions have the same effect as large 

exclusion areas. 

The effects to communication site holders would be less 

than for the No Action Alternative as more areas would be 

available for the placement of these facilities. Although no 

interest has been indicated, sites could be placed on Steamboat 

Mountain, which could facilitate communication activity 

around the area. 

Seasonal restrictions and other mitigation measures to 

protect resource values and threatened and endangered species (T&E) would impact rights-of-way by restricting location or timing of construction. 

The possibility of high dust levels resulting from use of 

unpaved access roads would necessitate stipulations to control dust. All construction rights-of-way as well as access road 

rights-of-way would include a stipulation requiring that the 

holder meet Federal and State air quality standards. 

Land tenure adjustments would occur only if the benefits 

outweigh any adverse impacts, and if there are no significant 

impacts which cannot be mitigated. About 4,721 acres have 

been identified as possibly suitable for disposal/acquisition 

(USDI 1997). 

The withdrawal of about 37,290 acres identified for withdrawal in the Green River RMP, would preclude disposal, 

entry, and mineral location in those areas. Withdrawals for 

more than 5,000 acres would require notification of Congress. 

Existing withdrawals would be reviewed and those which no 

longer serve the purpose for which they were withdrawn, 

would be revoked. These lands would then be open for 

disposal, entry, and mineral location. About 211,130 acres 

would open to mineral location that previously were not 

available for this activity. Potential for mining claim activity 

is low except in the South Pass Area. This action would 

benefit mining claimants by allowing mining claim activity on 

areas that were previously closed. 

There is adequate vehicle access on the existing roads and 

trails to the lands in the planning review area. Closing or 

restricting specific areas to protect public health and safety 

should not cause severe adverse effects to vehicle users 

because so much of the area is currently accessible and such 

closures would likely be few. Implementing the ORV designations would keep vehicles on designated routes which could 

result in traveling further to get to a destination, but should not 

preclude accessing an area. Foot and horse traffic would not 

be affected. 

Impacts to rights-of-way and other lands actions for the 

South Pass Historic Landscape would be the same as discussed in the general impact section. 

The impacts to rights-of-way for the Oregon Buttes and 

White Mountain Petroglyphs ACECs would be the same as 

discussed for exclusion and areas with NSO restrictions. The 

impacts to other lands actions would be the same as discussed 

for the general area. 

Core Area 

New activities would be allowed within the core area, and 

new rights-of-way would be issued for actions within the core 

area. Large avoidance areas (Greater Sand Dunes ACEC) 

would require routing rights-of-way around this portion of the 

core area. This would affect other offsite areas and increase 

costs to the applicant. Land tenure, withdrawal, and access 

impacts would be the same as described for the general area. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The combined actions of about 146,180 acres of avoidance 

and about 27,210 acres of exclusion area would affect rightof-way placement but not as much as identified in the No 

Action Alternative as there are less contiguous acres of 

avoidance areas. Long linear rights-of-way particularly would 

be affected by potentially longer routes increasing construction costs, but this would be less than for the No Action 

Alternative. 

Withdrawal of 37,290 acres would preclude disposal, 

entry, and mineral location. Revocation of about 211,130 

withdrawn acres would allow for entry and mineral location, 

and consideration of land disposal. 

Lands would be irreversibly lost to the public land base 

when sold or exchanged. However, under exchanges, lands of 

comparable value would be obtained. 

Livestock Grazing Impacts 

Impacts to livestock grazing from air quality management, 

cultural and paleontological management, healthy rangelands, monitoring and reclamation practices, off-road vehicle 

and recreation use, special status species management, threatened and endangered species management, weeds, wild horses, 

and wilderness management would be the same as described 

in the Preferred Alternative. 

With the increase in the number of oil and gas wells drilled 

(110 gas wells and 15 shallow coalbed methane wells), there 

would be an estimated 2,700 acres of disturbance. Net longterm disturbance would be about 600 acres. The impacts 

would vary upon the location, timing, and size of disturbance 

caused by the wells or unit. However, the overall net longterm disturbance would be minimal. 

Additional impacts might occur due to increased traffic, 

causing livestock to move from an area, which could cause 

stress, or even death from vehicle and heavy machinery 

collisions. There is also a potential for livestock to become 

trapped in reserve pits and dying. Due to the requirements for 

fencing such pits, this effect should be minimal. 

Opening roads into previously inaccessible areas would 

benefit permittees access into areas and facilitate management of livestock. Livestock could also utilize access routes 

to trail into these areas. Additional water sources could be 

provided through oil and gas development and would benefit 

livestock grazing. This could partially offset no new water 

sources being developed specifically for livestock. 

358
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts to livestock from Hard Rock Mining (Locatables), 

Gravel or other pits (salables), and Coal, Sodium, or Oil Shale 

Exploration and Development (leasables) would be the same 

as described in the Preferred Alternative. These activities 

would not pose a concern for livestock production and management. 

With the increase of production, the likelihood of a hazardous spill would increase over the Preferred Alternative. However, mitigation to contain and cleanup any spill or accident as 

soon as possible, should keep any effects minimal. 

Lands and realty actions would affect livestock the same as 

under the Preferred Alternative. Additionally, about 84,420 

acres would be closed to rights-of-way which would benefit 

livestock by protecting available forage. 

Suitability of the planning area would mostly affect the 

class of livestock. Some areas are more suitable for cattle 

while other areas are more appropriate for sheep. Slopes 

greater than 20 percent are usually only accessible to sheep 

while the lower lying areas are more accessible to cattle 

grazing. Distance to water is also more critical for cattle than 

for sheep. Omitting areas of little or no productivity or very 

steep slopes might have an impact on the livestock operators 

by a reduction in adjudicated AUMs. However, this would 

decrease the potential overutilization of the vegetation in 

other areas. With sheep and cattle there is a diverse range of 

forage needs which separates each class of livestock. One area 

may indeed be unsuitable for one class of livestock but very 

suitable to another. 

Salting for distribution of livestock could require some 

effort in planning and proper placement but would aid in the 

distribution of forage utilization and reduce impacts to other 

resources such as wildlife, water quality, and riparian resources. 

Vegetative treatments beneficial to wildlife would also be 

beneficial to livestock. Burning or using chemicals to reduce 

sagebrush would only increase the forage for both livestock 

and some species of wildlife. New treatments for livestock 

would benefit livestock management. 

In the foreseeable future any proposed livestock management facility submitted by the livestock operators would be 

assessed by an interdisciplinary team to insure that they 

comply with the land use plans and the JMHCAP. Livestock 

water could be developed which would enhance livestock 

grazing management flexibility, improve distribution, and 

reduce use of existing waters and riparian areas over the No 

Action Alternative. 

Authorized grazing use would not exceed the recognized 

permitted use. For analysis purposes, anticipated actual use 

would be 26,032 AUMs (22,767 cattle and 3,265 sheep). This 

grazing level was held constant throughout the planning 

period. 

Livestock grazing would benefit from management actions for seasons of use. The livestock operators would have 

the flexibility to move their livestock at times of financial 

gain. The earlier turnout would allow the livestock operators 

to adjust their operations causing less impact on their operations. However, the unpredictability of spring storms can 

impact livestock herds. By allowing early turn-out, livestock 

would be grazing at a time of critical growth to the vegetation. 

Without subsistence feeding, livestock may not get enough 

reserves to gain any weight during March and April. Only 

with green-up would the animals be able to graze plants which 

are capable of sustaining them. Because of plant phenology, 

green up is a very critical time for the plants that rely on the 

root reserves for the energy necessary for growth. 

If a plant is cropped off while in this critical period, there 

is the potential to cause irreversible damage to the plant and 

ultimately kill it. Young plants area easily pulled out and 

subsequently killed. This would adversely affect livestock 

grazing in the long term due to a decline in the quality and 

quantity of forage. A rotation system would be necessary to 

insure resource damage did not occur. 

Impacts of preparing livestock grazing plans would be 

similar to those described for the No Action Alternative. 

Under Alternative A, riparian pastures could be used as short 

duration grazing pastures which would increase management 

flexibility. These areas should be monitored very closely if 

they are to be used for this purpose. 

A total of 25 reservoirs could be developed, cleaned out, or 

reconstructed to improve livestock distribution. This may 

reduce the amount of time livestock spend in riparian or 

wetland habitats. Vegetative production would increase in the 

riparian or wetland areas, resulting in increased forage productivity, diversity, and density. Depending on the type and 

locations of the watering sources, livestock distribution would 

improve within grazing allotments. The effects of utilization 

levels in riparian areas would be the same as described for the 

No Action Alternative. Managing riparian areas primarily for 

livestock grazing and developing riparian pastures would 

provide management flexibility and benefit livestock management. 

For a detailed socioeconomic impacts discussion of the 

livestock industry, see Socioeconomic Impacts. Under Alternative A, 455,340 cattle AUMs and 65,300 sheep AUMs 

would be available for livestock grazing during the 20-year 

life of the project. The total economic impact of livestock 

grazing would be $32.3 million. Employment in the livestock 

sector would be 365 annual job equivalents earning $16,337 

average per year. Economic impacts to livestock grazing 

under Alternative A are the highest of all alternatives. AUMs 

available for livestock grazing on an annual basis under 

Alternative A represent an increase over the baseline year 

1998 and the 5-year average of 1994-1998. 

No surface occupancy stipulations or rights-of-way avoidance areas in the South Pass Historic Landscape, Oregon 

Buttes ACEC, and White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC could 

prevent construction of livestock management facilities; therefore, livestock distribution patterns may not improve. 

Although some transportation planning would be implemented, road densities would not be established and more 

surface disturbance would occur under this alternative. This 

would remove more livestock forage. 

359
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Of all the alternatives, wildlife habitat management actions 

would be the least restrictive, providing the most flexibility in 

livestock operations. Management tools can be developed to 

aid livestock operators in controlling or moving animals 

throughout the planning area. 

Potential competition for forage and shade with wildlife 

would continue. More management tools would be available 

than under any other alternative. These tools may or may not 

be limited due to environmental concerns within the planning 

area. 

Water sources may be developed in areas away from live 

water to draw livestock away from riparian areas. Fences and 

other livestock management facilities may be constructed to 

improve livestock distribution, reducing the potential for 

competition for forage and cover with wildlife. 

Core Area 

Construction of rangeland improvements would improve 

livestock distribution patterns. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Actions taken under this alternative could result in a shortterm reduction in use as the area and time available for grazing 

would be limited. The levels of this potential impact is least 

under this alternative. The projected increase in forage 

production would be the least, but could help to offset this loss 

in the long term. 

Minerals Impacts 

Leasables - Oil and Gas and Coalbed Methane 

Resources 

Oil and gas and coalbed methane development would be 

restricted or prohibited as the result of conflicts with environmentally related resource values. This cumulative impact is 

due to the restriction categories: 

• no leasing, 

• no surface occupancy, 

• seasonal access restrictions, and 

• controlled surface use restrictions. 

Approximately 20 percent (Wilderness Study Areas) of the 

federal minerals in the planning area would be designated no 

leasing. 

In areas of no surface occupancy, surface disturbing activities are prohibited. About 5 percent of the planning area 

would be affected by this restriction (Map 21 and Table 2-12). 

Access to hydrocarbon resources located beneath these areas 

must be accomplished by drilling deviated or horizontal wells, 

which may not always be economically feasible. Directional 

drilling would increase well cost. 

About 60 percent of the planning area is affected by 

seasonal restrictions (Map 11). Seasonal restrictions limit oil 

and gas activities to certain time periods during the year. 

Activities can be prohibited from between 2 and 9 months out 

of the year depending on the purpose of the time limitation, 

and number and kind of overlapping seasonal restrictions. 

This restriction is applied to leases in order to protect, big 

game winter ranges, certain calving and parturition areas, 

raptor habitat, mountain plover nesting, and sage grouse 

nesting areas (Table 2-12). Most of the seasonal restriction 

overlaps occur during the spring and early summer. The 

recent addition of a requirement for mountain plover nesting 

surveys would increase costs for any new wells or construction activities proposed. 

Controls on surface disturbing activities are applied to 

leases to mitigate adverse impacts. The effect of surface use 

restrictions can range from no effect, to added mitigation and 

reclamation requirements, to moving well locations, all the 

way to prohibiting exploration and development activity. The 

magnitude of the impact is generally not known until a well 

has been proposed. About 56 percent of the planning area 

would be affected by these controlled surface use restrictions 

(Table 2-12 and Map 22). 

The reasonable foreseeable development scenario projected that 202 wells (includes 10 coalbed methane wells) 

could be drilled in the planning area if the entire area were 

open to exploration and development. The impacts of restrictions on this projection are: 

1. an unknown number of coalbed methane wells would not 

be drilled due to the combined restrictions resulting from 

no leasing, no surface occupancy and controlled surface 

use mitigation and reclamation requirements, 

2. an estimated direct loss of 18 percent of the potentially 

drilled oil and gas wells (35 wells) through no leasing, 

3. an estimated indirect loss of 24 percent of the potentially 

drilled oil and gas wells (47 wells) because restrictions (no 

leasing, surface occupancy stipulations, and mitigation 

and reclamation requirements) could discourage industry 

from initiating exploration and development activities, 

4. increased operating costs related to trying to get access for 

drilling those available well locations and transporting 

production obtained, 

5. in the short term (through 2007), the number of producing 

wells could increase from 48 wells (46 oil and gas wells and 

2 coalbed methane wells) to 71 wells (64 oil and gas wells 

and 5 coalbed methane wells, 

6. in the long term (through 2017), the number of producing 

wells could decrease to 64 wells (57 oil and gas wells and 

7 coalbed methane wells). 

Impacts of Fewer Wells

 About 110 wells (53 new producing oil and gas wells and 

5 new producing coalbed methane wells) are expected to be 

drilled and 82 wells would not be drilled during the 20-year 

analysis period. The new producing wells would account for 

additional royalty and tax revenue to the government. The 53 

new oil and gas wells would have a total reserve of 116.6 

billion cubic feet of gas. The projected reserves of the 

expected 5 new producing coalbed methane wells is not 

known. 

360
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The unavailable production from the oil and gas wells not 

drilled represents unrealized royalty and tax revenue. Fortythree of the 82 wells would be expected to produce and they 

could recover 94.6 billion cubic feet of gas. A loss of 

opportunity for revenue and royalty would occur if wells 

could not be drilled to obtain hydrocarbons under no leasing 

and no surface operations areas. Where leasing is deferred, 

the opportunity to recover hydrocarbon reserves would also 

be deferred for some period longer than 20 years. The amount 

of potential revenue from undrilled coalbed methane wells is 

unknown, since the number of potential undrilled coalbed 

methane wells could not be determined. Opportunities for 

direct and indirect employment would also be reduced with 

fewer producing wells. 

Significance of Impacts to Oil and Gas Activities

 Alternative A impacts would be reduced in comparison to 

the No Action Alternative., but, significance criteria 1, 2, and 

3 would still be exceeded. Two fields (Nitchie Gulch and Pine 

Canyon) lie in or partially in the planning area. They both 

exceed the 5 billion cubic feet of gas criteria. The Nitchie 

Gulch Field contains 48 wells (see RFD) and the Pine Canyon 

Field contains 22 wells (George, 1992). The well average per 

field in this area is 35. Diedrich (1999) has indicated that field 

sizes are likely to range from 20 to 25 wells. In comparison, 

a natural gas field in southwestern Wyoming typically includes 30 to 200+ wells (Barlow and Haun, 1994). It appears 

that at least one average field would not be developed due to 

direct impacts of not leasing and due to indirect impacts of 

applying surface use restrictions. Possibly as many as two 

fields would not be developed due to these restrictions. 

About 42 percent of expected potential exploration and 

development activity could not occur due to restrictions. 

These potential losses are reduced from a potential loss of 62 

percent that was determined for the No Action Alternative. 

Collectively these losses exceed the threshold loss of 25 

percent which was determined to be significant. Direct losses 

were determined to be 18 percent and indirect losses were 

determined to be 24 percent. Individually, these losses do fall 

below the threshold determined for significant impact. 

About 42 percent of expected reserve additions would not 

occur due to restrictions. The threshold was determined to be 

a loss of 25 percent of the potential reserves. 

The total number of producing wells would increase by 11 

wells over the 20-year study period due to the reduction in 

restrictions on exploration and development. This would be 

a positive impact. 

Core Area 

Impacts as a result of restrictions in the Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC and Steamboat Mountain ACEC are the same as for the 

Core Area since they lie within it. Types of impacts determined for the planning area as a whole, also apply to this area. 

Alternative A re-opens this area for leasing. 

An updated reservoir study of the Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC portion of the Core Area was prepared (Stilwell 1999). 

As many as 10 new wells could be drilled within this ACEC. 

An additional 18 wells could be drilled within the rest of the 

Core Area. Some wells would be drilled as step-out development wells from the Nitchie Gulch Field and some as part of 

another field (possibly as extensions of one or more of the 

small one- or two-well fields already present). A small 

number of wells may not be drilled for Alternative A, but it 

does not appear that development of the entire field would be 

precluded. The criteria #1 impact threshold would not be 

exceeded. 

Significance criteria #2 and #3 impact threshold levels 

would not be exceeded within the core area since only a few 

wells might not be drilled due to restrictions placed on 

exploration and development activity. 

Forty wells have been completed as gas producers in the 

core area and 30 wells still produce. Over the long term, 29 (97 

percent) of these wells are expected to be abandoned, leaving 

only one producing well. Approximately 15 of the 28 new 

wells are expected to be productive. The significant impact 

threshold for criteria #4 would be exceeded since the total 

number of producers could decrease from 30 to 16 over the life 

of this plan. This impact would be more due to depletion of 

reservoir rocks in the area than it would be due to restrictions 

placed on exploration and development activity. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Impacts include those expected from all oil and gas development. Present impacts are due to 48 existing producing 

wells. Short-term impacts (1998-2007) expected are: 23 new 

exploratory unit proposals; 58 new wells; 30 new producing 

wells; 28 drilled and abandoned wells; and 7 abandoned 

producing wells. At the end of 2007 there would be 71 

producing wells in the planning area. This would be an 

increase of 23 wells (18 conventional and 5 coalbed methane 

wells) over the December 1997 total of 48 wells. 

Long-term impacts (1998-2017) expected are: 46 new 

exploratory unit proposals; 110 new wells; 58 new producing 

wells; 52 drilled and abandoned wells; and 42 abandoned 

producing wells. At the end of 2017 there would be 64 

producing wells in the planning area. This would be an 

increase of 16 wells (an increase of 5 coalbed methane wells 

and an increase of 11 conventional wells) over the December 

1997 total of 48 wells. 

Leasables - (Other than Oil and Gas and 

Coalbed Methane), Locatables, and Salables 

Leasables - Coal 

The level of coal activity projected for this alternative is the 

same as that described for the No Action Alternative. The 

level of restrictions decreases slightly with respect to coal 

exploration inside the core area (Table 4-24). Exploration 

activities in the core area (including the Steamboat Mountain 

ACEC) would be open but limited to exiting roads and trails. 

Outside the core area, activities would be reviewed on a caseby-case basis, similar to the No Action Alternative. Native 

American respected sites would be avoided by 1/4 mile as 

opposed to 100 feet in the No Action Alternative. 

361
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The effects to coal exploration under this alternative would 

be similar to that described for the No Action Alternative; 

however, the magnitude of the effects would be less due to the 

core area being open to exploration on existing roads and 

trails. This combined with the 1/4 mile avoidance around 

Native American respected sites may provide enough access 

for a preliminary exploratory program (assuming 1,000- to 

1,500-foot drill hole spacing). If the preliminary exploratory 

program suggested a minable deposit may exist, then more 

detailed drilling would be in order. Detailed exploratory 

drilling can range from 200- to 250-foot spacing and possibly 

even to 50-foot spacing depending on the geologic conditions. 

This alternative would not provide the required access for 

such spacing; therefore, detailed exploration drilling would 

not likely occur during the planning period. 

Cumulative Impacts Same as described for the general 

impact discussion. 

Leasables - Sodium 

The impacts to sodium development under this alternative 

would be similar to those described for the No Action Alternative. 

Locatables 

The impacts to locatable minerals development under this 

alternative would be the same as that described for the No 

Action Alternative. 

Salables 

The impacts to salable mineral activity for this alternative 

would be the same as described for the general area under the 

No Action Alternative. The same areas would be closed or 

restricted to development of mineral materials (Table 4-25). 

Core AreaThis alternative would open portions of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC to development of mineral materials. 

The lava rock capping Steamboat Mountain would be a 

primary source of hard durable material that could be used for 

road base or other purposes. This would provide a much 

closer source of material in support of projected development. 

The cost of doing business would likely decrease, because 

haul distances would be reduced. As described for the No 

Action Alternative, mining of mineral materials would reduce 

existing reserves. 

Cumulative Impacts The cumulative effects on mineral 

materials would be an increase in the total amount of materials 

available from within the planning area compared to the No 

Action Alternative. 

Geophysical 

Under Alternative A, geophysical exploration could occur 

in some areas inside and outside the core area. These activities 

would be allowed only after a site-specific analysis was 

completed. The Green River RMP set restrictions, such as 

limiting the use of vehicles and explosive charges (Table 4-

22) in sensitive resource areas inside and outside the core. 

Sensitive resources include; Boars Tusk, a portion of White 

Mountain Petroglyphs, Crookston Ranch, developed recreation sites and the ORV parking lot in the Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC, raptor nesting sites, portions of South Pass Historic 

Landscape, Oregon Buttes ACEC, special status plant species 

habitat, Tri-Territory Marker, Native American respected 

sites, Wilderness Study Areas, and recreation interpretive 

sites. Some of these areas, such as the WSAs, would be open 

to foot traffic only. 

Under this alternative, direct and indirect impacts would be 

similar to that described for the No Action Alternative as there 

are no prescriptive changes between the two alternatives. 

Geophysical proposals would be reviewed on a case-by-case 

basis. Detailed analysis of the potential restrictions would not 

be available prior to development of exploration proposals. 

However, given the potential resource conflicts between 

wildlife, cultural, vegetation, and recreation resources and 

geophysical activities, the direct impact would be an increase 

in the cost of operations from mitigation of impacts to these 

resources. The cost of geophysical activities would increase 

due to controlled surface use restrictions, time delays, and 

seasonal restrictions. 

The Green River RMP identified certain areas that would 

remain open to leasing but closed or restricted to geophysical 

activities. Such a situation may indirectly affect overall 

development of oil and gas resources in those areas and 

potentially increase the amount of surface disturbance associated with development. If subsurface information can not be 

retrieved through conventional geophysical means, then operators assume a higher risk during exploration and development of these areas. The presence or absence of geophysical 

data can mean the difference between more efficient development, with fewer, more productive wells and missing the 

reservoir entirely. Areas that would remain open to leasing 

but closed or restricted to geophysical activities may incur less 

efficient development resulting in more surface disturbance 

than would otherwise occur were geophysical data available. 

Core Area 

Under Alternative A, the core area would be open to further 

oil and gas development and the issuance of new leases. 

Geophysical activities would be allowed within the core but 

would be subject to controlled surface use restrictions and 

seasonal restrictions. The direct and indirect impacts to 

geophysical activities would be the same within the core area 

as that described for the general area. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Same as described for the No Action Alternative. 

Off-Road Vehicle Impacts 

Off-road vehicle use in the Greater Sand Dunes “open” 

area would only be allowed on 5,500 acres due to increased oil 

and gas production (see write-up for Special Management 

Areas). Because of the additional producing wells associated 

with oil and gas production in this area, the public would have 

a reduced “open” area to play in. Concerns over safety would 

be reduced over the No Action Alternative because there 

362
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

would be fewer hazards in the reduced open area. Reducing 

the ORV open acreage in the planning area would have an 

adverse impact to this resource. 

Allowing year round access by removing the status of the 

15,981-acre Steamboat Mountain seasonal closure may benefit some ORV enthusiasts. However, much of the use would 

be weather dependant because of snowpack and spring runoff. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Long-term beneficial effects would be similar to the Preferred Alternative. There would be additional ORV opportunities over Alternative A in areas with the increased access 

development. However, the ORV open area would be reduced in size, restricting some ORV use. 

Recreation Impacts 

Managing riparian areas to emphasize livestock forage 

would result in the loss of valuable wildlife habitat upon 

which some of the highest quality recreation use is based, such 

as big game hunting and wildlife viewing. This emphasis on 

use of riparian areas could reduce the quality of these popular 

sites for dispersed recreation, independent of the potential 

impact to wildlife resources. 

Non-consumptive recreation days are projected to increase 

by one percent per year during the planning period. The 

growth rate is lower under this alternative due to potential 

impacts from development that could impact open spaces and 

opportunities for solitude. About 1.07 million resident and 

nonresident non-consumptive recreation days would be used 

in the 20-year analysis period. 

Under this alternative adverse impacts to the recreation 

resource could happen. With increased development and 

increased human activity, big game and sage grouse populations could drop. This would affect the number of permits the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department would issue and the 

number of individual species that could be harvested. The 

quality of the recreation experience would decline in the 

planning area. 

Under this alternative, there would be an impact to the 

proposed back country byway. With additional facilities in 

key wildlife areas and communication sites on high elevation 

features, there would be a visual impact and fewer big game 

animals to view along the byway. Increased oil and gas 

activity could increase the risk of accidents between tourists 

and industry vehicles along the byway route. 

Cumulative Impacts 

More impacts would occur to recreation users than for No 

Action Alternative. The settings available for dispersed 

recreation opportunities would be further diminished over a 

larger area by increased development activity, vehicular travel 

and access into previously undeveloped areas. This would 

create lost opportunities for unconfined recreation experiences for some recreation users. 

Effects to hunting opportunities would be the same as 

described for the Preferred Alternative. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

The JMHCAP economic analysis was based on a 20-year 

planning period (1998-2017) with 1998 as the base year. In 

addition to looking at economic impacts by affected resource 

by alternative, cumulative economic effects are summarized 

for the short-term (1998-2007) and the long-term (1998-

2017) portions of the planning period. The short-term and 

long-term cumulative effects for Alternative A, Alternative B, 

and the Preferred Alternative were compared with the impacts 

for the No Action Alternative on a percentage basis. All dollar 

figures used for evaluating impacts in the socioeconomic 

analysis are in current dollars. Economic tables which were 

used for the analysis in the document are on file at the Rock 

Springs Field Office. 

Oil and Gas 

One hundred oil and gas wells and 25 coalbed methane 

wells would be drilled over the 20-year period of 1998 to 

2017. Almost 138 thousand barrels of oil and 99,489 MMCF 

of natural gas would be produced. The total economic impact 

for drilling and production would be approximately $303.5 

million. Employment produced by the oil and gas activity 

over the life of the project would be 915 annual job equivalents 

with a total earnings of about $29 million. On an annual basis, 

about 46 jobs earning a range of salaries of $27,180 to $34,921 

would be supported. Economic impacts to oil and gas activities under Alternative A are the highest of all alternatives. 

Livestock Grazing 

Annual grazing AUMs were based on the total permitted 

use of 26,032 AUMs (22,767 cattle and 3,265 sheep). This 

grazing level was held constant throughout the planning 

period. 

Under Alternative A 455,340 cattle AUMs and 65,300 

sheep AUMs would be available for livestock grazing during 

the 20-year life of the project. The total economic impact of 

livestock grazing would be $32.3 million. Employment in the 

livestock sector would be 365 annual job equivalents earning 

$16,337 average per year. Economic impacts to livestock 

grazing under Alternative A are the highest of all alternatives. 

Recreation 

Average elk, deer, and antelope hunter days are the same as 

the Preferred Alternative. 

Non-consumptive recreation days were projected to increase by one percent per year during the planning period. The 

growth rate is lower under this alternative due to potential 

impacts from development that could impact open spaces and 

opportunities for solitude. Under this alternative non-consumptive recreation days are project to increase to 58,835 

days in 2017. The proportion of nonresident and resident 

recreation days was assumed to remain constant. 

Under Alternative A 1.07 million resident and nonresident 

non-consumptive recreation days would be used in the 20-

year life of the project. The total economic impact of the non363
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

consumptive nonresident recreation days would be $56.8 

million. Some 19,070 nonresident hunting days (elk, deer, 

and antelope) with a total economic impact of $6 million 

would be realized over the life of the project. Employment in 

the recreation sector would be 798 annual job equivalents 

earning approximately $12,521 average per year. 

Short-Term Cumulative Impacts (1998-2007) 

and Comparison of Alternatives 

See Table 4-14 in the Preferred Alternative impacts section 

for short-term physical outputs. 

Due to the emphasis on production, Alternative A generates the most oil and gas well development activity of all the 

alternatives with 50 percent more oil and gas well drilling than 

the No Action Alternative. Alternative A also generates the 

most oil and gas production with 7 percent more production 

than the No Action Alternative. The increase in oil and gas 

production for Alternative A is less than the increase for 

drilling activity due to continued production from the existing 

inventory of producing wells. The production from the 

existing wells tapers off in the later years of the planning 

period. Coalbed methane well drilling activity is the same for 

Alternative A and the No Action Alternative. 

AUMs of livestock grazing for Alternative A are the 

highest of all alternatives with 33 percent more AUMs than 

the No Action Alternative. This alternative is higher because 

it projects that all permitted grazing would be utilized throughout the planning period. Nonresident and resident hunting 

days are about one percent higher for Alternative A than for 

the No Action Alternative due to the projected increase in elk 

hunting days between 1998 and 2005 due to displacement of 

elk caused by fragmentation of habitat. This increase would 

gradually decrease over the planning horizon to below current 

levels by 2012. Nonresident and resident non-consumptive 

recreation days are the lowest of all alternatives for Alternative A with 5 percent fewer days than the No Action Alternative. This alternative is lower due to a projected lower growth 

rate for non-consumptive use. The analysis makes no judgment regarding the quality of the hunting and recreation days 

under this or other alternatives. 

See Table 4-15 in the Preferred Alternative impacts section 

for short-term economic effects. 

Due to the increased emphasis on production, Alternative 

A generates the most economic activity in Southwest Wyoming of all the alternatives in the short term. Under Alternative A, direct and total economic impacts are 11 percent higher 

than the No Action Alternative. Total labor earnings are 18 

percent higher than the No Action Alternative. Total employment is 11 percent higher than the No Action Alternative. 

Revenues to local governments are 8 percent higher than the 

No Action Alternative. Because there is less emphasis on 

protection of resources, Alternative A generate the least 

resident recreation benefits of all alternatives with 3 percent 

less net economic benefits than the No Action Alternative. 

Long-Term Cumulative Impacts (1998-2017) 

and Comparison of Alternatives 

See Table 4-16 in the Preferred Alternative Impacts section 

for long-term physical outputs. 

Due to the emphasis on production, Alternative A generates the most oil and gas well development activity of all the 

alternatives with 56 percent more oil and gas well drilling than 

the No Action Alternative. Alternative A also generates the 

most oil and gas production with 18 percent more production 

than the No Action Alternative. The increase in oil and gas 

production for Alternative A is less than the increase for 

drilling activity due to continued production from the existing 

inventory of producing wells. The production from the 

existing wells tapers off in the later years of the planning 

period with some existing wells going out of production. 

Coalbed methane well drilling activity is the same for Alternative A and the No Action Alternative. 

AUMs of livestock grazing for Alternative A are the 

highest of all alternatives with 33 percent more AUMs than 

the No Action Alternative. This alternative is higher because 

it projects that all permitted grazing would be utilized throughout the planning period. Nonresident and resident hunting 

days are slightly higher for Alternative A than for the No 

Action Alternative. This occurs because displacement of elk 

causes projected elk hunting days to increase during the early 

years of the planning horizon. Although elk hunting days 

decrease below current levels later in the planning horizon the 

net effect is slightly higher cumulative hunting days for 

Alternative A. Nonresident and resident non-consumptive 

recreation days are the lowest of all alternatives for Alternative A with about 10 percent fewer days than the No Action 

Alternative. This alternative is lower due to the decreased 

projected growth rate for non-consumptive use. The analysis 

makes no judgment regarding the quality of the hunting and 

recreation days under this or other alternatives. 

See Table 4-17 in the Preferred Alternative Impacts section 

for long-term economic effects. 

Due to the increased emphasis on production, Alternative 

A generates the most economic activity in Southwest Wyoming of all the alternatives in the long term. Under Alternative 

A, direct and total economic impacts are 18 percent higher 

than the No Action Alternative. Total labor earnings are 17 

percent higher than the No Action Alternative. Total employment is 12 percent higher than the No Action Alternative. 

Revenues to local governments are 16 percent higher than the 

No Action Alternative. Because there is less emphasis on 

protection of resources, Alternative A generates the least 

resident recreation benefits of all alternatives with 7 percent 

less net economic benefits than the No Action Alternative. 

Special Status Plant Species Impacts 

The impacts to special status plant species from air quality 

management, fire management, coal and sodium exploration, 

monitoring practices, recreation use, special management 

area, vegetation management, wild horses, and wildlife habi364
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

tat management would be the same as described for the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Increased mineral activity under this alternative could 

cause increased indirect impacts on special status plant habitat 

due to the higher number of cultural sites that would have to 

be mitigated or avoided. 

Increased activity under this alternative could potentially 

impact special status plant species locations due to increased 

risk of unauthorized dumping or spillage. 

Increased lands and realty activity would potentially cause 

additional impacts to special status plant locations through 

unintentional plant removal and habitat alteration from roads, 

pipelines, vehicle access, facility construction, unauthorized 

off-road vehicle use, facility maintenance, and chemical control of noxious weeds. 

The impacts from livestock grazing would be the same as 

described in the No Action Alternative. In addition, proposed 

reconstruction of 11 stock ponds in the project area would 

encourage livestock congregation in these areas. Impacts to 

special status plants are expected to be insignificant as searches 

would be done prior to surface disturbing activities, and if 

found, would be avoided. Minor impacts from trailing in the 

general area could occur. Changes in seasons of use, class of 

livestock and numbers of livestock would change patterns of 

grazing and could have negative impacts on vegetation. Animals would likely use areas previously unused. 

Under this alternative, increased oil and gas development 

would cause short- and long-term loss of vegetation of an 

estimated 600 acres due to construction of roads, wellpads, 

pipelines and associated structures. Drilling of an additional 

38 wells would be expected in the core area. This activity 

could have negative impacts on the large-fruited bladderpod 

(Lesquerella macrocarpa) habitat, under consideration as an 

ACEC, that occurs adjacent to a main county road. Increased 

vehicular traffic from drilling activity could cause indirect 

impacts by increasing air-laden dust to settle on the plants, 

decreasing photosynthesis activity. 

Year-long road use would increase loss of vegetation due 

to increased road blading for road maintenance and snow 

removal. 

Weed populations would also be expected to increase with 

increased vehicular traffic along existing roads. In addition, 

new roads and pipelines associated with development would 

provide openings for weed infestations in areas previously 

unused. Chemical control of noxious weeds could impact 

special status plant species populations. Roadside spraying 

could impact populations of the large-fruited bladderpod on 

the Tri-Territory Road near Bush Rim. Spraying of riparian 

areas for whitetop could also negatively impact populations of 

the Ute ladies’-tresses where they occur. 

The impacts from mineral material sales would be the same 

as described for the Preferred Alternative. In addition, the 

potential development of a pit to quarry volcanic rock next to 

the switchbacks on Steamboat Mountain would cause negative impacts to an area of about 540 acres of vegetation. 

Searches would be conducted for special status plants prior to 

the pit construction. Should any of these species be found at 

the project site, implementation of avoidance as a mitigation 

measure which reduce impacts to the species. 

More area would be open to mining claim activity, increasing the potential for impacts to special status plant species. 

Significant impacts would occur if mining claim activity 

removed special status plant species populations and contributed to the listing of these plants as threatened or endangered. 

Increased vehicular traffic could cause increased impacts to 

known special status plant locations along roadsides due to 

dust accumulation and direct removal by vehicles and road 

blading. 

Special status plants and their habitat are closed to off-road 

vehicle use, such as those used for geophysical exploration. 

Searches would be required in previously unserved areas prior 

to geophysical exploration to determine the presence of special status plants. If found, they would be avoided. These 

habitats are also closed to explosives and blasting. Impacts to 

these species from this activity are expected to be insignificant. 

The impacts from off-road vehicle use would be the same 

as described for the No Action Alternative. Actual plant 

locations (about 2,680 acres) would be closed to off-road 

vehicles. Off-road vehicle use in potential habitat areas would 

be limited to existing roads and trails; therefore, impacts to 

special status plant species populations would be minimal; 

however, unauthorized off-road vehicle use does occur and 

could impact current populations and potential habitat. 

The impacts from reclamation and reclamation monitoring 

would be the same as described for the No Action Alternative. 

Achievement of the revegetation objectives under reclamation would replace native plant communities in the long-term, 

providing healthy habitat for colonization and expansion of 

special status plant species. Monitoring of disturbed sites 

would enhance reclamation success. 

The impacts to special status species from wetland and 

riparian management would be the same as described for the 

No Action Alternative. Actions taken to attain Proper Functioning Conditions and restricting surface disturbing activities in riparian areas and wetlands would restore and maintain 

healthy, native riparian plant communities, providing additional potential habitat for special status plant species, especially the Ute ladies’-tresses. 

The impacts from transportation planning would be the 

same as described for the No Action Alternative, except that 

the number of stream and riparian crossings would increase, 

maintaining less riparian habitat and potential habitat for the 

Ute ladies’-tresses. The miles of road in sensitive areas could 

also increase. This along with additional disturbances that 

would occur with this alternative would increase the potential 

for adverse effects to special status plant species. 

The impacts from visual resource management would be 

the same as described for the No Action Alternative. Management actions described to protect visual quality would generally benefit or not impact special status plant species populations or potential habitat. 

365
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The impacts from watershed management would be the 

same as described for the No Action Alternative. In general, 

practices to conserve and stabilize soils would help maintain 

healthy ecosystems which can support special status plant 

species. 

Core Area 

This alternative would have the greatest potential to impact 

plant species due to increased development and recreational 

use activity. Restrictions on surface uses should reduce this 

somewhat. Continued protective actions specific to ACECs 

would also reduce potential impacts to special status plant 

populations. Known locations of the large-fruited bladderpod 

(Lesquerella macrocarpa) would be evaluated on a case-bycase basis to determine if they meet the relevance and importance criteria to be considered for inclusion with the Special 

Status Plant Species ACEC. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The summary of impacts would be the same as described 

for the No Action Alternative. 

Vegetation/Woodlands/Weeds and 

Riparian/Wetland Resources Impacts 

Impacts to Vegetation/Woodlands/Weeds 

Impacts from air quality management, cultural and paleontological resource management, hazardous materials, healthy 

rangelands, geophysical exploration, monitoring and reclamation practices, off-road vehicle use, special status species 

management, vegetation management, watershed management, wild horses, and wildlife habitat management would be 

the same as described in the Preferred Alternative. 

Impacts from fire management activities would be similar 

to those described for the Preferred Alternative; however, 

more acres could be burned in the big sagebrush/scurfpea 

plant communities as these areas would not be full suppression areas. 

Impacts from lands and realty activities would be as 

described for the Preferred Alternative; however, less acreage 

would be identified for withdrawal from mineral entry which 

would provide less protection to vegetation. 

Impacts from livestock grazing management would be 

similar to those described in the No Action Alternative. The 

level of permitted livestock use under this alternative is 

assumed to be 26,032 AUMs. The year-end utilization level 

of 50 percent for riparian species or 2-inch stubble height for 

herbaceous species would also be in effect as guidelines. 

Water developments, vegetation treatments, riparian pastures, and a March turnout date could be authorized. It is 

doubtful that an upward trend in riparian condition could be 

achieved with this level of use. See the Riparian section of 

these Vegetation Impacts for further discussions. Additional 

effects would occur to upland vegetation types from increased 

grazing use, earlier turnout dates, and development of range 

improvements. 

Increased oil and gas activity is expected under this alternative. An additional 36 oil and gas wells are expected to be 

drilled, amounting to an additional loss of 366 acres of 

vegetation. With implementation of reclamation standards 

and guidelines, the short- and long-term loss of vegetation 

would be about 600 acres. Depending on the location of these 

wells, impacts to vegetation could be slight or significant. 

Under this alternative, the big sagebrush/scurfpea communities would be open to development. Loss of these plants 

would be considered a long-term significant loss due to the 

uncommonly long period of time it would take to stabilize 

their dunal habitat, develop the needed soil microbes and 

replace the 6-foot tall sagebrush, requiring a period of 70 to 

150 years (or more) to reach pre-disturbance conditions. 

Under this alternative it is assumed that 125 wells would be 

drilled in the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario 

(RFD). This would mean there would be about 2,700 acres of 

surface disturbance. This amount of disturbance would only 

have a minimal impact if stringent mitigation measures were 

followed (as described in the RMP and the No Action Alternative). Some mitigation measures (such as directional drilling and limiting the number of well pads per section) may not 

be applied if costs are unreasonable on existing leases. Restricting the types of mitigation to be applied could increase 

impacts. The acres of disturbance shown above assumes that 

each well would have a pad, road, and pipeline. 

Impacts coal exploration activities would be the same as 

described in the No Action Alternative. Big sagebrush/ 

scurfpea and other mountain shrub communities would be 

open to coal exploration and some development under this 

alternative. Removal of the plants and deterioration of their 

habitat would have long-term negative impacts on these 

communities through direct removal of the plants, and the 

long re-establishment times required by these shrubs. 

Impacts from sodium activities would be the same as 

described in the No Action Alternative. Areas of sensitive 

vegetation, such as the big sagebrush/scurfpea communities 

would be open to sodium exploration activities, potentially 

causing direct negative impacts to these plants and their 

habitats by removing the plants and long-term loss of habitat. 

Impacts from mineral material sales would be the same as 

described in the No Action Alternative. Big sagebrush/ 

scurfpea and other sensitive plant communities would be open 

to mineral material sales, potentially causing removal of the 

plants and deterioration of the habitat. 

Fewer withdrawals would be pursued in this alternative, 

leaving more area open to mining claim activity. Direct 

removal of big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea communities and 

aspen communities could occur. In addition, seasonal road 

closures would not apply and with yearlong access, these 

sensitive communities could be impacted from over the snow 

vehicles, blading for snow removal and surface damage from 

off-road vehicles during frost melt periods. 

Removal of the seasonal road closure could result in both 

short- and long-term loss of unique and important big sagebrush communities due to increased ORV use and destruction 

of vegetation, especially when roads are impassable due to 

366
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

wet muddy conditions. Unauthorized use would be expected 

to increase. 

A long-term loss of native vegetation due to weed invasions would be expected to increase with the higher rate of 

activity in the area, especially with unauthorized use of ORVs 

through previously undisturbed areas. 

Recreation area support facility construction would remove vegetation. Concentrated recreational activities, especially around and near riparian areas, can damage vegetation 

through trampling, digging, cutting, or pulling. Off-road 

vehicle rallies, cross country races, and other such events 

would damage or totally remove vegetation from the event 

route. 

Impacts from surface disturbing activities would be the 

same as described in the No Action Alternative. addition, 

surface disturbing activities such as those associated with 

roads, pipelines, well pads, coal and sodium exploration, 

locatable mineral exploration and development, and mineral 

material sales, would disturb about 2,900 acres in the long 

term. Reclamation practices would restore vegetation to all 

but about 750 acres in the long term. Although vegetative 

reestablishment would occur, some original plant communities would not be reestablished for more than 20 years. This 

particularly applies to shrubland communities and the big 

sagebrush/scurfpea communities and stabilized sand dunes. 

Impacts could be significant if disturbance occurs throughout 

these communities, removing or fragmenting large portions 

of these communities. 

This alternative has the potential for the greatest increase 

in weeds due to the increased surface disturbance. 

Minimal transportation planning would be implemented. 

Impacts to sensitive vegetation resources such as riparian 

areas, mountain shrub, big sagebrush/scurfpea, and cushion 

plant communities would be increased. 

No limit to the number of stream crossings would result in 

more use and surface disturbance in riparian areas, thereby 

making it more difficult to obtain proper functioning condition on area streams. Not limiting access through riparian 

areas or sensitive plant communities would cause irreversible 

damage to vegetation, by direct removal, habitat degradation 

and deterioration of healthy native plant communities promoting noxious weed invasions. In addition, woodland habitat would be open to road construction which would have 

direct negative impacts to aspen and associated woodland 

species and their habitat. 

Generally, any management action that would preserve 

visual resources would also benefit vegetation. 

Impacts to Riparian/Wetland Resources 

Impacts to riparian and wetland resources from air quality 

management, fire management, hazardous materials, healthy 

rangelands, off-road vehicle use, recreation use, special status 

species management, vegetation management, watershed 

management, wild horses, and wildlife habitat management 

would be the same as described in the Preferred Alternative. 

Impacts from cultural and paleontological management 

activities would be the same as described in the No Action 

Alternative. Management of cultural sites is generally for the 

protection or preservation of such sites. These types of 

actions, if they occur near riparian areas, generally would 

benefit these also. However, excavation of cultural sites in or 

near riparian areas could cause short- to long-term negative 

impacts. Erosion could increase and sedimentation of streams 

could occur if not adequately mitigated (e.g., seeding, protective barriers, etc.). No activity of this type is anticipated at this 

time but if it should occur a site specific mitigation plan must 

be developed to mitigate any negative impacts (i.e., reclamation, seeding, re-contouring, etc.). 

Impacts lands and realty actions would be the same as listed 

in Preferred Alternative with the exception of fewer acres to 

be considered for withdrawal from mineral entry and the lack 

of avoidance areas for rights-of-way would allow impacts to 

“sensitive” resources. 

For wetlands and riparian areas, the minimum standard is 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). Stream (lotic) inventories began in 1995 and were completed in 1999. The ratings 

for lentic riparian areas (bogs, marshes, ponds, wetlands, and 

wet meadows) have not been completed. Twenty percent 

(16.5 miles out of 79.95 miles) of the stream (lotic) riparian 

areas in the Jack Morrow Hills planning area are in PFC. A 

significant portion (40 percent) is in upward trend and an 

equally significant portion (40 percent) is in downward or 

“not apparent” trend. These data were collected in 1995-6 

when a significant amount of non-use by livestock was occurring. Not all of the poor conditions in riparian areas are due 

to livestock grazing; however, livestock grazing, roads, and 

water diversions create the most significant impacts to the 

riparian areas in the planning area. However, it is known that 

season long use by livestock, concentrates use around riparian 

areas during the hot season, and that later fall use tends to be 

adverse to riparian plants. 

The general impacts listed in the No Action Alternative 

also apply to Alternative A. The assumed level of active 

AUMs would be full active permitted use of 26,032. The yearend utilization level of 50 percent for riparian species or 2-

inch stubble height for herbaceous species would also be in 

effect as allowable use guidelines. Water developments, 

vegetation treatments, riparian pastures, and March turnout 

dates could be authorized where appropriate. It is doubtful 

that an upward trend in riparian condition could be achieved 

with this level of use. 

It is assumed that several (up to 25) livestock watering 

facilities (earthen ponds) would be constructed during the 

planning time frame. These would create short-term surface 

disturbance with minimal erosion but would increase livestock utilization in the immediate area. By itself this could 

increase erosion but under a proper grazing scheme should 

benefit the overall vegetation resource, especially riparian 

areas. Assumptions under this alternative include possible 

earlier turnout dates, full active preference, and the 50 percent 

or 2-inch stubble height use level with no actual grazing 

rotation or seasonal rest required would probably not be 

suitable for maintaining riparian health. It may not be possible 

367
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

to maintain these levels of livestock use when implementing 

appropriate actions under Standards and Guidelines. Appropriate actions taken under this alternative may be insufficient 

to achieve significant progress towards riparian health objectives in the short term. Intensive management would be 

needed to meet riparian objectives. 

Under this alternative it is assumed that 110 deep oil and 

gas wells would be drilled in the Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development scenario (RFD). This would mean there would 

be about 2,500 acres of surface disturbance. This amount of 

disturbance would only have a minimal impact if stringent 

mitigation measures were followed (as described in the RMP 

and the No Action Alternative). Some mitigation measures 

(such as directional drilling and limiting the number of well 

pads per section) may not be able to be applied if costs are 

unreasonable on existing leases. Restricting the types of 

mitigation to be applied could increase impacts. The acres of 

disturbance shown above assumes that each well would have 

a pad, road and pipeline. Unlimited and indiscriminate 

crossings of riparian areas or creeks (i.e., limited or no 

transportation planning) could cause significant impact by 

increasing erosion and sedimentation. The core area and big 

game migration corridor areas are closed to leasing and this 

would protect streams in those areas from any new surface 

disturbances due to drilling. 

In addition, 15 coalbed methane wells would be drilled on 

existing leases. They would be clustered in the sand dunes 

area. These are shallow wells (900 to 1,000 feet deep). In the 

process of coalbed methane production, large volumes of 

water are pumped from the aquifer at that level. It is unknown 

at this time if the aquifer at this level is directly connected to 

the surface water in the dunal ponds and wet meadows. If it 

is, there may be an adverse effect of drying up the riparian in 

the area. This would not only affect the riparian plants but all 

of the wildlife that depends on those plants, insects, and 

surface water. 

Hard rock mining (locatables) could pose significant threats 

to aquatic resources, especially when involving dredging or 

placer mining. The highest potential for this type of activity 

is in the Oregon Gulch area. Though there is no commercial 

activity anticipated at this time there is active prospecting in 

the area with the potential to create accelerated erosion. 

Demand for other types of mineral development (salables) 

such as gravel pits, etc., would increase with gas development 

but these areas would be located away from riparian areas and 

streams and should have negligible impact to these resources. 

No coal or sodium extraction is expected, thus no impacts 

are anticipated. 

Geophysical activities currently have sufficient protective 

stipulations in the Green River RMP to eliminate impacts to 

riparian areas and streams. 

Core Area 

The most surface disturbance would occur under this 

alternative which could have both short- and long-term impacts to vegetation in the core area and special management 

areas and particularly affect the big sagebrush communities in 

the core. Road densities would not be established, allowing 

additional road construction which removes vegetation for the 

long term. Livestock grazing on stabilized dunes would be 

detrimental to native plant species, and would likely cause 

areas of destabilization, loss of native plants, and acceleration 

of weed invasions. Implementation of use levels and assessment of standards and implementation of guidelines would 

reduce this effect. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those described 

for the No Action Alternative. In addition, direct impacts to 

vegetation would increase under this alternative. Both riparian and upland species would decline in vigor, age and 

structural diversity, and composition with prolonged seasonal 

livestock use, higher livestock numbers, or livestock conversions. Livestock watering facilities (earthen ponds) would be 

constructed creating short-term surface disturbance with minimal erosion, but would increase livestock utilization in the 

immediate area. This could increase erosion. Implementing 

proper grazing management should benefit the overall vegetation resource, especially riparian areas in the long term. A 

possible earlier turnout date, full active preference, and 50 

percent or 2-inch stubble height use level, with no actual 

grazing rotation or seasonal rest required, would probably not 

be suitable for maintaining riparian health. It may not be 

possible to maintain these assumptions when implementing 

appropriate actions under Standards and Guidelines. Appropriate actions taken under this alternative may be insufficient 

to achieve progress towards riparian health objectives in the 

short term. It would be very difficult, even with all mitigation 

measures applied, to reverse downward trends in riparian 

areas. Intensive management would be needed to meet 

riparian objectives. 

About 2,700 acres of surface disturbance would occur from 

all types of activities. This amount of disturbance would be 

reduced if stringent mitigation measures were followed. Some 

mitigation measures (such as directional drilling and limiting 

the number of well pads per section) may not be able to be 

applied on existing leases, causing increased impacts. The big 

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea communities would be open to 

development for all types of activities. Loss of these plants 

would be considered a long-term loss due to the uncommonly 

long period of time it would take to stabilize their dunal 

habitat, develop the needed soil microbes and replace the 6-

foot tall sagebrush, requiring 70 to 150 years (or more) to 

reach pre-disturbance conditions. 

Removal of the seasonal road closure could result in both 

short- and long-term loss of unique and important big sagebrush communities due to increased ORV use and destruction 

of vegetation, especially when roads are impassable due to 

wet muddy conditions. Unauthorized use would be expected 

to increase. Recreation area support facility construction 

would remove vegetation. Concentrated recreational activities, especially around and near riparian areas, can damage 

vegetation through trampling, digging, cutting, or pulling. 

Off-road vehicle rallies, cross country races, and other such 

368
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

events would damage or totally remove vegetation from the 

event route. A long-term loss of native vegetation due to weed 

invasions would be expected to increase with the higher rate 

of activity in the area, especially with unauthorized use of 

ORVs through previously undisturbed areas. 

Limited transportation planning and access through riparian areas or sensitive plant communities would cause irreversible damage to vegetation, by direct removal, habitat degradation and deterioration of healthy native plant communities that 

promotes noxious weed invasions. In addition, woodland 

habitat would be open to road construction which would have 

direct negative impacts to aspen and associated woodland 

species and their habitat. 

Visual Resource Management Impacts 

Increased development in VRM II and III areas would be 

difficult to mitigate due to increased development. Some 

impacts to the visual values on Steamboat Mountain and 

Pacific Butte would occur due to locating communication 

sites on these high points. 

The VRM Class III lands in the Eden Valley would be 

downgraded to VRM Class IV. This potentially could result 

in a negative visual effect to motorists driving along U.S. 

Highway 191 and from local residences. 

Protecting National Historic Trails and other trails by not 

allowing visual disturbance, by applying surface constraints 

to important cultural sites, and limiting geophysical vehicles 

to designated roads and trails in the South Pass Historic 

Landscape would enhance visual values and protect the visual 

sensitivity of these resources and areas. 

As more oil and gas development occurs, more effects to 

the visual quality of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would 

occur. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Same as described for the general impact discussion. 

Watershed/Water Quality Impacts 

The impact on watershed values and water quality from air 

quality management, cultural and paleontological resource 

management, hazardous materials, monitoring practices, economic benefits, special status species management, and wild 

horses would be the same as described in the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Fire suppression activities and the associated potential for 

increased erosion from suppression activities and potential 

long-term benefits would be similar to the Preferred Alternative but would differ in that aggressive fire suppression would 

not occur in the big sagebrush-scurfpea areas. 

Implementation of Standards for Healthy Rangelands and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing would reduce the effects to 

watersheds and water quality from surface disturbing activities, recreation uses, and livestock grazing. The differences 

between the alternatives can be expressed in the level of 

conflict that could occur between the actions that would take 

place under each alternative and the goals set forth by Standards and Guidelines. The actions proposed under Alternative A have the greatest potential for creating conflict in 

meeting Standards and Guidelines. 

Realty actions such as rights-of-ways for linear disturbances such as pipelines and roads can adversely affect soils 

especially in areas of vegetated sand dunes which could be 

impacted by wind erosion when the vegetation is removed. 

Uncontrolled runoff from roads can create gullying in adjacent drainages. Successful reclamation and maintenance of 

linear disturbances limits the impact of these actions. 

As most of the disturbances associated with communication sites would be away from riparian areas and streams, the 

effects of the creation and maintenance of communication 

sites would be less than an equivalent disturbance located 

closer to water courses. The disturbance created by the 

creation and maintenance of communication sites has the 

potential to affect watershed values and water quality, as does 

any disturbance. 

Of primary concern is the potential for increased traffic 

during periods of inclement weather along portions of travel 

routes to and from the sites, where conditions can create an 

increased potential for erosion close to water bodies. Also of 

concern is the increased potential for erosion from the steeper 

portion of the access roads. While such sections of road would 

most likely have a larger average particle size and thus be 

more resistant to erosion than areas with finer average soil 

particle sizes, the concentration of the flow of water associated with the creation and maintenance of the road would 

increase the potential for flow concentration and sediment 

production. 

More communication sites and rights-of-way are proposed 

under this alternative. This could result in greater amounts of 

surface disturbance and a greater potential for erosion and 

water quality degradation. The establishment of additional 

communication sites would create the potential for additional 

roads and traffic to the sites and increased disturbance from 

site construction. 

Livestock grazing has a major influence on land and stream 

conditions and thus erosion and water quality. Implementation of existing programs (primarily Standards for healthy 

rangelands and Guidelines for livestock grazing management 

(S&Gs)), as well as the management actions in this alternative 

would aid in improving watershed. 

Livestock grazing, roads, and water diversions can alter 

conditions in riparian areas. For riparian impacts, see Vegetation Impacts. 

Activities that decrease plant vigor can increase erosion 

and decrease water quality. Depending on the actions taken, 

specific areas may show some changes, positive or adverse, 

but the overall trend would be closely related to the level of 

surface disturbing activities. 

Impacts to soils from grazing can be caused by 

overutilization of riparian and upland areas leading to soil 

compaction and vegetative removal. This can lead to loss of 

369
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

the soil surface, rill, and gully formation which could impact 

water quality through more rapid runoff and higher sediment 

loads. 

Livestock could contribute to the degradation of areas that 

might cause further concern depending on their location. 

Areas in very erodible soil structure could have the possibility 

of washing, blowing, or being removed from further beneficial purposes. 

Increased grazing use, winter road plowing, extended 

grazing seasons, and managing riparian areas for livestock are 

all practices that would be in conflict with the goals of 

achieving PFC throughout the area. Adverse effects would be 

greater under this alternative than under the No Action Alternative. 

Road construction could change the patterns of overland 

flow and increase erosion. Roads and well pads affect 

overland flow and groundwater infiltration. Roads and well 

pads interrupt natural surface flow patterns and reduce groundwater infiltration by compacting the soil. This can increase the 

erosive potential of runoff events by creating a shorter period 

of runoff and an increased volume. Drainage ditches, culverts, and surfacing can channelize surface flows and direct 

them away from the road surface. While this helps protects the 

road surface, it can also increase erosive potential along the 

path of concentrated flow. Proper design, construction, and 

maintenance reduce the erosive potential for road and well 

pad areas but do not fully compensate for the concentration of 

flows. 

Impacts to surface water quality from oil and gas development are generally the result of unsuccessful reclamation and/ 

or increased runoff from pads and roads, destabilizing drainages. With effective monitoring from industry and management from the BLM, most individual well sites and mines 

should have only a short-term impact on watershed stability. 

Other concerns which could arise include: sedimentation, 

soil contamination, salt and phosphate loading, groundwater 

contamination, bank and channel instability, loss of aquifers, 

augmented flows, and water disposal. 

The greatest level of development would occur under this 

alternative creating the greatest potential for erosion and 

watershed damage. Combined with a lack of a transportation 

plan, this potential level of development could produce the 

greatest amount of disturbance and thus the greatest amount of 

water quality degradation of any of the alternatives. 

In addition to the roads and other surface disturbances that 

would be required for coalbed methane production, there is 

the additional concern of water disposal. Any discharge into 

a surface channel that is unaccustomed to having similar flows 

creates the potential for increased erosion. 

If the water obtained from coalbed methane production is 

of a high quality and discharged, there may be some controversy at the end of the project when the water is no longer 

available for use as livestock or wildlife water. If the produced 

water contains high levels of salts there is a potential for 

creating conditions similar to those surrounding the evaporation ponds associated with trona production. Reinjection of 

the water may solve some of these problems but care should 

be taken to avoid creating new ones. It is assumed that the 

primary means of water disposal would be through reinjection. 

The level of disturbance that can be associated with coal 

bed methane production would largely be determined by the 

area of development. Current technology requires relatively 

close well spacing and a road network for maintenance. Even 

with total reinjection of the produced water this road and well 

network would increase the potential of erosion in the area of 

development. Because the level of development would be 

approximately the same per unit area within a production 

zone, an estimate of the potential level of disturbance and 

subsequent erosion and threat to water quality can be related 

to the areas that would be made available for leasing under 

each alternative. 

It is unknown whether there is a connection between the 

surface waters and the waters that would be removed to 

stimulate gas production. Investigations to determine if there 

is a connection and application of appropriate mitigation to 

protect water quality and quantity would be needed prior to 

production. 

The region with the greatest coal bed methane production 

has a surface of stabilized sand dunes, a condition that makes 

the area vulnerable to disturbance of the vegetation cover. 

Given the road and well density that would be required, this is 

a concern. Proper land management would reduce the level of 

disturbance but not eliminate it. Maintenance of the vegetative community and the transportation network would be a 

primary concern on any development in the area. 

The road network would create additional recreation access into the area of stabilized sand dunes. Given the sensitive 

nature of the soils in the area, this is a concern. A transportation and recreation management plan should be part of any 

development. 

The greater level of development allowed for under Alternative A would produce the greatest potential for methane 

production related erosion. 

The mineral material with the greatest potential for development in the area is sand and gravel. As most of the potential 

sites within the planning area are located away from streams 

and wetlands, the primary effect of their development on 

water and vegetation quality would come from increased 

activity on the roads. There could be some additional runoff 

from the mine areas but the effect that they would have on 

downstream water quality would be difficult to determine. 

Surfacing of roads with hard surfaces or gravel has the 

potential to reduce watershed impacts. 

Additional areas would be available for mineral material 

sale activity which could increase the potential for erosion and 

watershed damage over the No Action Alternative. 

Coal exploration can be related to surface water quality 

through the amount of surface disturbed. Surface disturbance 

impacts would be the same as discussed in the No Action 

Alternative; however, more areas would be open to coal 

exploration activity. About 159,900 acres would be closed to 

coal exploration activities. 

370
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts from sodium exploration and development would 

be the same as described for the No Action Alternative except 

that fewer acres would be closed to sodium prospecting 

activities. 

The more rapid and complete the reclamation of a disturbed site the lower the potential erosion and potential water 

quality degradation. Monitoring is essential is in the reclamation of disturbed sites. Without efficient reclamation techniques and timely monitoring by the BLM and industry, longterm landscape disruption such as linear scars, sand deflation 

and deposition, and drainage degradation could result. 

Off-road vehicle use impacts soil stability as a result of 

compaction of travel surfaces, disruption of vegetative cover, 

and disruption of the soil surface. 

Recreation within the planning area consists primarily of 

activities that require motorized vehicles. Thus, it is closely 

tied to transportation and reclamation, as well as any activities 

that create new roads of any sort. Because of the nature of 

much of the planning area new roads are easily created and 

road closures rely primarily on the public’s willingness to 

comply. The reduction of seasonal closures over the other 

alternatives would increase the potential erosion by allowing 

traffic on roads during a time when the soils are vulnerable. 

Surface disturbance is closely tied to water quality. The 

greater the disturbance in time and area and the closer to places 

where the flow of water is concentrated the greater the 

potential for erosion. Because much of the development 

would take place on a case-by-case basis, the exact amount of 

disturbance is difficult to forecast. 

The greatest level of development would occur under this 

alternative. Combined with a lack of a transportation plan, 

this potential level of development could produce the greatest 

amount of disturbance and thus the greatest amount of water 

quality degradation of any of the alternatives. About 2,900 

acres would be disturbed over the long term from various 

activities. With reclamation, most of this disturbance would 

be reclaimed with a net long-term disturbance of about 700 

acres. The reduction of seasonal closures over the other 

alternatives would increase the potential erosion by allowing 

traffic on roads during a time when the soils are more vulnerable to erosion. 

The lack of road density limits under this alternative would 

create increased erosion potential due to the number and miles 

of roads and pipelines that could be built, as would the winter 

plowing of roads. 

Roads are one of the primary sources of erosion in the 

planning area. They tend to concentrate the overland flow and 

reduce infiltration. They can often be thought of as a set of 

superimposed ephemeral stream channels. As roads become 

more numerous, their effects become cumulative and may 

even work in combination to create greater levels of erosion. 

Road maintenance is also important. Timely maintenance of 

road surfaces can reduce erosion. Maintaining as much of the 

right-of-way in an undisturbed or revegetated state as possible 

would reduce both maintenance cost and erosion. Surfacing 

of major arterial roads with appropriate materials would also 

help limit the potential for soil erosion and reduced water 

quality. 

By not applying road densities, there is a greater potential 

for erosion than if the number and position of roads were 

planned. The higher levels of production under this alternative suggest that there would be greater numbers of roads and 

thus a greater potential for cumulative effects to soils and 

water quality. 

As a general rule, the greater the vegetation cover, the less 

erosion and the better the water quality. A more diverse 

community is generally healthier. Implementation of standards for healthy rangelands and guidelines for livestock 

grazing would have an effect upon the vegetative communities. The differences between alternatives may not vary 

dramatically. 

Vegetation removal can adversely impact stream hydraulics. Vegetation removal can cause an augmented flow regime 

which forces the stream channel to readjust its width and depth 

to accommodate larger flows where vegetative conditions are 

impaired. Sedimentation would increase, due to a lack of 

filtering ability of the vegetation. 

Vegetation manipulation to enhance wildlife habitat such 

as controlled burns, mowing, and chemical applications could 

cause short-term impacts to physical and chemical characteristics of soils, increasing erosion susceptibility through the 

loss of both ground cover and litter accumulation. Over the 

long term, areas of treated vegetation should increase over 

pretreatment production levels which would decrease the 

erosion hazard. 

Under Alternative A, livestock management and higher 

levels of surface disturbance would create a less diverse and 

less dense vegetative community, which would result in an 

increased vulnerability to erosion. 

The higher levels of activity under Alternative A would 

produce greater levels of disturbance. Given the existing 

levels of sensitivity to disturbance, conditions would most 

likely remain static or decline. As the existing conditions are 

less than minimally acceptable in some locations, remaining 

static could produce a reduction in resource conditions. 

Wildlife habitat management has some effect on land, 

water, and vegetation quality. Sufficient wildlife habitat 

creates a more varied environment that is better able to slow 

and filter overland flow, reduce erosive forces, and recover 

from disturbances. The emphasis placed upon production 

under this Alternative could reduce the diversity and distribution of habitats and increase the potential for erosion. 

Groundwater 

Oil and gas and coalbed methane activities have the highest 

potential for impacting groundwater and possibly surface 

water quantity and quality. Refer to the groundwater discussion in the Preferred Alternative for a detailed description of 

the possible impacts and specifically, the hydrological investigations that may be necessary for coalbed methane development. Alternative A and the No Action Alternative have a 

371
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

similar level of projected activity. Therefore the potential for 

impacting groundwater and possibly surface water resources 

would be similar in the general area. Compared to the 

Preferred Alternative and Alternative B, this alternative has 

fewer restrictions allowing for increased development and a 

greater potential for impacting groundwater and possibly 

surface water resources. 

Core Area 

The core area, including the connectivity area, would be 

open to development of existing oil and gas leases and new 

leases. As part of the core area, Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

would also be open to new leasing, including the development 

of coalbed methane. The increase in the number of projected 

wells over the other alternatives reflects the opening of these 

areas for oil and gas and coalbed methane development and 

the application of fewer restrictions. Such an increase in 

development would result in the highest potential among the 

alternatives for impacting groundwater and possibly surface 

water resources within the core area. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impact summary for the baseline watershed analysis would be the same as described for the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Erosion from livestock grazing activities would most likely 

be influenced by both the management actions in this alternative and individual grazing practices and other activities that 

influence the distribution and timing of livestock use. Taking 

full use of the earlier turnout dates and other grazing practices 

allowed under this alternative could result in a general decline 

in vegetative health and increase the overall erosive potential. 

Stream banks and riparian areas would most likely continue to 

be the focus of erosion reduction related activities. The 

greatest potential for erosion would occur along streams that 

had not achieved the minimally acceptable standard of PFC. 

The greater level of activity permitted under this alternative increases the potential for accelerated erosion. Most 

surface disturbing activities would most likely occur in areas 

with high oil and gas potential. The opening of the core area 

to further exploration would help distribute this activity over 

a larger area than if the core were closed but the total amount 

of disturbance could be greater 

The cumulative impact on groundwater resources over the 

planning period for oil and gas development is likely to be 

minimal and insignificant given the projected yearly drilling 

rate of 5 to 6 wells per year. Due to the lack of information, 

the cumulative impact on groundwater aquifers due to coalbed 

methane development cannot be determined. Investigation of 

aquifers and their possible connection to surface waters prior 

to development would provide the information necessary for 

determining cumulative impacts and any necessary mitigation. 

The potential level of cumulative disturbance to watershed 

values is directly related to the amount, timing, and location 

of surface disturbance. The primary causes of surface disturbance within the planning area are mineral development and 

livestock grazing facilities. Under this alternative, the overall 

level of disturbance would be the highest of all alternatives. 

Thus, this alternative, has the highest level of concern of all the 

alternatives. 

Wild Horse Impacts 

The impacts on wild horses from air quality management, 

fire management, hazardous materials, monitoring and reclamation practices, recreation use, vegetation management, 

wild horse management, and wildlife habitat management 

would be the same as described for the Preferred Alternative. 

The impacts on wild horses from cultural and paleontological resource management would be the same as described for 

the No Action Alternative. The management of cultural sites 

and properties is generally low impact and relegated to relatively small areas. Even under the most intense management 

(excavation) the amount of acreage disturbed is very small. 

These activities are not anticipated to have measurable impact 

on the forage resource for wild horses. The most likely impact 

to wild horses is temporary displacement while human activity occurs on the site. Once activity ceases, the horses would 

quickly re-occupy the area. Horses quickly adapt to human 

activities that are regular and long-term in nature. 

The impact on wild horses from lands and realty actions 

would be the same as described for the No Action Alternative. 

Numerous activities such as pipelines, utility corridors, and 

other linear rights-of-ways have the potential to impact wild 

horses and their management. These impacts involve the 

removal of vegetative cover and disturbance caused by human 

activity. 

Standards for reclamation of linear surface disturbances 

are adequate to mitigate any potential impact to wild horses 

through vegetative removal. Impacts due to the actual location of linear facilities and the attendant human activity that 

goes with them are more problematic. 

Without restriction on the actual location of these types of 

facilities it is likely that they would be located in areas of 

critical habitat for wild horses. The most important of these 

are permanent water sources. Linear facilities would not be 

located on a pond; however, if located immediately adjacent 

to a water source, could reduce its utility or totally preclude 

wild horse use of the water, if human activity is too disturbing. 

An impact such as this becomes cumulative when more 

animals must use fewer water sources and therefore less 

habitat, at some point competition would ensue, animals 

would die, and habitat quality may be altered for wild horses 

and other species. 

Assessment of grazing allotments for conformance with 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands and implementation of 

appropriate actions to address non-conformance would be 

beneficial to wild horses and their habitat. Other impacts to 

wild horses and their habitat relative to conformance with 

Standards are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Allowing early turn-out of domestic livestock and growing 

season-long use by livestock is expected to result in increased 

competition for forage and to cause changes in plant commu372
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

nities that would be deleterious to wild horses and their 

habitat. 

Planned actions relative to changes in class of livestock, 

suitability reviews, Proper Functioning Condition, Desired 

Plant Communities, and forage use limits have the same 

impacts as the No Action Alternative. 

Development of riparian pastures would most likely include new fence construction. If such fencing precludes 

access of wild horses to permanent water sources it would 

have serious negative consequences for the horses and their 

habitat. Improvements in the condition of riparian vegetation 

would benefit wild horses only if access is not denied. 

Vegetation treatments have the potential to improve wild 

horse habitat, which would produce positive impacts to the 

wild horses and their habitat. 

Impacts from mineral activities would be the same as the 

No Action Alternative. In addition, the small variation in the 

number of oil and gas wells among the alternatives and the 

small difference in surface disturbance between them makes 

the impacts to all alternatives the same from a surface disturbance standpoint. 

No limitations or planning for the development of locatable and salable minerals under this alternative poses elevated 

risks to wild horses and wild horse habitat compared to the No 

Action Alternative. 

Modification of the existing seasonal closure for vehicle 

use would increase the opportunity for human activity during 

this period. The increased activity would negatively impact 

wild horses and their distribution during this period. 

Many of the planned actions to mitigate or limit impacts to 

surface resources from surface disturbing activities have been 

discussed in other sections (minerals, reclamation, livestock 

grazing, and lands and realty management). Under all alternatives, controls on surface disturbance benefit wild horses 

and their habitat. The alternatives vary only in the degree of 

benefit. Alternative B and the Preferred Alternative are more 

beneficial than are the No Action Alternative or Alternative A. 

Establishment of a -mile buffer around the proposed wild 

horse viewing area would protect the public’s ability to enjoy 

their wild and free-roaming horses in a natural setting. It 

would also increase the likelihood that wild horses would be 

in the vicinity of the viewing area more often. 

Management actions to stabilize and conserve soils, increase vegetative production, maintain or improve surface 

and ground water quality, and to maintain or improve wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas would benefit wild 

horses and their habitat. 

Under all alternatives, improvement of the soil, vegetation, 

and water resources benefit wild horses and their habitat. The 

alternatives vary only in the degree of benefit. Alternative B 

and the Preferred Alternative are more beneficial than are the 

No Action Alternative or Alternative A. 

The planned actions to improve habitat for wildlife and 

protection from human activity and habitat fragmentation 

would benefit wild horses and their habitat. This benefit is 

common to all alternatives. 

Core Area 

Only a very small portion of the Great Divide Horse Herd 

Management Area lies within the core area, connectivity 

areas, and the ACECs. Due to the limited area of overlap with 

the wild horse herd management area, it is anticipated that no 

impact to wild horses or their habitat would result from these 

activities. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Under all alternatives, no significant cumulative impacts to 

wild horses and wild horse management are anticipated. 

Wildlife Impacts 

Effects from air quality, cultural resources, fire management, off-road vehicle management, reclamation, recreation 

management, special status species plant management, vegetation management, watershed/water quality management, 

and wild horse herd management would be the same as for the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Impacts to wildlife from rights-of-way would be similar to 

those described for the Preferred Alternative; however, under 

this alternative, more development activity would occur, 

causing the greatest impact to wildlife habitat of any alternative. Displacement would occur to the greatest degree, more 

year round activity and access would be provided which 

would prevent a large number of animals from returning to 

their original habitat. 

Locatable mineral activity in and around parturition areas 

in the Oregon Buttes area has the potential to decrease the 

availability of these areas for calving and fawning. This 

particularly applies to the activities that might occur in or near 

the aspen stands associated with the parturition areas. These 

areas are also important to a variety of raptors, neotropical 

birds, and other wildlife and are generally rare habitat types in 

the planning area. Although current 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. 

Steamboat Mountain would be open to placement of communication sites which could adversely impact wintering 

wildlife and cause displacement of animals. 

Construction of livestock water developments within crucial big game winter ranges and connectivity areas would 

have adverse impacts to big game populations and habitat. 

Additional waters in these areas would increase forage consumption by livestock and could result in additional use by 

wildlife during the summer months reducing available forage 

for wintering big game. Large wild horse populations in the 

area would also be attracted, compounding impacts to vegetation and winter ranges. Constructing water developments 

outside of crucial big game habitats could lessen competition 

373
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

for forage between livestock and big game and could also help 

other wildlife since limited water resources occur there now. 

Sage grouse would be negatively impacted if waters are 

developed within a quarter mile of leks. This would result in 

less residual grass cover which could lead to increased nest 

depredation. Wildlife, livestock, and wild horses use these 

areas and lactating elk and mule deer especially use habitats 

in close proximity to riparian type habitats or developed 

water. Any water development authorized for livestock in the 

planning area under this alternative should occur where mineral development is also occurring. Since big game show a 

reduction in use of habitats already disturbed by mineral 

development, the placement of water developments in those 

previously disturbed habitats could minimized the impacts to 

wildlife from the water developments. Any increase in 

livestock numbers due to water development would also 

decrease the amount of available forage, negatively affecting 

the wildlife that occur in the area. 

Increasing the season of use under this alternative would 

benefit livestock operators in the short term, but would have 

long-term detrimental effects to wildlife. Health of vegetation 

is key to maintaining wildlife habitats and continuously using 

vegetation throughout the growing period would eventually 

result in a decline of the plant’s vigor. This would result in less 

production and an increase in non-native weed species. This 

would have a negative impact on wildlife. 

The effects of plowing roads in the winter and early spring 

would be same as described in the No Action Alternative. 

Under this alternative, all unleased lands within the planning area would be available for leasing with the prescriptions 

listed in Table 2-12 and the most crucial habitat for elk 

identified by the WGFD for the Steamboat Herd unit would 

be available for leasing. This crucial area also has the most 

fawning habitat for mule deer and is very important for a wide 

array of other wildlife species including raptors and amphibians. Due to the overall lack of cover for big game in the area, 

standard stipulations offer insufficient protection for the big 

game herds,. This would eventually result in loss of a viable 

elk herd in the planning area. If development occurs at 4 well 

locations per section, these habitats would still be unusable to 

elk; however, if development occurs in the area with only 1 or 

2 well locations per section, maintenance of a viable elk herd 

might be possible. 

Under this alternative, 125 wells could be drilled over the 

life of the plan. With all lands being available for leasing and 

development, the majority of interest lies within crucial winter ranges and migration corridors identified by the WGFD. 

Coalbed methane development potential is high in the core. 

Recent proposals for coalbed development include requests 

for 40-acre spacing. Although these proposals are just outside 

the planning area, drainage and interest inside the planning 

area would result in increased development. This would 

increase traffic and add additional oil/gas field activities into 

the field of view of the Steamboat Mountain elk herd and other 

wildlife species. Seasonal mitigation for surface disturbing 

activities (November 15 to April 30 for crucial winter range 

and May 1 to June 30 for parturition areas) would not provide 

adequate long-term protection for big game. Normal operations and activities conducted during the production phase and 

during crucial winter periods would most likely interfere with 

big game use of winter ranges. In addition, animal access 

(migration) to key winter ranges could be disrupted, resulting 

in risk to the long-term survival of the area’s elk herd. These 

impacts could cause abandonment of habitat, increased mortality, and a decrease in successful fawn-calf rearing. 

Areas with intensive development activity (40-acre well 

spacing or less, numerous roads, pipelines, etc.) would become unavailable for use by many species of wildlife as long 

as the activity occurs. This long-term displacement for big 

game may even result in permanent non-use of the area by the 

herds. 

As development occurs, habitats would become more 

fragmented, creating islands of undisturbed habitats. Although these undisturbed areas (i.e., WSAs) would provide 

habitat for elk and other wildlife species, they would be unable 

to support viable populations for many species. Maintenance 

of connectivity between habitats (spring-summer habitats, 

summer-fall, fall-winter, and winter-spring) would be crucial 

to sustaining big game population objectives. 

Displaced wildlife may move to less desirable habitats 

where they may be more adversely stressed resulting in an 

increase in mortality or loss of young. Displacement may also 

lead to a long-term change in migration patterns and overuse 

of crucial habitat. 

About 2,900 acres would be disturbed by various activities 

over 20 years. Impacts may be severe especially in areas 

where no physical barriers exist to provide cover and relief 

from the activity and where activity occurs year round during 

crucial periods. Since activities would occur in the core area, 

impacts would be increased in the key habitat in the core area 

which would adversely affect wildlife in the area, particularly 

elk and mule deer. 

No livestock water developments within 1/4 mile of leks 

(in addition to the 1/4 mile closure for the lek itself) would 

provide some benefit to sage grouse by not placing permanent 

livestock water sources on strutting grounds. Impacts would 

be greater than described for the No Action Alternative due to 

concentrating livestock use in the areas surrounding the lek. 

Placing water developments within one-quarter mile of sage 

grouse leks would have significant impacts to sage grouse 

nesting success. This would decrease nesting success due to 

a decrease in residual grass and forb cover. Studies have 

shown that average distance to sage grouse nests from a lek is 

approximately two miles. Depredation of nests due to a lack 

of nesting cover (residual grass) is extremely high near leks 

(Heath, et al. 1997). 

Most of the disturbed areas would be reclaimed with a 

long-term disturbance of about 750 acres. Reclamation could 

result in altered vegetation communities or introduction of 

undesirable plant species. This would cause negative impacts 

to sage grouse from the degradation of nesting and brood 

rearing habitat. 

Transportation planning impacts would be similar to those 

described in the No Action Alternative; however, since the 

374
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

most disturbance would occur in this alternative, the adverse 

effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat would be greatest. 

Constructing roads through woodland habitats under this 

alternative has the potential to greatly impact big game and 

other wildlife species that occur in the planning area. 

Impacts from visual resource management would be the 

same as described for the No Action Alternative. 

Potential exists for significant impacts to wildlife under 

this alternative. Drilling of 125 wells, no road density limitations, and limited mitigation requirements would eliminate 

elk from habitats near or adjacent to activities. Since much of 

this activity could occur in the core and connectivity area, 

habitats could be abandoned. Fragmentation of habitat and 

loss of habitat in the connectivity area would cause severe 

adverse impacts to big game and big game habitat. Riparian 

management impacts would be the same as in the No Action 

Alternative. 

Impacts to Fisheries Resources 

The effects from air quality management, cultural management, fire management, off-road vehicle management, recreation resource management, special status species management, vegetation management, visual resource management, 

watershed/water quality management, and wild horse herd 

management would be the same as described for Preferred 

Alternative. 

In general, impacts from livestock grazing management 

described in the No Action Alternative would also apply to 

Alternative A. 

Fisheries habitat would be adversely impacted as riparian 

areas are adversely impacted. It is assumed that several (up to 

23) livestock watering facilities (earthen ponds) would be 

constructed during the planning time frame. These, assuming 

proper design, would create short-term surface disturbance 

with minimal erosion but would increase livestock utilization 

in the immediate area. By itself this could increase erosion, 

but under a proper grazing scheme should benefit the overall 

vegetation resource, especially riparian areas. This, in turn, 

benefits fisheries. Water would be evaporated from these 

ponds. The depletion of water from the Colorado River 

drainage and its effect on T&E fish species downstream is 

described in the Green River RMP Record of Decision dated 

October 1997 (see page 209; USDI 1997 of that document) 

and the Biological Assessment (Appendix 11) for this document. This activity is within the scope of that document. 

Actions under this alternative, which include a possible 

earlier turnout date, full active preference, and the 50 percent 

or 2-inch stubble height use level with no actual grazing 

rotation or seasonal rest required, would probably not be 

suitable for maintaining riparian health or fish habitat. It may 

not be possible to maintain these assumptions when implementing appropriate actions under Standards and Guidelines. 

When appropriate actions are taken as a result of Standards 

and Guidelines analysis under this alternative, there may not 

be significant progress achieved for riparian health in any 

reasonable time frame. 

Under this alternative it is assumed that 125 wells would be 

drilled. This would mean there would be about 2,500 acres of 

surface disturbance. This amount of disturbance would only 

have a minimal impact if stringent mitigation measures were 

followed (as described in the RMP and the No Action Alternative). However, unlimited and indiscriminate crossings of 

riparian areas or creeks (i.e., limited or no transportation 

planning) could cause significant impact by increasing erosion and sedimentation. 

Additionally, the drilling of these wells would require local 

water sources for drilling and completion. It is assumed that 

all water used for drilling and completion of wells within the 

Green River and Sweetwater River basins would have been 

part of the surface flows of the Colorado River or Platte River, 

respectively, or of its tributaries (though that would not 

always be the case). The estimate for the amount of water 

needed to drill and complete each well is 2.0 acre-feet. Of the 

125 wells in this alternative, 15 are shallow coalbed methane, 

10 are deep coalbed methane wells located entirely within the 

Great Divide Basin (Red Desert), and the remaining 100 are 

standard deep gas wells. For these 100 wells it is estimated 

that 75 percent would be within the Green River Basin, 23 

percent would be within the Great Divide Basin (Red Desert), 

and 2 percent would be within the Sweetwater River drainage 

(Platte River). Water use for these 100 wells, would total 200 

acre-feet in 20 years or 10 acre-feet/year. This would total 7.5 

acre-feet/year in the Colorado River drainage and 0.2 acrefeet/year in the Platte River drainage. The water depletion 

effects of the 15 shallow coalbed methane is the same as 

described in the Preferred Alternative. 

The depletion of water from the Colorado River drainage 

and its effect on T&E fish species downstream is described in 

the Green River RMP Record of Decision dated October 1997 

(see page 209; USDI 1997 of that document) and the Biological Assessment (Appendix 11) for this document. 

The effects of wildlife management actions on fisheries 

resources would be the same as described for the No Action 

Alternative. 

Core Area 

The impacts within the Core Area and Special Management Areas are the same as for what is listed under the general 

impacts for Alternative A. 

Fisheries 

Impacts to fisheries in the core area would be the same as 

described for the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Management actions under this alternative would result in 

the most adverse impacts to wildlife habitats. 

Increased developments and human presence would continue to remove and fragment wildlife habitats. Demands on 

public lands from recreationists would continue to increase, 

resulting in less un-occupied and undisturbed areas. More 

access into crucial habitats would increase displacement over 

375
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

the long term (possibly even permanently). Maintaining 

habitat to support existing Wyoming Game and Fish Department population objectives for big game would become more 

difficult. 

Although about 148,000 acres in the planning area would 

be either closed to leasing or surface disturbing and disrupting 

activities, not all of the closed areas occur in crucial habitats, 

nor are they interconnected. Adverse impacts to crucial 

wildlife habitats (e.g., riparian areas, crucial winter ranges, 

parturition areas, game bird winter concentration areas, etc.) 

from livestock grazing would increase if all current nonuse 

AUMs are activated. These adverse impacts would be especially severe in crucial winter ranges where other commodity 

uses such as mining or oil and gas development is taking place. 

Displacement of livestock into these crucial habitats or concentrating livestock in crucial habitats where vegetation has 

been decreased due to commodity development would result 

in less forage available for big game animals during winter 

periods. This would be especially critical in severe winters. 

Development of livestock water in crucial habitats and within 

1/4 mile of sage grouse leks removes vegetation and concentrates livestock around the water development. These impacts 

could be reduced through implementation of new AMPs and/ 

or revision of management in old AMPs to include riparian 

objectives and implementation of actions associated with 

standards and guidelines assessments. 

Cumulative effects of year-long livestock activity compound habitat impacts through displacement, forage competition, water competition, and social interaction. 

Development could occur throughout the planning area, 

including the core area, affecting crucial habitats and migration routes and displacing wildlife. Production activities 

could occur year-round, causing disturbance and disruption in 

crucial habitats during crucial winter periods. This would add 

to the stress of displacement. 

Seasonal constraints would be used to mitigate impacts to 

wildlife from human activities during crucial periods and 

provide short-term protection for wildlife. Long-term maintenance and operations activity in crucial wildlife habitats 

would continue to cause displacement of wildlife from crucial 

habitats, including disruption of nesting, fawning and calving 

areas, and crucial big game winter habitats. Increased access 

for recreationists due to development of new roads (especially 

all-weather roads that provide year-round access) would magnify the negative impacts to wildlife and their habitats and 

cause further displacement and habitat abandonment. 

Nondiscretionary closures to oil and gas leasing of about 

117,000 acres would reduce the effects somewhat; however, 

these acres are not contiguous and not all are in crucial 

habitats, so impacts to crucial habitats would still occur. 

Potential exists for impacts to the migrational capabilities 

of the Sublette antelope herd. However, these effects should 

not be significant as most development activity would occur 

outside antelope crucial winter range. Fragmentation of 

habitat areas and displacement from existing migration corridors due to roads and increased activity would occur; however, it is anticipated that the activity in the migration corridor 

would be minor and sufficient habitat and open space would 

still be provided. Impacts would be greater than those described for the other alternatives. However, impacts could be 

significant (cause large amounts of winter kill) if winter 

conditions are extremely severe (similar to the winters of 1978 

and 1983). 

Surface disturbing activities would continue to cause longterm losses of wildlife habitat. The greatest amount of acreage 

would be disturbed under this alternative. 

Management prescriptions for wildlife resources, watershed, visual resources, and off-road vehicle use would provide 

long-term benefits to most wildlife populations and habitats. 

Fire (natural or prescribed) would result in a short-term loss of 

habitat but could benefit habitat in the long term. Wildfire 

could result in a long-term loss of habitat and aspen stands if 

these areas are not fenced after a fire. Livestock would not be 

allowed to graze the burned area immediately after the fire. 

Surface mining can result in an irreversible irretrievable 

loss of wetlands and springs, and although mitigation occurs, 

the original site is lost. Major road development also results 

in irretrievable losses of habitat as they are generally permanent structures. The adverse impacts from road development 

would be greatest under this alternative. 

Habitat fragmentation, particularly for big game, would 

occur in some areas, especially in areas with many access 

roads and surface disturbances. Transportation routes tend to 

dissect habitats and can act as barriers to some species, 

especially in severe winter conditions. This can also increase 

accessibility for the general public into areas that have previously been somewhat inaccessible to vehicles. Plowing of 

roads in the winter months would add to this impact. This 

would become more important and increase adverse effects to 

wildlife as increased demands for use of public lands occur. 

Migration routes could be altered, changing some traditional 

use patterns on a local level. Seclusion areas for wildlife 

would become smaller and more dispersed. This could 

diminish the ability to maintain current population objectives 

for big game species. Transportation planning would help to 

reduce this overall effect; however, lack of road density limits 

in crucial habitats would cause additional adverse effects. 

Increased oil and gas activity, especially in areas with 

reduced well spacing (40- and 80-acre spacing) would eliminate use of some of these areas by wildlife species, especially 

deer and elk. 

A summary of impacts to the individual species that may be 

affected by actions in the planning area follows. 

Impacts to wintering antelope and antelope migration 

would be greater than described for the other alternatives. 

Most of the development would occur in portions of the 

planning area outside antelope crucial winter range and migration areas, this impact should not be significant. 

The Steamboat elk herd is very susceptible to displacement 

by human activities because of the lack of hiding and escape 

cover. Continued development proposals and permanent uses 

on the Steamboat Mountain, Essex Mountain, and Jack Morrow Hills areas make maintenance of this herd population 

376
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

objective very unlikely. Road construction and increased 

access into remote areas would also increase use by the 

general public adding to the impacts of this desert elk herd. 

Mitigation such as remote or off-site facility placement, and 

seasonally restricting human activity to reduce access and 

traffic in crucial habitat and calving areas would help reduce 

these adverse effects. 

Competition for forage between mule deer and cattle for 

saltbush and winterfat on crucial winter range would continue. Control of wildfire has been responsible for the loss of 

key shrub species and the even-aged condition of sagebrush 

communities. 

The impacts to mule deer would be the most adverse under 

alternative A. Under this alternative the assumptions include 

increased amounts of surface disturbing activities and increased numbers of livestock. It would be very difficult, even 

with all mitigation measures applied under this alternative, to 

reverse downward or static trends in riparian areas. 

Fisheries 

Cumulative impacts to fisheries would be the same as 

described in the No Action Alternative. 

Special Management Areas 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC and Special Recreation Management Area 

Oil and gas leasing would occur in the area that could lead 

to impacts to the visual integrity of the area. New surface 

facilities could have an adverse impact to the health and safety 

of the recreational users in the area. Up to 15 coal bed methane 

wells and 10 new wells could be drilled within this ACEC. 

Beneficial effects would occur to oil and gas operations due to 

increased availability of areas for leasing and development. 

Because of the additional producing wells associated with 

oil and gas production in this area, the public would have a 

reduced “open” area to play in. Concerns over safety would 

be reduced over the No Action Alternative because there 

would be fewer hazards in the reduced open area. Reducing 

the ORV open acreage in the planning area would have an 

adverse impact to this resource. 

The seasonal off-road vehicle closure within the Steamboat Mountain and Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would not be 

maintained. New seasonal closures in crucial ranges would 

not be considered. This would adversely affect big game 

birthing activity. Failure to maintain this seasonal vehicle 

closure could slightly diminish efforts to manage heritage 

resources of all kinds. 

Fewer restrictions on surface disturbances would generally 

be adverse to efforts to manage heritage resources of all kinds. 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

This alternative would provide the most benefit to oil and 

gas operations as more areas would be open to leasing and 

development. 

In addition to the effects described in the Preferred Alternative for oil and gas developments, the top of Steamboat 

Mountain would be open to communication sites. This could 

have an impact to the visual values of the area and diminish 

efforts to manage Native American respected places. Under 

this alternative, Steamboat Mountain would be managed as a 

VRM II and III area which would not provide as much 

protection as the preferred alternative. If a communication 

site is located in and near crucial habitats, this habitat could be 

lost which would be a significant impact. Year round access 

can result in displacing and disturbing wildlife during critical 

periods. 

Allowing mineral material sales on the face of Steamboat 

Mountain could adversely impact visual, cultural, and wildlife values. 

The effects of withdrawals and livestock grazing management would be the same as described for the No Action 

Alternative. 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC 

Allowing Pacific Butte to remain open for consideration of 

communication sites would significantly diminish BLM efforts to manage and protect certain classes of heritage resources, especially the South Pass Historic Landscape 

viewshed. Additionally, the Green River RMP and other 

management document prescriptions would significantly enhance BLM efforts to manage and protect heritage resources 

of all kinds. Impacts to oil and gas development would be the 

same as the No Action Alternative. 

White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC 

Impacts to the White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC would 

be the same as described for the Preferred Alternative. 

Red Desert Watershed Area 

Livestock water developments could be constructed 

throughout the planning area which could enhance livestock 

distribution. However, surface disturbance associated with 

construction of water developments could adversely affect 

sensitive resources. Livestock grazing use could also be 

concentrated in areas that would adversely affect wildlife use 

of the area, and cultural resource values. 

The entire watershed would be open to leasing consideration which would increase the adverse effects from oil and 

gas development activities, but benefit actual oil and gas 

operations. These effects to wildlife habitat, visual and 

heritage resources, and open space would be greatest under 

this alternative. 

377
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

ALTERNATIVE B 

Cultural Impacts 

The impacts to cultural resources from air quality management, fire management, hazardous materials, access management, livestock grazing management, monitoring and reclamation practices, off-road and recreation uses, special status 

species management, vegetation management, and watershed 

management would be the same as described in the Preferred 

Alternative. 

The impacts to cultural resources would be similar to those 

described in the Preferred Alternative. Seasonal restrictions 

and other mitigative measures applied to lands and realty 

actions generally have beneficial effects to cultural resources 

by limiting or otherwise controlling surface disturbing activities. Special management prescriptions for Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, such as the South Pass Historic 

Landscape and White Mountain Petroglyphs are generally 

protective in nature and tend to benefit cultural resources. 

Enhanced avoidance distances would facilitate easier protection of all kinds of heritage resources. 

Closure of Indian Gap and the face of Steamboat Mountain 

to rights-of-way would appreciably protect cultural resources 

in general and especially areas identified by Native Americans as respected places. Closure of Steamboat Mountain, 

Essex Mountain, Oregon Buttes ACEC, Continental Peak, 

and Pacific Butte to communication sites would likely protect 

cultural resources, including areas identified as respected 

places by Native Americans, in those areas. 

Development of fewer, e.g., 65, projected oil and gas wells 

and associated facilities with enhanced management prescriptions, including additional 1-mile protection around areas 

identified by Native Americans as respected places would 

significantly increase protection of cultural resources of all 

kinds. 

Mitigation prescriptions for mineral material sales in Alternative B, including closure of the Steamboat Mountain 

ACEC, would generally enhance protection of cultural resources of all kinds. 

Additional withdrawals in the connectivity area, elk calving areas, Steamboat Mountain ACEC, and eastern portion of 

the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC generally enhance protection 

of cultural resources of all kinds. Withdrawal of areas on 

White Mountain identified by Native American traditional 

elders as respected places, as well as the two areas within the 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC would significantly enhance 

protection of those heritage values. 

Additional prescriptions for geophysical exploration activities would generally enhance protection of cultural resources of all kinds. 

Increasing the areas closed to surface disturbing activities 

would provide greater protection for heritage resources of all 

kinds. Intensified transportation planning would additionally 

enhance efforts to protect heritage resources of all kinds. 

Changing the VRM Class in the Steamboat Mountain 

ACEC and Red Desert from Class III to Class II partially in 

recognition of the increased heritage resource values of those 

areas brought to our attention by Native American traditional 

elders would significantly improve BLM management of 

heritage resources of all kinds. 

Grazing over-use can impact cultural resources both directly by destroying archaeological sites, historic trails and 

associated viewsheds, and indirectly by accelerating erosion 

which can eventually destroy some of these resources. Expansion of the wild horse herd management area would somewhat 

enhance appreciation of the horses as a heritage resource. 

The impacts to cultural resources would be similar to those 

described for the Preferred Alternative. Efforts to prevent 

fragmentation of wildlife habitat and adverse effects to riparian habitats would enhance appreciation of heritage resources 

within their environmental context. 

Core Area 

Impacts on cultural resources from management of the 

following resources would be the same as described above for 

the general planning area: air quality, cultural, fire, hazardous 

materials, land and realty, and livestock grazing. Management of other resources, such as minerals, wildlife, and 

vegetation, would have specific impacts on cultural resources 

within the core. 

Closure of the core area, and the connectivity area to oil and 

gas leasing would significantly enhance protection of heritage 

resources of all kinds. 

Development and surface disturbing activities of all kinds 

would be reduced in the core area and would greatly enhance 

BLM’s ability to manage heritage resources. Limitations on 

road density would generally enhance efforts to protect heritage resources of all kinds. 

Desired Plant Community objectives would generally enhance efforts to manage heritage resources, and particularly 

Native American respected places. 

The ability to protect and manage heritage resources would 

be greatly enhanced by expanding Class II VRM areas. 

Efforts to enhance wildlife and riparian habitats would generally enhance heritage resource management efforts. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for the 

No Action Alternative except that prohibition of surface 

disturbing activities within the paleosol deposition area, and 

1 mile avoidance radius around Native American respected 

places would enhance protection of those kinds of heritage 

resources. 

Paleontological Impacts 

The types of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

described under the Preferred Alternative for fossil resources 

would occur under this alternative, but the magnitude of the 

378
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

impacts would be the least of any alternative being analyzed. 

Under this alternative, known scientifically significant fossil 

sites within the planning area would be closed to surface 

disturbing activity, which would effectively preserve them for 

future study. 

Among the alternatives being analyzed, Alternative B is 

the most restrictive, with respect to allowable surface disturbing activities outside the core area. The large avoidance, 

withdrawal, and no lease areas means fewer fossil resources 

would be impacted, either positively or negatively. The 

development that may occur would have the same type of 

direct and indirect impacts to paleontological resources as that 

described for the other alternatives. However, the magnitude 

of the impacts would be the least of any alternative being 

analyzed. 

Core Area 

Except for development of the existing leases within the 

core, very little other surface disturbance would occur. With 

no new leases being issued, no new water developments 

permitted, and withdrawal of nearly the entire core area, this 

alternative would have the least amount of impact compared 

to the other alternatives, except for the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The types of cumulative impacts described for the other 

alternatives would occur under this alternative. However, the 

magnitude of the impacts would the least of any alternative 

being analyzed. 

Fire Impacts 

The impacts to fire management activities would be similar 

to those described for the Preferred Alternative except that 

more restrictions for resource protection would be applied to 

fire management activities. 

Lands Impacts 

Right-of-way holders would have some flexibility and 

opportunity for locating and routing rights-of-way under this 

alternative. However, right-of-way placement would be impacted by exclusion, avoidance, and no surface occupancy 

areas, and those areas with seasonal restrictions. These effects 

would be greatest under this alternative as more acres would 

be considered avoidance or exclusion areas than the No 

Action Alternative. 

The exclusion of rights-of-way within the South Pass 

Historic Landscape vista (about 23,640 acres) would have a 

major impact if activity should increase in this area since 

rights-of-way in exclusion areas would not be allowed unless 

mandated by law. Large avoidance areas would have a similar 

impact as avoidance of these areas may require a longer route 

which would affect other offsite areas and increase costs to the 

applicant. This alternative proposes the greatest number of 

avoidance and exclusion areas. About 70 percent of the 

planning area (393,680 acres) would be an avoidance area and 

about 8 percent (39,870 acres) would be excluded from rightsof-way. Long linear facilities such as pipelines and powerlines 

would be affected the most by these restrictions, as extensive 

reroutes would be necessary. Additional mitigation may also 

be applied to activities that may occur in all avoidance areas, 

also increasing project costs and the amount of time needed to 

complete projects (Table 4-26). 

No surface occupancy restrictions affecting about 36,010 

acres preclude placement of rights-of-way because surface 

disturbing and disrupting activities are not allowed. Most of 

these areas are small and scattered throughout the planning 

area and can be easily avoided. However, effects increase 

when combined with avoidance and exclusion areas. Large 

areas with NSO restrictions have the same effect as large 

exclusion areas. 

Areas closed to communication site location (about 44,550 

acres) preclude placement of these types of facilities. If 

alternate locations cannot be found, this can cause gaps in 

communication signals, and inefficient communication coverage of areas. More areas would be closed to communication 

sites under this alternative. 

Seasonal restrictions and other mitigation measures to 

protect resource values and threatened and endangered species (T&E) would impact rights-of-way by restricting location or timing of construction. 

The possibility of high dust levels resulting from use of 

unpaved access roads would necessitate stipulations to control dust. All construction rights-of-way as well as access road 

rights-of-way would include a stipulation requiring that the 

holder meet Federal and State air quality standards. 

Land tenure adjustments would occur only if the benefits 

outweigh any adverse impacts, and if there are no significant 

impacts which cannot be mitigated. About 4,721 acres have 

been identified as possibly suitable for disposal/acquisition. 

The proposed withdrawal of about 193,180 acres, and the 

37,290 acres identified for withdrawal in the Green River 

RMP, would preclude disposal, entry, and mineral location in 

those areas (Table 4-27). Withdrawals for more than 5,000 

acres would require notification of Congress. Existing withdrawals, such as those for oil shale and coal, would be 

reviewed and those which no longer serve the purpose for 

which they were withdrawn, would be revoked. These lands 

would then be open for disposal, entry, and mineral location. 

About 211,130 acres would open to mineral location that 

previously were not available for this activity. Potential for 

mining claim activity is low except in the South Pass Area. 

This action would benefit mining claimants by allowing 

mining claim activity on areas that were previously closed. 

There is adequate vehicle access on the existing roads and 

trails to the lands in the planning review area. Closing or 

restricting specific areas to protect public health and safety 

and implementing transportation planning, should not cause 

severe adverse effects to vehicle users because so much of the 

area is currently accessible and such closures would likely be 

few. Implementing the ORV designations would keep vehicles on designated routes which could result in traveling 

379
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

further to get to a destination, but should not preclude accessing an area. Foot and horse traffic would not be affected. 

Core Area 

The core area, including the Greater Sand Dunes and 

Steamboat Mountain ACECs, would be an avoidance area for 

rights-of-way. Large avoidance areas such as this would 

require routing rights-of-way around the core area. This 

would affect other offsite areas and increase costs to the 

applicant. Land tenure, withdrawal, and access impacts 

would be the same as described for the general area. Steamboat Mountain ACEC and Essex Mountain would be closed to 

communication sites which could result in inefficient communication coverage for portions of the planning area. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The combined actions of no new oil and gas leasing in the 

core and connectivity areas, large areas of avoidance (393,680 

acres), much of it connecting, and about 39,870 acres of 

exclusion area (and about 44,550 acres excluded from communication sites) would affect right-of-way placement. Long 

linear rights-of-way particularly would be affected by potentially longer routes increasing construction costs. Fewer 

rights-of-way would be needed as less acreage would be 

leased and fewer gas wells would be drilled. 

Withdrawal of 267,590 acres would preclude disposal, 

entry, and mineral location. Revocation of about 211,130 

withdrawn acres through the removal of the oil shale and coal 

withdrawals would allow for entry and mineral location, and 

consideration of land disposal. 

Lands would be irreversibly lost to the public land base 

when sold or exchanged. However, under exchanges, lands of 

comparable value would be obtained. 

Livestock Grazing Impacts 

Impacts to livestock grazing from air quality management, 

cultural and paleontological resource management, hazardous materials, healthy rangelands, vegetation treatments, livestock grazing plan development, monitoring and reclamation 

practices, off-road and recreation uses, special status species 

management, threatened and endangered species management, transportation planning, weeds, and wilderness management would be the same as described in the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Under this alternative it is assumed that 50 gas wells and 15 

shallow coalbed methane wells would be drilled. This would 

mean that there would be approximately 2,000 acres disturbed. This is less than the No Action Alternative by about 

300 acres. Net long-term disturbance would decrease from 

the No Action Alternative by about 91 acres and would also be 

minimal. 

Impacts to livestock from Hard Rock Mining (Locatables), 

Gravel or other pits (salables), and Coal, Sodium, or Oil Shale 

Exploration and Development (leasables) would be the same 

as described in the Preferred Alternative. These activities 

would not pose a concern for livestock production and management. 

Actions concerning rights-of-ways, pipelines, roads, utilities and other surface disturbing actions such as well pads, 

water diversions, etc., can adversely affect livestock by reducing available forage (see Minerals discussion). Reclamation 

of linear rights-of-ways that do not include permanent roads 

would mitigate these forage related impacts. Additionally, 

about 80,610 acres would be closed to rights-of-way which 

would benefit livestock by protecting available forage. 

Some areas are more suitable for cattle while other areas 

are more appropriate for sheep. Slopes greater than 20 percent 

are usually only accessible to sheep while the lower lying 

areas are more accessible to cattle grazing. Distance to water 

is also more critical for cattle than for sheep. Omitting areas 

of little or no productivity or very steep slopes from livestock 

grazing might have an impact on the livestock operators by a 

reduction in adjudicated AUMs. However, this would decrease the potential overutilization of the vegetation in other 

areas. With sheep and cattle there is a diverse range of forage 

needs which separates each class of livestock. One area may 

indeed be unsuitable for one class of livestock but very 

suitable to another. 

Conversions from sheep to cattle would not be considered 

under this alternative. Conversions from cattle to sheep might 

alleviate problems with riparian habitat. Normally sheep are 

herded and are not allowed to stay in riparian areas except to 

water. Sheep are more likely to use snow in the higher 

elevations located within the planning area. Conversions 

from cattle to sheep could reduce the stress placed upon the 

riparian areas. Also, many operators would not run sheep or 

do not have the infrastructure to conduct a sheep operation. 

Salting for distribution of livestock could require some 

effort in planning and proper placement but would aid in the 

distribution of forage utilization and reduce impacts to other 

resources such as wildlife, water quality, and riparian resources. 

No new livestock management facilities would be developed unless it would benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat. This 

may negatively impact livestock management by reducing 

options for addressing grazing related resource damage. Reductions in use and increased labor costs (herding) may result. 

Modifying the season of use to a later turnout date would 

ultimately force the operators to find forage for their livestock 

elsewhere. Normally range readiness is around July 1 of each 

year, conditions such as soil moisture, ambient temperatures, 

and growing conditions. In some cases, turn out could be as 

early as June 1. Livestock operators could not expect a 

consistent turn-out date each year. This would increase the 

time involved in livestock management and increase costs. 

This uncertainty would cause operations to become less 

profitable by increasing costs for trucking, equipment, and 

labor. 

Utilization levels would be set for willow at 30 percent, 

riparian vegetation at 35 percent, and upland vegetation at 40 

percent. Lower utilization levels could possibly cause live380
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

stock to be removed from an area within the allotment or the 

entire allotment due to utilization of critical areas meeting 

target levels prior to the end of the authorized grazing period. 

Livestock would initially be moved to other areas that have 

not reached the utilization levels. This may result in the 

operators having to take their livestock elsewhere earlier than 

currently occurs, thereby increasing costs. However, with the 

utilization levels set as they are, a positive change in vegetation can be assumed in a short time frame. 

An estimated 11 water developments would be constructed 

outside the core area, connectivity, and crucial winter ranges. 

Eleven developments may not be sufficient to enhance distribution of livestock and some could not be located in the areas 

necessary to provide optimum distribution and use. Some 

areas would be underutilized or not utilized at all. Constraints 

on water development placement could result in an increased 

use of riparian areas and utilization limits could be reached 

within a short time frame. 

This alternative has the greatest amount of restrictions for 

livestock management of all the alternatives. There would be 

no new water developments in the core and connectivity areas. 

This in conjunction with utilization limits on riparian areas 

would reduce the amount of forage and water available for 

livestock. Livestock would be moved from riparian areas and 

may need to be removed from the entire allotment prior to the 

end of the authorized use period. Utilization limits would 

have similar effects. Hauling water would be done in some 

cases by the livestock operators but would be costly. 

Managing riparian pastures primarily for wildlife habitat 

and watershed resources, establishing riparian utilization at 

30 percent for shrub species and 35 percent for herbaceous 

species, and prohibiting water developments in crucial winter 

ranges, the core, and connectivity areas would adversely 

affect livestock management opportunities. Livestock would 

be removed from riparian areas sooner than currently occurs. 

Over time, with improved riparian areas and increased vegetative production, livestock would benefit. 

For a detailed socioeconomic impacts discussion of the 

livestock industry, see Socioeconomic Impacts. 

Under Alternative B, 177,220 cattle AUMs and 19,800 

sheep AUMs would be available for livestock grazing during 

the 20-year life of the project. The total economic impact of 

livestock grazing would be $12.4 million. Employment in the 

livestock sector would be 139 annual job equivalents earning 

$16,396 average per year. Economic impacts to livestock 

grazing under Alternative B are the lowest of all alternatives. 

AUMs available for livestock grazing on an annual basis 

under Alternative B represent a decrease over the baseline 

year 1998 and the 5-year average of 1994-1998. 

Livestock grazing would be based on the last 5 years 

average use of 9,851 AUMs. This level of grazing activity 

could produce financial impacts to livestock operators, causing them to sell, lease, or look for other grazing lands. See also 

Socioeconomic Impacts. 

No surface occupancy stipulations or rights-of-way avoidance areas in the South Pass Historic Landscape, Oregon 

Buttes ACEC, and White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC could 

prevent construction of livestock management facilities; therefore, livestock distribution patterns may not improve. 

Expanding the wild horse herd management area would 

have a slight effect on livestock grazing. Limited competition 

for forage could occur. The largest impact would be from 

competition for available water in areas where livestock water 

could not be developed. Limiting water developments could 

increase competition between domestic livestock and wild 

horses for available water. 

The prescriptions for grazing of livestock in this alternative 

would be the most restrictive, providing the least flexibility. 

The dietary overlap between elk and cattle and between deer 

and sheep has the potential for the most impact to livestock 

grazing. Restrictions on range improvements, watering sources 

and or areas, utilization levels, use of upland and riparian 

areas, and use limits would be greatest under this alternative. 

The major impact to cattle from elk would be competition 

for forage. Areas managed for elk winter range would tend to 

cause cattle to be moved to other potentially less productive 

areas. Use of these areas would require increased management detail to address accessibility and water issues. Limitations on the use of management tools in areas historically 

grazed by cattle may require intensive management, increasing operating costs. 

The major impact to sheep from elk or deer would be less 

dramatic than that of cattle. Since sheep are herded rather than 

allowed to roam freely, the costs of moving the animals would 

be lessened. Although there is still a cost to herding sheep, 

they can generally be moved to other areas at less expense than 

cattle. Herding sheep may displace elk or deer. The competition for forage between elk and sheep is very limited. 

However, the direct competition may occur any time during 

the growing season. Even though sheep are termed browsers, 

like deer, they utilize a variety of forages. 

Impacts to sheep from application of utilization levels 

would be the same as for cattle by reducing the amount of 

forage available for grazing. These limits may cause sheep to 

be moved to areas of poorer quality of feed. Lower palatability forage might decrease their weight causing health concerns 

especially if they are lambing in these areas. 

The competition between elk and cattle over shade may 

cause concern in areas that have the means to provide such 

cover. This is evident in the big sagebrush areas surrounding 

or near Steamboat Mountain. Because of the height of the big 

sagebrush in these areas and the sparsely timbered areas, 

livestock, in general, would seek out these areas for shade in 

late summer to early fall. Competition for these limited areas 

might cause a decline in the density of the big sagebrush 

stands. Elk and deer have been known to cause resource 

damage to these areas as well. 

Operations in the core area such as limiting water sources 

may reduce the flexibility to manage both cattle and sheep. 

Additional management tools may have to be developed or 

adapted to allow the proper management of livestock within 

these areas. There may be additional expenses to livestock 

381
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

operators due limiting available management tools. 

Restrictions in distance from water and utilization limits in 

sage grouse nesting areas, may cause management concerns 

and increase operating costs. Increased management and 

management tools may be needed to ensure compliance with 

stubble heights and utilization limits. 

Limiting seasons of use and livestock numbers would 

affect livestock operations. 

Limits on when livestock enter or are removed from an 

allotment may cause the livestock operators to utilize other 

resources which may or may not fit current grazing operations. 

Limitations in the use of the connectivity area may create 

an impact to livestock operations. By limiting use and the 

duration of grazing within these areas, there may be increased 

costs associated with additional management tools. 

Core Area 

Impacts to livestock would be the same as described in the 

Preferred Alternative. Surface use constraints and management practices precluding construction of rangeland improvements may prevent improvement of livestock distribution 

patterns. This would affect the Pacific Creek, Steamboat 

Mountain, Sands, Bush Rim, and Fourth of July allotments. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Actions taken under this alternative could result in a shortterm reduction in use as the area and time available for grazing 

would be limited. This potential impact would be the greatest 

under this alternative. The projected increase in forage 

production would also be the greatest and could help offset 

this loss in the long term. 

Minerals Impacts 

Leasables - Oil and Gas and Coalbed Methane 

Resources 

Oil and gas and coalbed methane development 

wouldrestricted or prohibited as the result of conflicts with 

environmentally related resource values. This cumulative 

impact is due to the restriction categories: 

• no leasing, 

• no surface occupancy, 

• seasonal access restrictions, and 

• controlled surface use restrictions. 

Approximately 38 percent of the planning area would be 

designated no leasing. Leasing would be prohibited within 

wilderness study areas, the core area, and the connectivity 

area. 

In areas of no surface occupancy, surface disturbing activities are prohibited. About 6 percent of the planning area 

would be affected by this restriction (Map 21 and Table 2-15). 

Access to hydrocarbon resources located beneath these areas 

must be accomplished by drilling deviated or horizontal wells, 

which may not always be economically feasible. Directional 

drilling would increase well cost. 

About 60 percent of the planning area is affected by 

seasonal restrictions (Map 11 and Table 2-15). Seasonal 

restrictions limit oil and gas activities to certain time periods 

during the year. Activities can be prohibited from between 2 

and 9 months out of the year depending on the purpose of the 

time limitation, and number and kind of overlapping seasonal 

restrictions. This restriction is applied to leases in order to 

protect, big game winter ranges, certain calving and parturition areas, raptor habitat, mountain plover nesting, and sage 

grouse nesting areas. Most of the seasonal restriction overlaps 

occur during the spring and early summer. The recent addition 

of a requirement for mountain plover nesting surveys would 

increase costs for any new wells or construction activities 

proposed. 

Controls on surface disturbing activities are applied to 

leases to mitigate adverse impacts. The effect of surface use 

restrictions can range from no effect, to added mitigation and 

reclamation requirements, to moving well locations, all the 

way to prohibiting exploration and development activity. The 

magnitude of the impact is generally not known until a well 

has been proposed. About 80 percent of the planning area 

would be affected by these controlled surface use restrictions 

(Table 2-15 and Map 36). 

The reasonable foreseeable development scenario projected that 202 wells (includes five coalbed methane wells) 

could be drilled in the planning area if the entire area were 

open to exploration and development. The impacts of restrictions on this projection are: 

1. five coalbed methane wells expected to be drilled under the 

No Action Alternative would not be drilled due to additional restrictions resulting from no leasing, no surface 

occupancy, and controlled surface use mitigation and 

reclamation requirements being added for this alternative, 

2. an estimated direct loss of 48 percent of the potentially 

drilled wells (92 wells) through no leasing, 

3. an estimated indirect loss of 26 percent of the potentially 

drilled oil and gas wells (50 wells) because restrictions (no 

leasing, surface occupancy stipulations, and mitigation 

and reclamation requirements) over almost all of the planning area could discourage industry from initiating exploration and development activities, 

4. increased operating costs related to trying to get access for 

drilling those available well locations and transporting 

production obtained, 

5. in the short term (through 2007), the number of producing 

wells could increase from 48 wells (46 oil and gas wells and 

2 coalbed methane wells) to 56 wells (51 oil and gas wells 

and 5 coalbed methane wells), 

6. in the long term (through 2017), the number of producing 

wells could decrease to 33 wells (28 oil and gas wells and 

5 coalbed methane wells). 

382
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts of Fewer Wells 

About 50 wells (24 producing oil and gas wells and 3 

producing coalbed methane wells) are expected to be drilled 

and 142 wells would not be drilled during the 20-year analysis 

period. The new producing wells would account for additional royalty and tax revenue to the government. The 24 new 

oil and gas wells could have a total reserve of 58.8 billion 

cubic feet of gas. The projected reserves of the expected 3 new 

producing coalbed methane wells is not known. 

The unavailable production from the oil and gas wells not 

drilled represents unrealized royalty and tax revenue. Seventy-five of the 142 wells would be expected to produce and 

they could recover 165 billion cubic feet of gas. A loss of 

opportunity for revenue and royalty would occur if wells 

could not be drilled to obtain hydrocarbons under no leasing 

and no surface operations areas. Where leasing is deferred, 

the opportunity to recover hydrocarbon reserves would also 

be deferred for some period longer than 20 years. The amount 

of potential revenue from undrilled coalbed methane wells is 

unknown, since the number of potential undrilled coalbed 

methane wells could not be determined. Opportunities for 

direct and indirect employment would also be reduced with 

fewer producing wells. 

Significance of Impacts to Oil and Gas Activities 

Significance criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4 would be exceeded for 

the No Action Alternative. Two fields (Nitchie Gulch and 

Pine Canyon) lie in or partially in the planning area. They both 

exceed the 5 billion cubic feet of gas criteria. The Nitchie 

Gulch Field contains 48 wells and the Pine Canyon Field 

contains 22 wells (George 1992). The well average per field 

in this area is 35. Diedrich (1999) has indicated that field sizes 

are likely to range from 20 to 25 wells. In comparison, a 

natural gas field in southwestern Wyoming typically includes 

30 to 200+ wells (Barlow and Haun, 1994). It appears that at 

least two average fields would not be developed due to direct 

impacts of not leasing and due to indirect impacts of applying 

surface use restrictions. Possibly as many as four fields would 

not be developed due to these restrictions 

About 74 percent of expected potential exploration and 

development activity could not occur due to restrictions. 

Potential direct losses were determined to be 48 percent and 

indirect losses 26 percent. Collectively and individually these 

two types of losses exceed the threshold loss of 25 percent 

which was determined to be significant for criteria #2. 

About 74 percent of expected reserve additions would not 

occur due to restrictions. The threshold for criteria #3 was 

determined to be a loss of 25 percent of the potential reserves. 

The total number of producing wells would decrease by 31 

percent over the 20-year study period. This exceeds the 

significance level established for criteria #4. 

Core Area 

No further leasing would be allowed in the core area and in 

the connectivity area. Impacts as a result of restrictions in the 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC and Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

would be the same as for the core area since they lie within it. 

Types of impacts determined for the planning area as a whole, 

also apply to this area. 

The core area and the connectivity area make up about 38 

percent of the planning area. Some of the new wells that could 

be drilled would be drilled as step-out development wells 

from the Nitchie Gulch Field and some as part of another field 

(possibly as extensions of one or more of the small one- or 

two-well fields already present). Development of an entire 

field may be precluded in the core area and connectivity area 

under Alternative B, if productive areas are found to lay under 

unleasable areas. The criteria #1 impact threshold may be 

exceeded. 

Significance criteria #2 and #3 impact threshold levels are 

expected to be exceeded within the core area and connectivity 

area. 

Forty-seven (47) wells have been completed as gas producers in the core area and connectivity area and 35 wells still 

produce. Over the long term, 35 of these wells are expected 

to be abandoned, leaving only 2 producing well(s). Approximately 11 of the 20 new wells projected under the RFD are 

expected to be productive. The significant impact threshold 

for criteria #4 would be exceeded since the total number of 

producers would decrease from 35 to 13 over the life of this 

plan. This impact would be partly due to depletion of reservoir 

rocks in the area and partly due to the restrictions placed on 

exploration and development activity. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Impacts include those expected from all oil and gas development. Present impacts are due to 48 existing producing 

wells. Short-term impacts (1998-2007) expected are: 10 new 

exploratory unit proposals; 27 new wells; 15 new producing 

wells; 12 drilled and abandoned wells; and seven abandoned 

producing wells. At the end of 2007 there would be 56 

producing wells in the planning area. This would be an 

increase of eight wells (three conventional and five coalbed 

methane wells) over the December 1997 total of 48 wells. 

Long-term impacts (1998-2017) expected are: 19 new 

exploratory unit proposals; 50 new wells; 27 new producing 

wells; 23 drilled and abandoned wells; and 42 abandoned 

producing wells. At the end of 2017 there would be 33 

producing wells in the planning area. This would be a 

decrease of 15 wells (an increase of 3 coalbed methane wells 

and a decrease of 18 conventional wells) over the December 

1997 total of 48 wells. 

Leasables - (Other Than Oil and Gas and 

Coalbed Methane), Locatables, and Salables 

Leasables - Coal 

The level of coal activity projected for this alternative is the 

same as that described for the No Action Alternative; however, the level of restrictions would be increased compared to 

the No Action Alternative and Alternative A (Table 4-28). 

The core area including the Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

383
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

would be closed to coal exploration as it would be under the 

No Action Alternative. Native American respected sites 

would be avoided by 1 mile as opposed to 1/4 mile in 

Alternative A and 100 feet in the No Action Alternative. 

Exploration would avoid sensitive areas. Sensitive areas 

include elk calving areas, tall sagebrush, mountain shrubs, 

and special status plant species habitat. The effect of these 

avoidance areas would be the same as described for other 

areas closed to exploration, surface mining, or construction of 

surface facilities associated with underground coal mining. 

The effects to coal exploration under this alternative would be 

similar to that described for the No Action Alternative, but the 

magnitude would be greater due to the increased restrictions 

and avoidance areas. 

Cumulative Impacts Same as described for the general 

impact discussion. 

Leasables - Sodium 

The entire planning area would be closed to exploration 

and development of sodium. This would prohibit resource 

recovery and may make recovery of sodium on lands adjacent 

to the planning area uneconomic. 

Cumulative Impacts Same as described for the general 

impact discussion. 

Locatables 

The impacts to locatable minerals development under this 

alternative would be the same as that described for the No 

Action Alternative; however, the magnitude of the impacts 

would be greater due to an increase in withdrawal areas. In 

addition to the withdrawals identified in the Green River 

RMP, the connectivity area, elk calving areas, Steamboat 

Mountain ACEC, and all of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

would be withdrawn. 

Cumulative Impacts Same as described for the general 

impact discussion. 

Salables 

The impacts described for the general area under the No 

Action Alternative would be the same for this Alternative. In 

addition to the areas closed or restricted to development of 

mineral materials under the No Action Alternative, activities 

would avoid sensitive areas as described for coal exploration. 

About 406,080 acres would be closed to mineral material sale 

activity (Table 4-29). 

Core Area Alternative B would close the same areas to 

mineral materials development as the No Action Alternative. 

The effects would be the same as described for the No Action 

Alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts The cumulative effects on mineral 

materials would be the same as that described for the No 

Action Alternative. 

Geophysical 

Under Alternative B, geophysical exploration could occur 

within the core area but would be limited to foot traffic and use 

of existing roads and trails. Outside the core area, geophysical 

activities would be limited to foot traffic in the following 

areas: active sand dunes, slopes greater than 20 percent, 

ACEC values, key habitat - unique vegetation and plant 

communities, key habitat - escape cover, cultural/historical/ 

Native American concerns, connectivity area, inaccessibility, 

special status species, stabilized dunes, and VRM Class II 

areas. Geophysical activities would be allowed only after a 

site-specific analysis was completed. 

Also carried forward from the Green River RMP, restrictions, such as limiting the use of vehicles and explosive 

charges (Table 4-7) in sensitive resource areas inside and 

outside the core. Sensitive resources include Boars Tusk, a 

portion of White Mountain Petroglyphs, Crookston Ranch, 

developed recreation sites and the ORV parking lot in the 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, raptor nesting sites, portions of 

South Pass Historic Landscape, Oregon Buttes ACEC, special 

status plant species habitat, Tri-Territory Marker, Native 

American respected sites, Wilderness Study Areas, and recreation interpretive sites. Some of these areas, such as the 

WSAs, would be open to foot traffic only. 

Under the Alternative B, direct and indirect impacts would 

be similar to those described for the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative A, except the magnitude of the impacts would be 

greater. The magnitude of the impacts would be greater due 

to the increase in the number of areas having restrictions. 

Geophysical activities would be reviewed on a case-by-case 

basis. Detailed analysis of the potential restrictions would not 

be available prior to development of exploration proposals. 

However, given the potential resource conflicts between 

wildlife, cultural, vegetation, and recreation resources and 

geophysical activities, the direct impact would be an increase 

in the cost of operations from mitigation of impacts to these 

resources. The cost of geophysical activities would increase 

due to controlled surface use restrictions, time delays, and 

seasonal restrictions. 

The Green River RMP identified certain areas that would 

remain open to leasing but closed or restricted to geophysical 

activities. This alternative adds to this list of areas as described above. Such a situation may indirectly affect overall 

development of oil and gas resources in these areas and 

potentially increase the amount of surface disturbance associated with development. If subsurface information can not be 

retrieved through conventional geophysical means, then operators assume a higher risk during exploration and development of these areas. The presence or absence of geophysical 

data can mean the difference between more efficient development, with fewer, more productive wells and missing the 

reservoir entirely. Areas that would remain open to leasing 

but closed or restricted to geophysical activities may incur less 

efficient development resulting in more surface disturbance 

than would otherwise occur were geophysical data available. 

384
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Core Area 

Under Alternative B, new leases would not be issued 

within the core area. Limited geophysical activities would be 

allowed, but restricted to foot traffic and use of existing roads 

and trails. The impacts to geophysical operations would be the 

same as that described above for the general area. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impacts would be similar to those described for the No Action Alternative. In addition, costs to the 

operator from mitigation would be greatest under this alternative. Less area could be explored, increasing the potential for 

data gaps. Less efficient development could occur with a 

potential for more exploratory drilling related surface disturbance due to a partial lack of data. 

Off-Road Vehicle Impacts 

Impacts to ORV use would be the same as discussed for the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Recreation Impacts 

The impact on recreation would be similar to those described for the Preferred Alternative; however, more areas 

would remain available for dispersed recreation and hunting 

opportunities. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

The JMHCAP economic analysis was based on a 20-year 

planning period (1998-2017) with 1998 as the base year. In 

addition to looking at economic impacts by affected resource 

by alternative, cumulative economic effects are summarized 

for the short-term (1998-2007) and the long-term (1998-

2017) portions of the planning period. The short-term and 

long-term cumulative effects for Alternative A, Alternative B, 

and the Preferred Alternative were compared with the impacts 

for the No Action Alternative on a percentage basis. All dollar 

figures used for evaluating impacts in the socioeconomic 

analysis are in current dollars. Economic tables which were 

used for the analysis in the document are on file at the Rock 

Springs Field Office. 

Oil and Gas 

Forty-five oil and gas wells and 20 coalbed methane wells 

would be drilled over the 20-year period of 1998 to 2017. 

Approximately 104 thousand barrels of oil and 75,534.2 

MMCF of natural gas would be produced. The total economic 

impact for drilling and production would be approximately 

$212 million. Employment produced by the oil and gas 

activity over the life of the project would be 587 annual job 

equivalents with a total earnings of about $19 million. On an 

annual basis, about 29 jobs earning a range of salaries of 

$27,180 to $34,921 would be supported. Economic impacts 

to oil and gas activities under Alternative B are the lowest of 

all alternatives. 

Livestock Grazing 

Annual grazing AUMs were based on the five-year average actual use of 9,851 AUMs (8,861 cattle and 990 sheep). 

This grazing level was held constant throughout the planning 

period. 

Under Alternative B 177,220 cattle AUMs and 19,800 

sheep AUMs would be available for livestock grazing during 

the 20-year life of the project. The total economic impact of 

livestock grazing would be $12.4 million. Employment in the 

livestock sector would be 139 annual job equivalents earning 

$16,396 average per year. Economic impacts to livestock 

grazing under Alternative B are the lowest of all alternatives. 

Recreation 

Average elk hunter days the same as the No Action Alternative. Average deer and antelope hunter days the same as the 

Preferred Alternative. Non-consumptive recreation day impacts are the same as the Preferred Alternative. 

Under Alternative B, 1.18 million resident and nonresident 

non-consumptive recreation days would be used in the 20-

year life of the project. The total economic impact of the nonconsumptive nonresident recreation days would be $62.7 

million. Some 19,040 nonresident hunting days (elk, deer, 

and antelope) with a total economic impact of $6 million 

would be realized over the life of the project. Employment in 

the recreation sector would be 875 annual job equivalents 

earning approximately $12,521 average per year. 

Short-Term Cumulative Impacts (1998-2007) 

and Comparison of Alternatives 

See Table 4-14 in the Preferred Alternative impacts section 

for short-term physical outputs. 

Due to increased restrictions, Alternative B generates the 

least oil and gas well development activity of all alternatives 

with about 30 percent less oil and gas well drilling than the No 

Action Alternative and 54 percent less drilling than Alternative A. Alternative B also generates less oil and gas production than the other alternatives with 6 percent less production 

than the No Action Alternative and 12 percent less production 

than Alternative A. The decrease in oil and gas production for 

Alternative B is less than the decrease in oil and gas well 

drilling due to the continued production from the existing 

inventory of producing wells in the short term. Coalbed 

methane well drilling for Alternative B is 20 percent lower 

that for either the No Action Alternative or Alternative A. 

AUMs of livestock grazing for Alternative B are the lowest 

of all alternatives with 50 percent less AUMs than the No 

Action Alternative and 62 percent less AUMs than Alternative A. This alternative is lower because it projects that the 

previous five-year average actual use would continue throughout the planning period. Nonresident and resident hunting 

days are the same as the No Action Alternative and about 1 

percent lower than Alternative A because the protective 

restrictions are not projected to increase hunter days. Nonresi385
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

dent and resident non-consumptive recreation days for Alternative B are the same as the No Action Alternative because the 

protective restrictions are not projected to increase the growth 

rate in non-consumptive use. However, non-consumptive 

recreation days are about five percent higher for Alternative B 

than for Alternative A due to the lower growth rate projected 

for Alternative A. 

See Table 4-15 in the Preferred Alternative impacts section 

for short-term economic effects. 

Due to the increased emphasis on protection, Alternative B 

generates the least economic activity in Southwest Wyoming 

of all alternatives. Under Alternative B, direct and total 

economic impacts are 11 percent lower than the No Action 

Alternative and about 20 percent lower than Alternative A. 

Total labor earnings are 14 percent lower than the No Action 

Alternative and 27 percent lower than Alternative A. Total 

employment is 14 percent lower than the No Action Alternative and 22 percent lower than Alternative A. Revenues to 

local government are 8 percent lower than the No Action 

Alternative and 14 percent lower than Alternative A. Resident 

recreation benefits under Alternative B are the same as the No 

Action Alternative. Because there is more emphasis on 

protection, Alternative B generates 3 percent more resident 

recreation benefits than Alternative A. 

Long-Term Cumulative Impacts (1998-2017) 

and Comparison of Alternatives 

See Table 4-16 in the Preferred Alternative impacts section 

for long-term physical outputs. 

Due to increased restriction, Alternative B generates the 

least oil and gas well development activity of all alternatives 

with about 30 percent less wells drilled than the No Action 

Alternative and 55 percent less drilling than Alternative A. 

Alternative B also generates less oil and gas production than 

the other alternatives with about 10 percent less production 

than the No Action Alternative and 24 percent less production 

than Alternative A. The decrease in oil and gas production is 

less than the decrease in oil and gas well drilling due to 

continued production from the existing inventory of producing wells. Coalbed methane drilling activity for Alternative B 

is 20 percent lower than for either the No Action Alternative 

or Alternative A. 

AUMs of livestock grazing for Alternative B are the lowest 

of all alternatives with 50 percent less AUMs than the No 

Action Alternative and 62 percent less AUMs than Alternative A. This alternative is lower because it projects that the 

previous five-year average actual use would continue throughout the planning period. Nonresident and resident hunting 

days are the same as the No Action Alternative and slightly 

lower than Alternative A because the protective restrictions 

are not projected to increase hunter days. Nonresident and 

resident non-consumptive recreation days for Alternative B 

are the same as the No Action Alternative because the protective restrictions are not projected to increase the growth rate 

in non-consumptive use. However, non-consumptive recreation days are about 10 percent higher for Alternative B than 

for Alternative A due to the lower growth rate projected for 

Alternative A. 

See Table 4-17 in the Preferred Alternative impacts section 

for long-term economic effects. 

Due to the increased emphasis on protection, Alternative B 

generates the least economic activity in Southwest Wyoming 

of all alternatives. Under Alternative B, direct and total 

economic impacts are about 13 percent lower than the No 

Action Alternative and 26 percent lower than Alternative A. 

Total employment is 14 percent lower than the No Action 

Alternative and 23 percent lower than Alternative A. Revenues to local government are 12 percent lower than the No 

Action Alternative and 24 percent lower than Alternative A. 

Resident recreation benefits under Alternative B are the same 

as the No Action Alternative. Because there is more emphasis 

on protection, Alternative B generates 8 percent more resident 

recreation benefits than Alternative A. 

Special Status Plant Species Impacts 

The impacts to special status plant species from air quality 

management, fire management, lands and realty management, livestock grazing management, coal and sodium activities, mineral material sales, monitoring and reclamation practices, recreation use, riparian and wetland area management, 

transportation planning, vegetation management, watershed 

management, and wildlife habitat management would be the 

same as described for the Preferred Alternative. 

Under this alternative, lower levels of activity and more 

stringent protective measures would cause less surface disturbance, resulting in fewer cultural sites being mitigated and 

potentially lower impacts to special status plants. 

More limited permitting of mineral development and vehicle use would generally decrease the likelihood of unintentional spilling or unauthorized dumping of hazardous materials on these habitats. 

Under this alternative, 65 new wells are proposed for 

drilling, about half of which would be expected in the core 

area. Fewer wells and access roads would have beneficial 

impacts to special status plants, both known locations and 

potential habitat by creating fewer surface disturbances, less 

removal of vegetation and fewer indirect impacts such as dust 

settling and trampling by off-road vehicle use. Restrictive 

measures such as directional drilling and other space-saving 

techniques could reduce impacts to special status plant species 

by reducing the amount of surface disturbance. Weed invasions associated with surface disturbing activities would be 

minimized. 

Known special status plant species and their habitat could 

be negatively, and perhaps significantly, impacted from mining claim activity; however, additional withdrawals would 

protect more area from potential mining claim activity. Steamboat Mountain ACEC, the elk calving areas, and the eastern 

portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be withdrawn from mineral location protecting any special status 

plant species in these areas. 

Vehicle use, such as those used in geophysical activities 

would be limited to existing roads and trails, and foot-only 

traffic off-road inside the core area, and in sensitive areas (this 

386
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

would include special status plant locations, as well as the 

unique big sagebrush/scurfpea communities). Under this 

alternative, impacts to known special status plants and their 

habitats would be beneficial due to less surface disturbance. 

Special status plant species are closed to off-road vehicle 

use, as well as to the use of explosives and blasting, providing 

protection of these plants from these activities. Specifying 

roads and trails to be designated would potentially provide 

benefits to special status plants by allowing more land to be 

reclaimed and return to native plant communities. 

About 2,660 acres of large fruited bladderpod (Lesquerella 

macrocarpa) would be added to the existing Special Status 

Plant Species ACEC (designated in the Green River RMP, 

USDI 1997). This would benefit the plant by closing the 

actual plant locations to rights-of-way activity. A plan of 

operations would be required for any mining claim activity in 

an ACEC. However, under all alternatives the plant locations 

would be withdrawn from mineral entry and mining claim 

activity, so no effect would occur. 

The impacts from visual resource management would be 

similar to those described for the Preferred Alternative. In 

addition, this alternative would have the greatest benefit from 

visual resource management actions as more areas would be 

managed for class II visual values. 

The impacts to special status plant species from wild horses 

would be similar to those described for the Preferred Alternative. In addition, expanding the wild horse herd management 

area could result in continued minimal trampling of vegetation in the expanded area as existing horses would not be 

removed. 

Core Area 

The effects to special status plant species would be similar 

to those described for the No Action Alternative. In addition, 

known locations of the large-fruited bladderpod (Lesquerella 

macrocarpa) would be added to the existing Special Status 

Plant Species ACEC. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The effect to special status plant species would be similar 

to those described for the Preferred Alternative. However, use 

in the area would be less than that of the Preferred Alternative. 

Livestock grazing management practices including not converting from sheep to cattle, closing more areas to mineral 

leasing, transportation planning would provide less potential 

for impacts to occur to these plant species. 

Inclusion of the large-fruited bladderpod (Lesquerella 

macrocarpa) into the special status species ACEC would only 

change the land designation for the known lands occupied by 

the large-fruited bladderpod from avoidance areas to exclusion areas for rights-of-way. 

Vegetation/Woodlands/Weeds and 

Riparian/Wetland Resources Impacts 

Impacts to Vegetation/Woodlands/Weeds 

Impacts from air quality management, fire management, 

hazardous materials, healthy rangelands, coal and sodium 

exploration, mineral material sales, geophysical exploration, 

monitoring and reclamation practices, off-road and recreation 

uses, special status species management, transportation planning, vegetation management, watershed management, and 

wildlife habitat management would be the same as described 

in the Preferred Alternative. 

Impacts from cultural and paleontological resource management would be the same as described in the Preferred 

Alternative. In addition, the mitigation measures applied to 

protect cultural sites are expanded in most cases preventing 

further surface disturbance under this alternative. 

Impacts would be similar to those described for the Preferred Alternative. In addition, designated ROW avoidance 

areas that include the big sagebrush/scurfpea communities 

would have beneficial impacts on this rare plant association. 

Rights-of-way corridors or windows (concentration areas) 

and avoidance areas would be identified that would minimize 

the impacts to a larger area. This should serve to decrease 

erosion and other impacts to sensitive resources. 

More acreage in lands identified for withdrawal from 

mineral entry under this alternative than for the other alternatives would provide the most protection to vegetation from 

this activity than the other alternatives. 

For purposes of analysis, the anticipated actual use would 

not exceed 9,851 AUMs. Less intensive grazing would 

promote healthier, more biologically diverse native plant 

communities. Implementation of more restrictive riparian 

utilization standards would directly benefit willows, grasses, 

and sedges by maintaining plant vigor, community structure, 

and diversity. 

Locating salt licks as far as 1/4 mile from special status 

plant locations and riparian areas would benefit these populations and vegetation types by protecting them from livestock 

trailing and congregation impacts. 

Delaying grazing livestock turnout until native range grasses 

are in the boot stage of phenological development would 

promote healthy, vigorous stands which could more easily 

repel weed invasions, and be more capable of withstanding 

drought. 

Proposed reconstruction of 11 stock ponds in the project 

area would encourage livestock congregation in these areas, 

causing negative effects to surrounding vegetation. However, 

water developments, including wells, springs, and pipelines 

should improve livestock and wild horse distribution patterns, 

encouraging more uniform utilization of forage and causing 

less damage to certain vegetation types. 

387
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Guidelines for appropriate turnout dates (boot stage on 

plants), an active permitted use level limited to 9,851 AUMs, 

riparian vegetation utilization not to exceed levels of 30 

percent on shrubs, 35 percent “relative use” on herbaceous 

plants or an 8-inch stubble height, eliminating any seasonlong grazing, conducting suitability reviews, taking aggressive appropriate actions for standards for healthy rangelands 

and guidelines for livestock grazing that would bring riparian 

health to PFC, all would benefit riparian health and productivity. It is assumed that with these planned actions, substantial 

progress toward riparian health and Desired Plant Communities would be achieved. See the Riparian section of these 

Vegetation Impacts for further discussions. 

Decreased oil and gas activity is expected under this 

alternative as 24 fewer wells would be drilled than under the 

No Action Alternative, and 244 fewer acres disturbed. With 

implementation of reclamation standards and guidelines, the 

short-term loss of vegetation would be 430 acres and the longterm loss would be 275 acres. Under this alternative, the big 

sagebrush/scurfpea communities would not be open to development and little or no long-term loss of these plants would 

occur. Some activity on existing leases could affect this 

vegetation community but impacts would not be significant. 

Long-term beneficial effects would occur. 

Under this alternative it is assumed that 65 wells would be 

drilled in the Reasonable Foreseeable Development scenario 

(RFD). This would mean there would be about 1,700 acres of 

surface disturbance. This amount of disturbance would only 

have a minimal impact if stringent mitigation measures were 

followed (as described in the RMP and the No Action Alternative). Some mitigation measures (such as directional drilling and limiting the number of well pads per section) may not 

be applied if costs are unreasonable on existing leases. Restricting the types of mitigation to be applied could increase 

impacts. The acres of disturbance shown above assumes that 

each well would have a pad, road and pipeline. 

Containerized shrub seedlings used in reclamation would 

help re-establish shrubs in sensitive areas under this alternative, decreasing impacts to the short term. 

Proposed mitigation measures such as directional drilling, 

combining facilities, and multiple-hole, single pad drilling on 

currently leased areas would reduce negative impacts to 

vegetation in some critical areas, where these measures would 

be applied. These measures would not be applied in all cases. 

Although weeds would increase due to surface disturbing 

activities, the impacts would be less than under the No Action 

Alternative as less area would be disturbed. 

Surface disturbing activities such as those associated with 

roads, pipelines, well pads, coal and sodium exploration, 

locatable mineral exploration and development, and mineral 

material sales, would disturb about 2,300 acres in the long 

term. Reclamation practices would restore vegetation to all 

but about 500 acres in the long term. Although vegetative 

reestablishment would occur, some original plant communities would not be reestablished for more than 20 years. This 

particularly applies to shrubland communities and the big 

sagebrush/scurfpea communities and stabilized sand dunes. 

Impacts are not expected to be significant because few of these 

communities would be disturbed with management actions. 

Impacts would be similar to those described for the Preferred Alternative. Generally any management action that 

would preserve visual resources would also benefit vegetation. In addition, this alternative would provide a greater 

benefit than the No Action Alternative as more areas would be 

managed for Class II visual values. This alternative would 

have the greatest benefit from visual resource management 

actions as more areas would be managed for Class II visual 

values. 

Proposed wild horse numbers would be managed at a level 

that would not adversely affect vegetation. However, continued concentration of wild horses and other large animals near 

water sources could damage vegetation in localized areas 

through trampling, trailing, and overgrazing. Expanding the 

wild horse herd management area could distribute these 

impacts over a larger area. 

Impacts to Riparian/Wetland Resources 

Impacts from air quality management, fire management, 

hazardous materials, healthy rangelands, off-road vehicle and 

recreation use, special status species management, vegetation 

management, watershed management, and wildlife habitat 

management would be the same as described in the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Impacts from cultural and paleontological resource management would be similar to those described for the Preferred 

Alternative depending on the exact mitigation distance applied. 

Generally, impacts from lands and realty actions would be 

the same as the Preferred Alternative. Rights-of-way corridors or windows (concentration areas) and avoidance areas 

would be identified that would minimize the impacts to a 

larger area. This should serve to decrease erosion and other 

impacts to sensitive resources. Additional areas identified for 

withdrawal from mineral development would also benefit 

riparian/wetland and aquatic areas by increasing the acreage 

prohibited from that type of surface disturbance. Increased 

emphasis on proper planning of access to public lands would 

provide for decreased erosion and sedimentation to rivers, 

streams and riparian areas. 

For wetlands and riparian areas, the minimum standard is 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). Stream (lotic) inventories began in 1995 and were completed in 1999. The ratings 

for lentic riparian areas (bogs, marshes, ponds, wetlands, and 

wet meadows) have not been completed. Twenty percent 

(16.5 miles out of 79.95 miles) of the stream (lotic) riparian 

areas in the Jack Morrow Hills planning area are in PFC. A 

significant portion (40 percent) is in upward trend and an 

equally significant portion (40 percent) is in downward or 

“not apparent” trend. These data were collected in 1995-6 

when a significant amount of non-use by livestock was occurring. Not all of the poor conditions in riparian areas are due 

to livestock grazing; however, livestock grazing, roads, and 

water diversions create the most significant impacts to the 

riparian areas in the planning area. However, it is known that 

388
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

season long use by livestock, concentrates use around riparian 

areas during the hot season, and that later fall use tends to be 

adverse to riparian plants. 

In this alternative, guidelines for appropriate turn out dates 

(boot stage on plants), an active permitted use level of 9,851 

AUMs (which is the 5-year average), riparian vegetation 

utilization not to exceed levels of 30 percent on shrubs, 35 

percent “relative use” on herbaceous plants or an 8-inch 

stubble height, eliminating season-long grazing, conducting 

suitability reviews, taking aggressive appropriate actions for 

S&G’s that would bring riparian health to PFC within 5 years, 

etc., all would benefit riparian health and productivity. It is 

assumed that under the actions significant progress toward 

riparian health and Desired Plant Communities would be 

achieved. 

Under this alternative it is assumed that 50 deep oil and gas 

wells would be drilled in the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario (RFD). This would mean there would be 

about 1,700 acres of surface disturbance. This amount of 

disturbance would only have a minimal impact if stringent 

mitigation measures were followed (as described in the RMP 

and the No Action Alternative). Some mitigation measures 

(such as directional drilling and limiting the number of well 

pads per section) may not be able to be applied if costs are 

unreasonable on existing leases. Restricting the types of 

mitigation to be applied could increase impacts. The acres of 

disturbance shown above assumes that each well would have 

a pad, road and pipeline. A transportation plan would be 

developed that would protect streams and riparian areas from 

poor or excessive numbers of crossings. The core area and big 

game migration corridor areas are closed to leasing and this 

would protect streams in those areas from any new surface 

disturbances due to drilling. 

In addition, 15 coalbed methane wells would be drilled on 

existing leases. They would be clustered in the sand dunes 

area. These are shallow wells (900 to 1,000 feet deep). In the 

process of coalbed methane production, large volumes of 

water are pumped from the aquifer at that level. It is unknown 

at this time if the aquifer at this level is directly connected to 

the surface water in the dunal ponds and wet meadows. If it 

is, there may be an adverse effect of drying up the riparian in 

the area. This would not only affect the riparian plants but all 

of the wildlife that depends on those plants, insects and surface 

water. 

Hard rock mining (locatables) could pose significant threats 

to aquatic resources, especially when involving dredging or 

placer mining. The highest potential for this type of activity 

is in the Oregon Gulch area. Though there is no commercial 

activity anticipated at this time there is active prospecting in 

the area with the potential to create accelerated erosion. The 

areas that are proposed for withdrawal would not be subject to 

impacts from this activity. 

Demand for other types of mineral development (salables) 

such as gravel pits, etc., would increase with gas development 

but these areas would be located away from riparian areas and 

streams and should have negligible impact to these resources. 

No coal or sodium extraction is expected, thus no impacts 

are anticipated. 

Geophysical activities currently have sufficient protective 

stipulations in the Green River RMP to eliminate impacts to 

riparian areas and streams. 

Impacts from wild horses would be similar to those described for the Preferred Alternative. Proposed wild horse 

numbers would be managed at a level that would not adversely 

affect vegetation. However, continued concentration of wild 

horses and other large animals near water sources could 

damage vegetation in localized areas through trampling, trailing, and overgrazing. These effects could occur over a larger 

area if the wild horse herd management area is expanded. 

Core Area 

Fewer surface disturbing activities in the core area would 

reduce both short- and long-term impacts to vegetation. Protective measures designed for vegetation in the ACECs would 

have short- and long-term benefits to native plant communities. Establishment of road densities would decrease the loss 

of critical vegetation types to surface disturbing activities to a 

lesser degree than the Preferred Alternative. Livestock grazing on stabilized dunes would be detrimental to native plant 

species, and would likely cause areas of destabilization, loss 

of native plants and acceleration of weed invasions. Implementation of use levels and assessment of standards and 

implementation of guidelines would reduce this effect. Withdrawal from mineral entry and any future leasing eliminates 

impact to riparian areas from mining claim activities. The 

stringent mitigation measures and guidelines that are assumed 

in this alternative for all other activities would allow riparian/ 

wetland areas to recover or reach DPC very rapidly. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Impacts would be the same as described in the No Action 

Alternative. In addition, full fire suppression in the big 

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea plant communities would provide 

for protection for this unique vegetation association. Also, 

designated right-of-way avoidance areas would include this 

rare plant association and provide beneficial impacts. 

Less intensive grazing would promote healthier, more 

biologically diverse native plant communities. Implementation of more restrictive riparian utilization standards would 

directly benefit willows, grasses, and sedges by maintaining 

plant vigor, community structure, and diversity. Additionally, setting appropriate turn out dates (boot stage on grasses), 

using seasonal utilization levels for riparian vegetation, eliminating any season long grazing, conducting suitability reviews, taking aggressive appropriate actions for standards and 

guidelines that would bring riparian health to proper functioning condition, and other riparian related management actions 

would benefit riparian health and productivity. Rapid progress 

in reversing downward trends and achieving the Desired Plant 

Community would be expected. 

Decreased activity and surface disturbance is expected 

under this alternative with 244 fewer acres disturbed. With 

implementation of reclamation standards and guidelines, the 

short-term loss of vegetation would be 430 acres and the longterm loss would be 275 acres. The big sagebrush/lemon 

scurfpea communities would closed to development and little 

389
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

or no long-term loss of these plants would occur. Some 

activity on existing leases could affect this vegetation community but impacts would not be significant. This amount of 

disturbance would have a minimal impact if stringent mitigation measures were followed. Some mitigation measures 

(such as directional drilling and limiting the number of well 

pads per section) may not be applied on existing leases. 

Restricting the types of mitigation to be applied could increase 

impacts. Additional withdrawals would protect additional 

areas from mining claim activity for locatables. Impacts to 

vegetation communities would be reduced due to management actions that limit vehicle use and explosive charges for 

geophysical exploration. Long-term beneficial effects would 

occur. 

Transportation planning would benefit sensitive vegetation resources, such as riparian areas, mountain shrubs, big 

sagebrush/scurfpea and cushion plant communities, by channeling access to certain areas, allowing other areas to remain 

undisturbed or to revegetate. In addition, seasonal road 

closures and limitations on riparian area crossing would 

reduce impacts to vegetation and help meet proper functioning condition objectives. 

Visual Resource Management Impacts 

Not allowing communication sites on high points such as 

Steamboat Mountain, Essex Mountain, and Pacific Butte 

would maintain the visual values in the planning area. 

Increasing the amount of VRM Class II lands on Steamboat 

Mountain would not only benefit the visual values but help 

mitigate negative impacts to Native American respected places, 

and protect soils and plants. 

Changing the VRM III classification in the Red Desert 

Watershed area to VRM Class II would enhance the visual 

values in this area. Upgrading the VRM classification would 

help mitigate development activities that could impede upon 

the area’s vast open space values. 

Upgrading the VRM classification on portions of White 

Mountain to VRM II would help maintain the viewshed from 

U.S. Highway 191 and mitigate negative impacts to Native 

American respected places. 

The initiation of a program to improve the visual quality of 

the oil fields would benefit the visual resources in those areas 

and, in many cases, would benefit other resources such as soil, 

watershed, and vegetation. The avoidance of identified areas 

which are not suitable for linear rights-of-way would protect 

the sensitive visual resources in these areas. 

Protecting National Historic Trails and other trails by not 

allowing visual disturbance, by applying no surface constraints to important cultural sites, and limiting geophysical 

vehicles to designated roads and trails in the South Pass 

Historic Landscape would enhance visual values and protect 

the visual sensitivity of these resources and areas. 

Not allowing surface mining activities and surface occupancy areas around the Boars Tusk and the Steamboat Mountain-Killpecker Dune Fields, including the wild horse viewing 

area, would retain and enhance visual resources found in the 

area. 

As more oil and gas development occurs, more effects to 

the visual quality of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would 

occur. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Same as described for the general impact discussion. 

Watershed/Water Quality Impacts 

The impact on watershed values and water quality from air 

quality management, cultural and paleontological resource 

management, fire management, monitoring practices, economic benefits, special status species management, and vegetation management would be the same as described in the 

Preferred Alternative. 

The level of activity under this alternative would create the 

least volume of hazardous material. This would create the 

smallest potential for a problem involving hazardous material. 

Implementation of Standards and Guidelines for Healthy 

Rangelands would reduce the effects to watersheds and water 

quality from surface disturbing activities, recreation uses, and 

livestock grazing. The differences between the alternatives 

can be expressed in the level of conflict that could occur 

between the actions that would take place under each alternative and the goals set forth by Standards and Guidelines. The 

actions proposed under Alternative B would have the greatest 

potential for reducing conflicts and meeting standards and 

guidelines. 

Realty actions such as rights-of-ways for linear disturbances such as pipelines and roads can adversely affect soils 

especially in areas of vegetated sand dunes which could be 

impacted by wind erosion when the vegetation is removed. 

Uncontrolled runoff from roads can create gullying in adjacent drainages. Successful reclamation and maintenance of 

linear disturbances limits the impact of these actions. 

As most of the disturbances associated with communication sites would be away from riparian areas and streams, the 

effects of the creation and maintenance of communication 

sites would be less than an equivalent disturbance located 

closer to water courses. The disturbance created by the 

creation and maintenance of communication sites has the 

potential to affect watershed values and water quality, as does 

any disturbance. 

Of primary concern is the potential for increased traffic 

during periods of inclement weather along portions of travel 

routes to and from the sites, where conditions can create an 

increased potential for erosion close to water bodies. Also of 

concern is the increased potential for erosion from the steeper 

portion of the access roads. While such sections of road would 

most likely have a larger average particle size and thus be 

more resistant to erosion than areas with finer average soil 

particle sizes, the concentration of the flow of water associated with the creation and maintenance of the road would 

increase the potential for flow concentration and sediment 

production. 

390
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Closing areas to potential communication sites and limiting of rights-of-way to existing disturbances would have the 

effect of concentrating activity. This would decrease the 

overall disturbance but might create a greater level of disturbance for an individual project. The transportation and 

pipeline corridors would experience repeated disturbance but 

would also be more visible and thus be more likely to have any 

developing erosional problems fixed. 

Livestock grazing has a major influence on land and stream 

conditions and thus erosion and water quality. Implementation of existing programs (primarily standards for healthy 

rangelands and guidelines for livestock grazing management), as well as the management actions in this alternative 

would aid in improving watershed. 

Livestock grazing, roads, and water diversions can alter 

conditions in riparian areas. However, not all of the impaired 

conditions in riparian areas are a direct result of livestock 

grazing. For riparian impacts, see Vegetation Impacts. 

Activities that decrease plant vigor can increase erosion 

and decrease water quality. Depending on the actions taken, 

specific areas may show some changes, positive or adverse, 

but the overall trend would be closely related to the level of 

surface disturbing activities. 

Impacts to soils from grazing can be caused by 

overutilization of riparian and upland areas leading to soil 

compaction and vegetative removal. This can lead to loss of 

the soil surface, rill, and gully formation which could impact 

water quality through more rapid runoff and higher sediment 

loads. 

Livestock could contribute to the degradation of areas that 

might cause further concern depending on their location. 

Areas in very erodible soil structure could have the possibility 

of washing, blowing, or being removed from further beneficial purposes. 

Alternative B would provide the greatest positive effect 

and potential to achieve water quality goals in the least amount 

of time. 

Road construction could change the patterns of overland 

flow and increase erosion. Roads and well pads affect 

overland flow and groundwater infiltration. Roads and well 

pads interrupt natural surface flow patterns and reduce groundwater infiltration by compacting the soil. This can increase the 

erosive potential of runoff events by creating a shorter period 

of runoff and an increased volume. Drainage ditches, culverts, and surfacing can channelize surface flows and direct 

them away from the road surface. While this helps protects the 

road surface, it can also increase erosive potential along the 

path of concentrated flow. Proper design, construction, and 

maintenance reduce the erosive potential for road and well 

pad areas but do not fully compensate for the concentration of 

flows. 

Impacts to surface water quality from oil and gas development are generally the result of unsuccessful reclamation and/ 

or increased runoff from pads and roads, destabilizing drainages. With effective monitoring from industry and management from the BLM, most individual well sites and mines 

should have only a short-term impact on watershed stability. 

Other concerns which could arise include: sedimentation, 

soil contamination, salt and phosphate loading, groundwater 

contamination, bank and channel instability, loss of aquifers, 

augmented flows, and water disposal. 

The closing of both the core and connectivity areas to 

leasing and subsequent development would produce less 

overall disturbance. The extended avoidance areas around 

archeological sites would have an undetermined effect on the 

severity of disturbance. The greater area of avoidance has the 

potential to protect areas but would direct roads and other 

disturbances to other areas. 

Coalbed Methane 

In addition to the roads and other surface disturbances that 

would be required for coalbed methane production there is the 

additional concern of water disposal. Any discharge into a 

surface channel that is unaccustomed to having similar flows 

creates the potential for increased erosion. 

If the water obtained from coalbed methane production is 

of a high quality and discharged, there may be some controversy at the end of the project when the water is no longer 

available for use as livestock or wildlife water. If the produced 

water contains high levels of salts there is a potential for 

creating conditions similar to those surrounding the evaporation ponds associated with trona production. Reinjection of 

the water may solve some of these problems but care should 

be taken to avoid creating new ones. It is assumed that the 

primary means of water disposal would be through reinjection. 

The level of disturbance that can be associated with coalbed 

methane production would largely be determined by the area 

of development. Current technology requires relatively close 

well spacing and a road network for maintenance. Even with 

total reinjection of the produced water this road and well 

network would increase the potential of erosion in the area of 

development. Because the level of development would be 

approximately the same per unit area within a production 

zone, an estimate of the potential level of disturbance and 

subsequent erosion and threat to water quality can be related 

to the areas that would be made available for leasing under 

each alternative. 

It is unknown whether there is a connection between the 

surface waters and the waters that would be removed to 

stimulate gas production. Investigations to determine if there 

is a connection and application of appropriate mitigation to 

protect water quality and quantity would be needed prior to 

production. 

The region with the greatest coalbed methane production 

has a surface of stabilized sand dunes, a condition that makes 

the area vulnerable to disturbance of the vegetation cover. 

Given the road and well density that would be required, this is 

a concern. Proper land management would reduce the level of 

disturbance but not eliminate it. Maintenance of the vegetative community and the transportation network would be a 

primary concern on any development in the area. 

391
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The road network would create additional recreation access into the area of stabilized sand dunes. Given the sensitive 

nature of the soils in the area, this is a concern. A transportation and recreation management plan should be part of any 

development. 

The greater area of protection provided under Alternative 

B would result in the lowest potential of methane production 

related erosion and overall water quality degradation. However, the concentrated nature of the roads and well pads 

required for coalbed methane production could mean that 

local erosive potentials in production areas would not differ 

between alternatives. 

The mineral material resource with the greatest potential 

for development in the area is sand and gravel. As most of the 

potential sites within the planning area are located away from 

streams and wetlands, the primary effect of their development 

on water and vegetation quality would come from increased 

activity on the roads. There could be some additional runoff 

from the mine areas but the effect that they would have on 

downstream water quality would be difficult to determine. 

Surfacing of roads with hard surfaces or gravel has the 

potential to reduce watershed impacts. The effects would be 

similar to the Preferred Alternative, although less activity 

could occur. 

Coal exploration can be related to surface water quality 

through the amount of surface disturbed. Surface disturbance 

impacts would be the same as described in the No Action 

Alternative; however, more areas would be closed to coal 

exploration activity (about 224,400 acres). Activities would 

avoid areas with sensitive resources unless a plan could be 

developed to mitigate adverse impacts. 

No impacts from plants, refineries, or wastewater ponds 

related to sodium exploration and development would occur. 

Some sodium development could occur. The entire planning 

area would be closed to sodium prospecting activity. 

The more rapid and complete the reclamation of a disturbed site the lower the potential erosion and potential water 

quality degradation. Monitoring is essential is in the reclamation of disturbed sites. Without efficient reclamation techniques and timely monitoring by the BLM and industry, longterm landscape disruption such as linear scars, sand deflation 

and deposition, and drainage degradation could result. 

Off-road vehicle use impacts soil stability as a result of 

compaction of travel surfaces, disruption of vegetative cover, 

and disruption of the soil surface. 

Recreation within the planning area consists primarily of 

activities that require motorized vehicles. Thus, it is closely 

tied to transportation and reclamation, as well as any activities 

that create new roads of any sort. Because of the nature of 

much of the planning area new roads are easily created and 

road closures rely primarily on the public’s willingness to 

comply. 

The maintaining of existing seasonal closures and considering seasonal closures for new roads would help mitigate the 

disturbance caused by roads. 

Surface disturbance is closely tied to water quality. The 

greater the disturbance in time and area and the closer to places 

where the flow of water is concentrated the greater the 

potential for erosion. Because much of the development 

would take place on a case-by-case basis, the exact amount of 

disturbance is difficult to forecast. 

The closing of both the core and connectivity areas to 

leasing and development activities would reduce overall disturbance. About 2,200 acres would be disturbed over the long 

term from various activities. With reclamation, most of this 

disturbance would be reclaimed with a net long-term disturbance of about 500 acres. The extended avoidance areas 

around archeological sites would have an undetermined effect 

on the severity of disturbance. The greater area of avoidance 

would protect archeological sites but might direct roads and 

other disturbances to other areas. 

Maintaining the existing seasonal road closure and consideration of seasonal closures for new roads would help mitigate 

the disturbance caused by roads and their use during periods 

when soil moisture and runoff may be high. This would 

reduce adverse effects to soils from rutting and damage to 

roads from vehicle use. 

Roads are one of the primary sources of erosion in the 

planning area. They tend to concentrate the overland flow and 

reduce infiltration. They can often be thought of as a set of 

superimposed ephemeral stream channels. As roads become 

more numerous, their effects become cumulative and may 

even work in combination to create greater levels of erosion. 

Road maintenance is also important. Timely maintenance of 

road surfaces can reduce erosion. Maintaining as much of the 

right-of-way in an undisturbed or revegetated state as possible 

would reduce both maintenance cost and erosion. Surfacing 

of major arterial roads with appropriate materials would also 

help limit the potential for soil erosion and reduced water 

quality. 

Planning the roads in terms of number, location, and season 

of use should have a marked effect on reducing the level of 

disturbance. Individual projects may be expanded beyond the 

immediate need but the overall disturbance would be less. 

Planning other linear facilities, pipelines, power lines, cables, 

etc., in conjunction with roads would help localize disturbance and reduce the use of linear rights-of-way as access 

routes. Travel on rights-of-way, not designed for such use, 

can increase erosion by creating additional disturbance. When 

this occurs, vegetation, and soil stability are reduced and the 

potential for water quality degradation increases. 

The greatest opportunity for recovery and improvement of 

land and water conditions occurs under Alternative B. The 

higher levels of protection has the potential of producing the 

greatest amount of recovery in the least amount of time. As 

with all other alternatives, natural events combined with 

existing conditions could still cause systems to reset themselves to earlier successional stages but the recovery from 

such events would be more rapid under this alternative than 

the others. 

The greater detail that would be given to road design and 

dissipation of runoff would assist in the reduction of erosive 

forces and help reduce nonpoint pollution. 

392
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Expanding the wild horse herd management area would 

extend limited effects throughout the planning area. 

Wildlife habitat management has some effect on land, 

water and vegetation quality. Sufficient wildlife habitat 

creates a more varied environment that is better able to slow 

and filter overland flow, reduce erosive forces, and recover 

from disturbances. 

The greatest variety of wildlife habitats would be nurtured 

under this alternative with the greatest potential for reducing 

erosion and its associated problems. 

Groundwater 

Oil and gas and coalbed methane activities have the highest 

potential for impacting groundwater and possibly surface 

water quantity and quality. Refer to the groundwater discussion in the Preferred Alternative for a detailed description of 

the possible impacts and specifically, the hydrological investigations that may be necessary for coalbed methane development. Alternative B has fewest new oil and gas and coalbed 

methane wells projected for the general area, not including the 

connectivity area. With the lowest level of projected activity, 

Alternative B would have the lowest potential for impacting 

groundwater and possibly surface water resources among the 

alternatives. 

Core Area 

The core area, including the connectivity area, would not 

be open to issuance of new oil and gas leases. Existing leases 

would be developed, resulting in the drilling of 20 new oil and 

gas wells over the planning period. The projected development under Alternative B is greater than that of the No Action 

Alternative; therefore, the potential for impacting groundwater and possibly surface water resources would be greater. 

Compared to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative A, 

Alternative B projects less development and would therefore 

have less potential to impact these resources within the core 

and connectivity areas. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impact summary for the baseline watershed analysis would be the same as described for the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Livestock grazing related erosion would most likely be 

influenced by both the management actions in this alternative 

and individual grazing practices and other activities that 

influence the distribution and timing of livestock use. The 

guidelines set forth under this alternative would create the 

greatest number of opportunities for vegetative growth and 

recovery. This would result in the greatest potential for 

reduced erosion. Streambanks and riparian areas would most 

likely continue to be the focus of erosion reduction related 

activities. The greatest potential for erosion would occur 

along streams that had not achieved the minimally acceptable 

standard of PFC. 

The potential level of cumulative disturbance to watershed 

values is directly related to the amount, timing, and location 

of surface disturbance. The primary causes of surface disturbance within the planning area are mineral development and 

livestock grazing facilities. Under Alternative B, the overall 

level of disturbance would be lower than the other alternatives, but there could still be areas of concentrated activity 

causing elevated levels of erosion that would need to be 

addressed. 

The closing of the core area, elk birthing and connectivity 

areas under this alternative would reduce the overall level of 

disturbance and reduce the potential erosion. Areas that are 

open for exploration would most likely experience a more 

rapid rate of development and increase in erosive potential but 

the overall level of disturbance would be less. This more rapid 

development in limited areas could cause a local increase in 

overland flow and potential erosion. 

The cumulative impact on groundwater resources over the 

planning period for oil and gas development is likely to be 

minimal and insignificant given the projected yearly drilling 

rate of 3 to 4 wells per year. Due to the lack of information, 

the cumulative impact on groundwater aquifers due to coalbed 

methane development cannot be determined. Investigation of 

aquifers and their possible connection to surface waters prior 

to development would provide the information necessary for 

determining cumulative impacts and any necessary mitigation. 

Wild Horse Impacts 

The impact on wild horses from air quality management, 

cultural and paleontological resource management, fire management, hazardous materials, lands and realty management, 

off-road and recreation uses, reclamation practices, vegetation management, and wildlife habitat management would be 

the same as described for the Preferred Alternative. 

Assessment of grazing allotments for conformance with 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands and implementation of 

appropriate actions to address non-conformance would be 

beneficial to wild horses and their habitat. Reducing livestock 

numbers as the primary tool to address non-conformance with 

Standards would produce the greatest benefits to wild horse of 

all other alternatives analyzed in detail. Use of range readiness and eliminating growing-season-long use by domestic 

livestock would benefit wild horses. 

Denial of sheep to cattle conversions would in most cases 

have positive impacts on wild horses. Removal of areas 

unsuitable for livestock grazing from the forage base for 

domestic livestock would benefit wild horses and their habitat. Limiting forage use to levels more strict than under the 

other alternatives makes this alternative the most beneficial to 

wild horses. 

Impacts from minerals management activities would be 

the same as the No Action Alternative. In addition, closing 

certain portions of the planning area to new leasing would 

produce benefits to wild horses and their habitat. Expansion 

of the herd management area into areas of high potential for oil 

and gas development could increase impacts to wild horses. 

This is because in the absence of expansion, all wild horses in 

the expansion area are “excess” and subject to removal. 

393
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Many of the planned actions to mitigate or limit impacts to 

surface resources from surface disturbing activities have been 

discussed above. Under all alternatives, controls on surface 

disturbance benefit wild horses and their habitat. The alternatives vary only in the degree of benefit. Alternative B and the 

Preferred Alternative are more beneficial than are the No 

Action Alternative or Alternative A. 

Establishment of a 1/2-mile buffer around the proposed 

wild horse viewing area would protect the public’s ability to 

enjoy their wild and free-roaming horses in a natural setting. 

It would also increase the likelihood that wild horses would be 

in the vicinity of the viewing area more often. 

Management actions to stabilize and conserve soils, increase vegetative production, maintain or improve surface 

and ground water quality, and to maintain or improve wetlands, floodplains and riparian areas would benefit wild 

horses and their habitat. 

Under all alternatives, improvement of the soil, vegetation, 

and water resources benefit wild horses and their habitat. The 

alternatives vary only in the degree of benefit. Alternative B 

and the Preferred Alternative are more beneficial than are the 

No Action Alternative or Alternative A. 

Expanding the boundary of the existing wild horse herd 

management area to include the rest of the planning area and 

managing for no more than a total of 100 horses in the 

expansion area, would produce no impact to the managed 

population in the existing wild horse herd management area. 

These 100 horses would be part of the existing appropriate 

management level of 500 head (range 415 to 600). Some 

benefit may accrue to those horses and the habitat within the 

existing wild horse herd management area as the managed 

animals could be less dense (same number of horses with near 

doubling of the wild horse herd management area). Another 

benefit would be that much more habitat would be available 

for the same number of horses thereby reducing the impact of 

the horses on forage and water resources. Over time this 

should improve habitat quality for the wild horses. It should 

also reduce the potential for competition for forage and water 

with domestic livestock. 

Expansion would benefit at least 100 of the wild horses 

presently residing within that portion of the planning area not 

presently managed for wild horses. One hundred (100) horses 

would be allowed to remain in the western two thirds of the 

planning area instead of being removed. 

Expansion of the wild horse herd management area boundary would also benefit the wild horse viewing recreational 

public by maintaining wild horse populations on a much 

larger area. 

Core Area 

Expansion of the wild horse herd management area would 

include the core area and most of the special management 

areas. Management actions would benefit wild horses and 

their habitat. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Under all alternatives, no significant cumulative impacts to 

wild horses and wild horse management are anticipated. 

Wildlife Impacts 

The effects from air quality, cultural resources, fire management, off-road vehicle management, reclamation, recreation management, special status species management, vegetation management, visual resource management, and watershed/water quality management would be the same as described for the Preferred Alternative. 

The types of impacts associated with lands and realty 

actions would be similar to those described for the Preferred 

Alternative; however, under this alternative, less development activity would occur and more areas would be closed or 

restricted to rights-of-ways. The greatest benefit to wildlife 

species would occur under this alternative due to the reduced 

activity. 

Fewer new roads would be developed under this alternative and less year round access would be provided, benefitting 

wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Closing additional areas to communication site placement 

would greatly reduce adverse impacts, benefitting wildlife 

and wildlife habitat. 

Pursuing mineral withdrawals in the Greater Sand Dunes 

and Steamboat Mountain ACECs, elk calving areas, and the 

entire connectivity area would provide the most protection to 

crucial habitat areas of all alternatives. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Potential for locatable mineral development in the planning area is minimal at this time except the 

South Pass Historic Landscape area. 

Not allowing conversions from sheep to cattle under this 

alternative would provide the most benefits to riparian habitats which in turn would provide the most benefits to wildlife. 

Riparian habitats are very limited in the planning area and are 

extremely important to wildlife. 

Not allowing livestock water developments in the core, 

crucial winter ranges, and the connectivity areas would provide the most benefits to big game. Protecting waters with 

fences and developing offsite waters would also benefit wildlife, especially waterfowl and sage grouse. 

No water development within 2 miles of sage grouse leks 

(in addition to the 1/4 mile closure for the lek itself) would 

provide the most protection to sage grouse and would increase 

nesting success due to an increase in residual grass cover. 

Studies have shown that average distance sage grouse nest 

from a lek is approximately two miles. Depredation of nests 

due to a lack of nesting cover (residual grass) is extremely high 

near leks (Heath, et al. 1997). 

Instituting delayed livestock turnout (mid to late June), 

range readiness (boot stage), and preventing season-long use 

under this alternative would provide the most benefits to 

wildlife. 

394
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Limiting use of key riparian shrub species to 30 percent and 

riparian herbaceous species to 35 percent would provide the 

most benefits to wildlife. 

Under this alternative, approximately 65 wells would be 

drilled. Impacts to wildlife would be much smaller but would 

still occur depending on where development and activities 

occur. 

Not allowing any new leases to be issued within the core 

area, connectivity area, White Mountain, and Split Rock 

Canyon would offer the most protection to elk. Having areas 

without development activity is the only way the elk herd 

would be maintained over the life of this plan. 

About 2,300 acres would be disturbed by various activities 

over 20 years. Impacts may be severe in areas where no 

physical barriers exist to provide cover and relief from the 

activity and where activity occurs year round during crucial 

periods. Since activities would be limited in the core area 

(222,790 acres not leased and 36,000 acres of NSO restriction), impacts would be reduced in the key habitat in the core, 

White Mountain, and Split Rock areas which would benefit 

wildlife in the area, particularly elk and mule deer. 

Permanent high profile facilities would avoid sage grouse 

leks and the area within 2 miles, eliminating perches for aerial 

predators, which would benefit sage grouse. No new livestock water developments within 2 miles of leks (in addition 

to the 1/4 mile closure for the lek itself), would increase 

nesting success due to an increase in residual grass and forb 

cover. Studies have shown that the average distance to sage 

grouse nests from a lek is approximately two miles. Predation 

of nests with insufficient cover (residual grass and forbs) is 

extremely high near leks (Heath, et al. 1997). These benefits 

would be greater than under any of the other alternatives. 

Permanent high profile facilities would avoid sage grouse 

leks and the area within 2 miles, eliminating perches for aerial 

predators, which would benefit sage grouse. No new livestock water developments within 2 miles of leks (in addition 

to the 1/4 mile closure for the lek itself) would also benefit 

sage grouse. 

Most of the disturbed areas would be reclaimed with a 

long-term disturbance of about 365 acres. Reclamation could 

result in altered vegetation communities or introduction of 

undesirable plant species. This would cause negative impacts 

to sage grouse from the degradation of nesting, brood rearing, 

and wintering habitat if it occurs in sage grouse habitat. 

Application of road densities of no greater than 0.5 to 1 

mile of road per square mile of improved (all weather) road 

under this alternative would provide the most protection for 

elk. This would reduce the amount of noise and activity and 

allow for areas of escape. 

This alternative would provide the greatest benefit for 

wildlife and wildlife habitat due to the amount of area managed as VRM Class II (about 384,000 acres). 

Expanding the wild horse herd management area would 

allow horses to continue to concentrate in the core area and 

compete with wildlife for available forage. In the long term, 

this could adversely affect the use of the area by big game. 

However, this potential impact could be mitigated by limiting 

the wild horse population in the expansion area to 100 individuals. 

The effects of wildlife habitat management would be the 

same as described for the Preferred Alternative. In addition, 

riparian management actions under this alternative would 

provide the most benefits to wildlife. Managing the four 

exclosures on Pacific Creek for salmonids would benefit a 

large array of wildlife, especially sage grouse and waterfowl. 

Limiting the numbers of roads under this alternative would 

provide the best opportunity to limit the amount of fragmentation occurring in the planning area. 

Management of upland and riparian habitats primarily for 

wildlife would provide long-term benefits to wildlife if proposed actions under other resources occurs. 

Not leasing areas in the core and connectivity areas provide 

opportunities to sustain big game populations in the planning 

area. 

Management of the flockets for wildlife and vegetation 

enhancement would benefit wildlife, especially waterfowl, 

sage grouse, and amphibians. 

Impacts to Fisheries 

The effects from air quality management, fire management, hazardous materials management, off-road vehicle 

management, recreation resource management, special status 

species management, vegetation management, visual resource 

management, watershed/water quality management, wild horse 

management, and wildlife management would be the same as 

described for the Preferred Alternative. 

The effects from cultural management would be the same 

as described for the Preferred Alternative, depending on the 

exact mitigation distance applied. 

Lands and realty management impacts would be the same 

as listed in the Preferred Alternative with the exception of 

more acres to be considered for withdrawal from mineral 

entry and the potential for more exceptions to the rights-ofway windows. 

The assumptions for this alternative have more prescriptions for the management of livestock grazing than the other 

alternatives. There would be more guidelines for riparian 

management which would be very beneficial to fisheries 

habitat in the long run. The aggressive approach of appropriate actions following standards and guidelines assessments to 

recover riparian areas would also benefit fisheries habitat to a 

great extent. 

On Pacific Creek, managing the upper (hay meadow) 

exclosures for the maintenance of suitable riparian and instream 

fish habitat would allow for the continuation and expansion of 

a fishable salmonid population. 

Ponds for livestock watering could be installed where 

appropriate and allowable but there probably would not be as 

many as Alternative A. The depletion of water from the 

395
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Colorado River drainage and its effect on T&E fish species 

downstream is described in the Green River RMP Record of 

Decision dated October 1997 (see page 209; USDI 1997 of 

that document) and the Biological Assessment (Appendix 11) 

for this document. 

Under this alternative it is assumed that 65 wells would be 

drilled in the Reasonable Foreseeable Development scenario 

(RFD). This would mean there would be about 1,700 acres of 

surface disturbance. This amount of disturbance would only 

have a minimal impact if stringent mitigation measures were 

followed (as described in the RMP and the No Action Alternative). A transportation plan would be developed that would 

protect streams and riparian areas from poor or excessive 

numbers of crossings. The core area and big game migration 

corridor areas are closed to leasing and this would protect 

streams in those areas from any new surface disturbances due 

to drilling. 

Additionally, the drilling of these wells would require local 

water sources for drilling and completion. It is assumed that 

all water used for drilling and completion of wells within the 

Green River and Sweetwater River basins would have been 

part of the surface flows of the Colorado River or Platte River, 

respectively, or of its tributaries (though that would not 

always be the case). The estimate for the amount of water 

needed to drill and complete each well is 2.0 acre-feet. Of the 

65 wells in this alternative, 15 are shallow coalbed methane, 

5 are deep coalbed methane wells located entirely within the 

Great Divide Basin (Red Desert), and the remaining 45 are 

standard deep gas wells. For these 45 wells it is estimated that 

75 percent would be within the Green River Basin, 23 percent 

would be within the Great Divide Basin (Red Desert), and 2 

percent would be within the Sweetwater River drainage (Platte 

River). Water use for these 45 wells, would total 90 acre-feet 

in 20 years or 4.5 acre-feet/year. This would total 3.4 acrefeet/year in the Colorado River drainage and 0.09 acre-feet/ 

year in the Platte River drainage. The water depletion effects 

of the 15 shallow coalbed methane is the same as described in 

the Preferred Alternative. 

The depletion of water from the Colorado River drainage 

and its effect on T&E fish species downstream is described in 

the Green River RMP Record of Decision dated October 1997 

(see page 209; USDI 1997 of that document) and the Biological Assessment (Appendix 11) for this document. 

Hard rock mining (locatables) could pose significant threats 

to aquatic resources, especially when involving dredging or 

placer mining. The highest potential for this type of activity 

is in the Oregon Gulch area. Though there is no commercial 

activity anticipated at this time there is active prospecting in 

the area with the potential to create accelerated erosion. Fish 

habitat in the areas that are proposed for withdrawal would not 

be subject to impacts from this activity. 

Impacts from other types of mineral activity are the same 

as in the Preferred Alternative. 

Core Area 

Impacts within the Special Management Areas and the 

core are the same as for what is described under general 

impacts for Alternative B. 

Fisheries 

Impacts are the same as for the Preferred Alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Management actions under this alternative would result in 

fewer adverse impacts to wildlife habitats than the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative A and would provide the most 

benefit to wildlife. 

Developments and human presence would continue to 

remove and fragment wildlife habitats. Demands on public 

lands from recreationists would continue to increase, resulting in less occupied and undisturbed areas which would 

increase displacement over the long term, but to a much 

smaller extent than would occur under Alternative A or the No 

Action Alternative. 

Seasonal constraints would be used to mitigate impacts to 

wildlife from human activities during crucial periods and 

provide short-term protection for wildlife. Long-term maintenance and operations activity in crucial wildlife habitats 

would continue to cause displacement of wildlife from crucial 

habitats, including disruption of nesting, fawning and calving 

areas, and crucial big game winter habitats. Increased access 

for recreationists due to development of new roads, especially 

all-weather roads that provide for year-round access, would 

magnify the negative impacts to wildlife and their habitats. 

These impacts would be reduced through establishment of 

road density limitations in crucial habitats, transportation 

planning, and the closing of about 220,790 acres to oil and gas 

leasing and 36,010 acres to surface disturbance. With 

nondiscretionary closures, about 337,790 acres would be 

closed to oil and gas leasing and development activities. 

Surface disturbing activities would continue to cause longterm losses of wildlife habitat. Overall, less acreage would be 

disturbed than under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 

A, and the Preferred Alternative. 

Adverse impacts to crucial wildlife habitats (e.g., riparian 

areas, crucial winter ranges, parturition areas, game bird 

winter concentration areas, etc.) from livestock grazing would 

increase if all current nonuse AUMs are activated. These 

adverse impacts would be severe in crucial winter ranges 

where other commodity uses such as mining or oil and gas 

development is taking place. Placement of livestock into 

these crucial habitats or concentrating livestock in crucial 

habitats where vegetation has been decreased due to commodity development would result in less forage available for big 

game animals during winter periods. This would be especially 

critical in severe winters. Not developing livestock water in 

crucial habitats or within 2 miles of sage grouse leks (in 

addition to the 1/4 mile closure for the lek itself) would benefit 

wildlife, especially sage grouse. Removal of forage in these 

crucial habitats would not occur. These impacts could be 

further reduced through implementation of new AMPs and/or 

revision of management in old AMPs to include riparian 

objectives and implementation of actions associated with 

standards and guidelines assessments. Delaying turnout dates 

and limiting livestock use to 40 percent on upland key species, 

30 percent on key riparian shrub species, and 35 percent (or 8-

396
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

inch height) on riparian herbaceous species would further 

benefit wildlife use of riparian areas. 

Potential exists for minor impacts to the migrational capabilities of the Sublette antelope herd. Most activity would 

occur outside antelope crucial habitat and migration areas. 

Fragmentation of habitat areas and displacement from existing migration corridors due to roads and activity would have 

the greatest effect. This could be significant when winter 

conditions are extremely severe (similar to the winters of 1978 

and 1983). 

Management prescriptions for wildlife resources, watershed, visual resources, and off-road vehicle use would provide 

long-term benefits to wildlife populations and habitats. Fire 

(natural or prescribed) would result in a short-term loss of 

habitat but would benefit habitat in the long term. Wildfire 

could result in a long-term loss of habitat and could be 

considered an unavoidable adverse impact to the habitat if 

livestock graze the burned area immediately after the fire. 

Surface mining can result in an irreversible irretrievable 

loss of wetlands and springs, and although mitigation occurs, 

the original site is lost. Major road development also results 

in irretrievable losses of habitat as they are generally permanent structures; however, transportation planning would reduce these effects. 

Habitat fragmentation, particularly for big game, would 

occur in some areas, especially in areas with many access 

roads and surface disturbances. Transportation routes tend to 

dissect habitats and can act as barriers to some species, 

especially in severe winter conditions. This can also increase 

the accessibility to the general public into areas that have 

previously been somewhat inaccessible to vehicles. This 

would become more important and increase adverse effects to 

wildlife as increased demands for use of public lands occur. 

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 eliminate use of 

some of these areas by wildlife species, especially deer and 

elk. This could diminish the ability to maintain current 

population objectives for big game species. Transportation 

planning and the establishment of road densities in some 

crucial habitats would help to reduce this overall effect. 

A summary of impacts to the individual species that may be 

affected by actions in the planning area follows. 

Impacts to wintering antelope and antelope migration 

would be minimized in this alternative. 

Continued development proposals and other permanent 

uses in the Steamboat Mountain, Essex Mountain, and Jack 

Morrow Hills areas would affect this herd somewhat; however, these effects are anticipated to be less than under the 

other alternatives. Some minor displacement of animals may 

occur; however, total abandonment of key habitats such as 

those found in the core area, should not occur. Road construction and increased access into remote areas would also increase use by the general public adding to the impacts of this 

desert elk herd. Mitigation such as remote or off-site facility 

placement, and seasonally restricting human activity to reduce access and traffic in crucial habitat and calving areas 

would reduce adverse effects. 

Although mule deer are probably more tolerant of human 

activities than elk and impacts would be reduced in this 

alternative, it is still unlikely the objective for this herd unit 

could be met. The habitat at this time is not capable of 

achieving the population objective for this herd, with the 

development that is occurring in this portion of the herd area. 

Also, because this herd area is predominantly a desert type 

environment, areas for good fawn rearing are very limited. 

Direct competition between elk and deer for these parturition 

and winter use areas is probably more prevalent here than in 

most herd units. Therefore the capability of the habitat to meet 

the objectives for mule deer and elk could affected; however, 

with the management proposed in this alternative, the effects 

from surface disturbing and disrupting activities would be 

minimized. 

Fisheries 

Impacts are the same as for the Preferred Alternative. 

Special Management Areas 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC and Special Recreation Management Area 

Impacts would be similar to those described for the Preferred Alternative. Restrictions on activities such as rights-ofway, mineral materials and geophysical operations would 

generally enhance resource values in the ACEC. Withdrawal 

of entire the ACEC would greatly enhance efforts to manage 

heritage resources of all kinds as well as wildlife, recreation, 

and visual resource values. Livestock grazing management 

prescriptions would generally enhance efforts to manage for 

other resource values and reduce effects to the flockets the 

most under any alternative. Designation of roads would 

enhance efforts to manage heritage resources of all kinds, 

wildlife, visual and recreation resources. Possible additional 

seasonal closures would generally enhance efforts to manage 

heritage resources and wildlife resources. Adverse effects 

would occur to oil and gas operations due to increased costs 

and lost drilling opportunities. 

Expanding the wild horse herd management area would 

somewhat enhance BLM’s ability to manage heritage values 

associated with this resource which have been identified by 

Native Americans and others. However, horses could concentrate around water sources increasing the grazing impacts to 

these areas. 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

Impacts would be similar to those described for the Preferred Alternative. However, not issuing new leases in the 

ACEC would greatly enhance BLM’s ability to protect wildlife resources and some kinds heritage resource values, especially respected areas identified by Native American traditional elders. However, this would adversely affect oil and gas 

operations. 

397
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Closing Steamboat Mountain ACEC to mineral material 

sales would enhance BLM efforts to manage wildlife, visual, 

and heritage resources of all kinds. Pursuing additional 

withdrawals would enhance BLM’s ability to manage and 

protect these resources. 

Expanding the wild horse herd management area would 

somewhat enhance BLM’s ability to manage heritage values 

associated with this resource which have been identified by 

Native Americans and others. 

Expanding the ACEC to include the remainder of the core 

area (an additional 22,300 acres) would provide additional 

protection for the expanded area through application of ACEC 

management objectives and actions. However, most of the 

area would be protected regardless of the expansion, through 

the general prescriptions identified for this alternative (no 

leasing, closure to mineral location and mineral material sales, 

etc.) 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC 

Closing Pacific Butte to consideration of communication 

sites would enhance BLM efforts to manage and protect 

certain classes of heritage resources, especially the South Pass 

Historic Landscape viewshed. Additionally, the Green River 

RMP and other management document prescriptions would 

significantly enhance BLM efforts to manage and protect 

heritage resources of all kinds. Impacts to oil and gas 

development would be similar to the preferred alternative. 

However, portions of the ACEC would not be available for 

leasing and impacts from leasing restrictions could be significant if future analysis indicates no leasing areas have high 

exploratory drilling potential. 

White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC 

Management actions would protect the rock art and surrounding 500 acres which would address Native American 

traditional cultural and religious concerns. No development 

would be allowed unless it were for the benefit of the cultural 

resource. Long-term benefits would be realized by restricting 

any activity that could degrade the site. Benefits would also 

be provided to the public and especially the local communities 

through the educational opportunities provided by the area. 

Unauthorized uses could damage rock art and impact area 

values. Inclusion of the White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC 

within the connectivity area and accompanying no lease 

prescription would enhance BLM efforts to manage and 

protect heritage resources of all kinds. Any development 

activity that may occur could easily avoid this area. 

Preparing a recreation project plan would provide further 

protection of the petroglyph resources. 

Red Desert Watershed Area 

Portions of the core, connectivity, and Split Rock areas 

would be closed to fluid mineral leasing which would benefit 

sensitive resources in this area. This would, however, adversely affect oil and gas operations. 

Benefits to wildlife, heritage resources, vegetation and 

watershed would be greatest under this alternative. This 

alternative would also have the greatest adverse effects to 

development activities, including mineral resource development. 

Management of the entire area as a VRM Class II area 

would benefit visual resource values and protect the area’s 

vast open space. 

398
TABLE 4-1

SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

GENERAL AREA IMPACTS 

AIR QUALITY Adverse impacts to users could 

occur because of restricted location 

for placement of facilities to meet 

air quality standards. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Significant effects to air quality 

resources would not occur. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Noise levels in the planning area 

have not been monitored, but are 

likely to be in the “quiet” category. 

Constant noise levels greater than 

49 decibels (d.b.a.) are considered 

significant. Drilling rigs and 

compressor sites exceed the 49 

d.b.a. level; but no dwellings are 

within 800 feet of projected drill 

sites or 2,500 feet of projected 

compressor sites. Therefore, no 

impact to human activities is 

expected. Compressor facilities 

located within 2,500 feet of a sage 

grouse lek could impact use of the 

lek. However, no such activity is 

expected. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

399 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

AIR QUALITY 

(Cumulative) 

The surface disturbances and activities that could occur could 

contribute to increased dust and 

emission levels; however, additional 

mitigation over a broader area 

would ensure air quality standards 

are met. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

Given standard BLM mitigation 

measures, actions related to Air 

Quality Management, Hazardous 

Materials, Lands and Realty 

Management, Lands Withdrawals, 

Lands Access and Easements, 

Reclamation and Monitoring, 

Special Status Species, No Surface 

Occupancy stipulations, Vegetation 

Management, Transportation 

Planning, Visual Resource 

Management, Watershed/Soil 

Management, Wild Horses, and 

Wildlife Management would have 

little, no, or slightly beneficial 

impacts on Cultural Resources. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Generally, actions taken under 

Alternative A are slightly less 

beneficial to Cultural Resources 

than the other alternatives. 

Generally, actions taken under 

Alternative B are slightly more 

beneficial to Cultural Resources 

than the other alternatives. 

400 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

Same as No Action Alternative and 

enhanced avoidance distances 

would lessen impacts to heritage 

resources. Closure of Indian Gap 

and the face of Steamboat Mountain 

would benefit cultural and heritage 

resources. Closure of Steamboat 

Mountain, Oregon Buttes ACEC, 

and Continental Peak to 

communication sites would benefit 

cultural and heritage resources. 

With increased development, 

impacts may occur to Heritage 

Resources such as Native 

American respected places and 

cultural resources in general. 

Consultation with Native 

American traditional elders would 

attempt to avoid or mitigate 

impacts, especially to viewsheds. 

Impacts could be mitigated 

somewhat, but not totally. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as No Action Alternative 

and enhanced avoidance distances 

would lessen impacts to heritage 

resources. Closure of Indian Gap 

and the face of Steamboat 

Mountain would benefit cultural 

and heritage resources. Closure of 

Steamboat Mountain, Essex 

Mountain, Oregon Buttes ACEC, 

Continental Peak, and Pacific 

Butte to communication sites 

would benefit cultural and heritage 

resources. 

Fire suppression activities can 

impact cultural resources. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

(continued) 

Same as No Action Alternative and 

AUM limitations would benefit 

cultural resources as would actions 

taken to meet Standards and 

Guidelines. 

Spring developments associated 

with livestock operations, 

concentrated use, rubbing, and 

overgrazing can negatively impact 

cultural resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

401 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

Unavoidable negative impacts could 

occur to cultural resources from 

activities associated with drilling 85 

new oil and gas wells. Efforts to 

identify and avoid cultural resources 

may ameliorate much of this 

potential impact. In the Paleosol 

Deposition Area, avoidance 

measures would likely be 

ineffective. A 2.5-mile protection 

area around areas of Native 

American concern would help 

mitigate some impacts. 

Unavoidable negative impacts 

could occur to cultural resources 

from activities associated with 

drilling 89 new oil and gas wells. 

Efforts to identify and avoid 

cultural resources may ameliorate 

much of this potential impact. In 

the Paleosol Deposition Area, 

avoidance measures would likely 

be ineffective. 

Unavoidable negative impacts 

could occur to cultural resources 

from activities associated with 

drilling 125 new oil and gas wells. 

Efforts to identify and avoid 

cultural resources may ameliorate 

much of this potential impact. In 

the Paleosol Deposition Area, 

avoidance measures would likely 

be ineffective. A 1/4-mile 

protection area around areas of 

Native American concern would 

help mitigate some impacts. 

Unavoidable negative impacts 

could occur to cultural resources 

from activities associated with 

drilling 65 new oil and gas wells. 

Efforts to identify and avoid 

cultural resources may ameliorate 

much of this potential impact. In 

the Paleosol Deposition Area, 

closing the area to surface 

disturbance would provide the 

most protection. A 1-mile 

protection area around areas of 

Native American concern would 

help mitigate some impacts. 

Effects to resources in the paleosol 

deposition area could be significant 

if destroyed by surface disturbing 

activities. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Effects to the paleosol deposition 

area from surface disturbance 

would not occur. 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

(continued) 

Additional mitigation measures and 

withdrawals would lessen cultural 

and heritage resource impacts from 

locatable and salable mineral 

development activities and 

geophysical activities. 

Locatable and salable mineral 

development activities and 

geophysical activities could 

adversely impact cultural and 

heritage resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Additional mitigation measures 

and withdrawals for Steamboat 

Mountain ACEC, portions of 

White Mountain, and portions of 

the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

would lessen cultural and heritage 

resource impacts from locatable 

and salable mineral development 

activities and geophysical 

activities. 

402 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

Designating roads and trails would 

benefit cultural resources. Proper 

ORV use has no impact on cultural 

resources; however, ORV use can 

cause significant damage to 

archaeological and historical sites 

when operated outside of 

management prescriptions. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Increased numbers of people 

recreating on public lands would 

cause more pressure on BLM to 

protect resources such as the White 

Mountain Petroglyphs and 

Crookston Ranch Historic Site. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

(Core) 

The types of direct and indirect 

impacts are the same as described in 

the Preferred Alternative general 

impacts discussion. The magnitude 

of impacts under the Preferred 

Alternative for the core area would 

be greater than the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative B and 

less than Alternative A. 

No new oil and gas or livestock 

project development would occur 

within the core area. Therefore, 

the magnitude of impacts would be 

the lowest of all alternatives. 

New oil and gas and livestock 

project developments would occur 

within the core area. Therefore, 

the magnitude of impacts would be 

the highest of all alternatives. 

The magnitude of impacts under 

the Alternative B for the core area 

would be greater than the No 

Action Alternative and less than 

the Preferred Alternative and 

Alternative A. 

403 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

(Cumulative) 

As with Alternative A, more cultural information would be discovered 

through inventory of sites in the 

area; however, fragmentation of 

historic trails and associated historic 

landscapes would increase 

somewhat. Cumulatively, intrusions could significantly diminish 

the historic trail resource. 

However, management 

prescriptions would reduce this 

effect over the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative A. 

More cultural information would 

be discovered through inventory of 

sites in the area; however, fragmentation of historic trails and 

associated historic landscapes 

would increase. This would be 

less than Alternative A. Cumulatively, intrusions could significantly diminish the historic trail 

resource. 

Alternative A would create a larger 

effect than the Preferred 

Alternative, No Action 

Alternative, or Alternative B on 

cultural values, particularly the 

unfragmented historic landscapes. 

Less cultural information would be 

discovered as fewer site 

inventories would occur in the 

expanded area, and fragmentation 

of historic trails and associated 

historic landscapes would stay the 

same as it is currently or slightly 

increase. Cumulatively, intrusions 

could still diminish the historic 

trail resource but not to the extent 

of the other alternatives. 

PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES 

New resources would be discovered 

providing beneficial effects by 

providing new information. Some 

resources may be destroyed 

resulting in a loss of scientific 

information. However, it is 

anticipated that more resources 

would be discovered than destroyed, 

so impacts overall would not be 

significant. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

404 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES 

(continued) 

All surface disturbing activities 

have two types of impacts on 

undiscovered scientifically 

important fossils. The activities 

may inadvertently damage or 

destroy fossils buried below the 

surface. Such an impact is 

unavoidable. Also, discovery of 

significant fossil sites could occur 

during preconstruction field surveys 

or during monitoring of 

construction. Upon discovery, a 

mitigation plan would be developed 

for recovery, study, and housing of 

the fossils. New roads associated 

with development make public 

access easier which can lead to the 

discovery and study of new fossils; 

but may also provide more 

opportunities for unauthorized 

collection. At this time, 

unauthorized collection does not 

appear to be a problem in the 

planning area. 

Projected development (with 

associated surface disturbing 

activities) under the Preferred 

Alternative is less than Alternative 

A and No Action, but greater than 

Alternative B. Under the Preferred 

Alternative, known scientifically 

significant fossil sites in the 

planning area would be closed to 

The types of direct and indirect 

impacts are the same as Preferred 

Alternative with more potential for 

impacts than the Preferred 

Alternative and Alternative B, but 

less than Alternative A. Under the 

No Action Alternative, known 

scientifically significant fossil sites 

in the planning area would not be 

closed to surface disturbing 

activities. 

The types of direct and indirect 

impacts are the same as Preferred 

Alternative with more potential for 

impacts than all other alternatives. 

Under Alternative A, known 

scientifically significant fossil sites 

in the planning area would be 

closed to surface disturbing 

activities. 

The types of direct and indirect 

impacts are the same as Preferred 

Alternative with the least potential 

for impacts than all other 

alternatives. Under Alternative B, 

known scientifically significant 

fossil sites in the planning area 

would be closed to surface 

disturbing activities. 

405 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES 

(Core) 

The types of direct and indirect 

impacts are the same as described in 

the Preferred Alternative general 

impacts discussion. The magnitude 

of impacts under the Preferred 

Alternative for the core area would 

be greater than the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative B and 

less than Alternative A. 

No new oil and gas or livestock 

project development would occur 

within the core area. Therefore, 

the magnitude of impacts would be 

the lowest of all alternatives. 

New oil and gas and livestock 

project developments would occur 

within the core area. Therefore, 

the magnitude of impacts would be 

the highest of all alternatives. 

The magnitude of impacts under 

the Alternative B for the core area 

would be greater than the No 

Action Alternative and less than 

the Preferred Alternative and 

Alternative A. 

PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES 

(Cumulative) 

No additional effects would occur 

either to or from the general 

analysis area relative to 

paleontological resources. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

FIRE Impacts would occur from costs for 

wildfire suppression and prescribed 

fire, accrued from restrictions imposed by other resource management requirements. 

Impacts would occur from costs 

for wildfire suppression and prescribed fire, accrued from restrictions imposed by other resource 

management requirements, but 

would be less than the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Benefits would occur from reduced 

costs for wildfire suppression and 

prescribed fire activity, due to 

fewer imposed restrictions than 

under the Preferred Alternative or 

No Action Alternative. 

Impacts would occur from additional costs, over Preferred, for 

wildfire suppression and prescribed fire, accrued from restrictions imposed by other 

resource management requirements. 

Increased activity would increase 

the probability that wildfire would 

occur. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

FIRE 

(Cumulative) 

No additional effects would occur 

relative to fire. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

Immediate attention to releases of 

hazardous wastes would protect the 

environment and the public. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

406 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

(Cumulative) 

No additional effects would occur. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

LANDS AND REALTY Mineral withdrawals would be 

revoked and other lands withdrawn 

for resource protection (46,270 

acres). The newly withdrawn lands 

would be unavailable for mineral 

entry, causing a long-term loss of 

productivity of locatable mineral 

resources. 

Mineral withdrawals would be 

revoked and other lands withdrawn 

for resource protection. An 

additional 37,290 acres would also 

be withdrawn. The newly 

withdrawn lands would be 

unavailable for mineral entry, 

causing a long-term loss of 

productivity of locatable mineral 

resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Mineral withdrawals would be revoked and other lands withdrawn 

for resource protection (217,840 

additional acres). The newly withdrawn lands would be unavailable 

for mineral entry, causing a longterm loss of productivity of locatable mineral resources. 

Approximately 75% of the planning 

area would be affected by 

avoidance and exclusion areas for 

surface disturbing activities. 

Approximately 39% of the 

planning area would be affected by 

avoidance and exclusion areas for 

surface disturbing activities. 

Approximately 31% of the 

planning area would be affected by 

avoidance and exclusion areas for 

surface disturbing activities. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Small right-of-way exclusion areas 

(10 to 20 acres) would not impact 

rights-of-way placement. The 

exclusion of 9,400 acres on the face 

of Steamboat Mountain, Indian Gap 

(690 acres), and the Oregon Buttes 

ACEC (3,450 acres) would have 

minimum impact unless production 

activity increases in these areas. 

Small right-of-way exclusion areas 

(10 to 20 acres) would not impact 

rights-of-way placement. The 

exclusion of the Oregon Buttes 

ACEC would have minimum 

impact unless production activity 

increases in this area. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Small right-of-way exclusion areas 

(10 to 20 acres) would not impact 

rights-of-way placement. The 

exclusion of 9,400 acres on the 

face of Steamboat Mountain, 

Indian Gap (690 acres), the 

Oregon Buttes ACEC (3,450 

acres), and special status plant 

Lasquerella macrocarpa would 

have minimum impact unless 

production activity increases in 

these areas. 

407 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

LANDS AND REALTY 

(continued) 

Exclusion of rights-of-way in portions of the South Pass Historic 

Landscape (vista) would have a 

major effect on the location of 

rights-of-way and would require 

major reroutes. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Management resulting in avoidance 

of placing rights-of-way in the big 

sagebrush/scurfpea vegetation type, 

historic trails and expansion era 

roads, the Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC, portions of South Pass 

Historic Landscape ACEC, the 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC, the 

core area including the connectivity 

areas, areas of Native American 

concern, and the paleosol deposition 

area may require major reroutes and 

extensive planning to limit impacts. 

Management resulting in 

avoidance of placing rights-of-way 

in the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, 

portions of the South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC, Steamboat 

Mountain ACEC, historic trails 

and expansion era roads, and 

paleosol deposition area may 

require major reroutes and extensive planning to limit impacts. 

Management resulting in 

avoidance of placing rights-of-way 

in the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, 

portions of the South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC, historic trails 

and expansion era roads, and 

paleosol deposition area may 

require major reroutes and extensive planning to limit impacts. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Closing the Steamboat Mountain 

ACEC and Continental Peak to 

communication sites could cause 

gaps in communication signals. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Closing Continental Peak to 

communication sites could cause a 

minor gap in communication 

signals. 

Closing the Steamboat Mountain 

ACEC, Continental Peak, Essex 

Mountain, and Pacific Butte to 

communication sites would cause 

gaps in communication signals. 

408 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

LANDS AND REALTY 

(Core) 

The core area, including the Greater 

Sand Dunes and Steamboat 

Mountain ACECs, would be an 

avoidance area for rights-of-way 

requiring routing around these areas 

and could increase costs to the 

applicant. The face of Steamboat 

Mountain (9,400 acres) would be 

excluded from rights-of-way 

requiring placement of facilities 

outside this area. Land tenure, 

withdrawal, and access impacts 

would be the same as described for 

the general area. Communication 

sites would be excluded from the 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC which 

could cause inefficient 

communication coverage in some 

areas. 

Since no new activities would be 

allowed within the core area 

(80,410 acres), no new rights-ofway would be issued for actions 

within the core. This would 

require routing around the core 

area which would affect other 

offsite areas and increase costs to 

the applicant. Land tenure, 

withdrawal, and access impacts 

would be the same as described for 

the general area. 

New activities would be allowed 

within the core area, and new 

rights-of-way would be issued for 

actions within the core. Large 

avoidance areas (Greater Sand 

Dunes ACEC) would require 

longer, less direct routes which 

would affect other offsite areas and 

increase costs to the applicant. 

Land tenure, withdrawal, and 

access impacts would be the same 

as described for the general area. 

The core area, including the 

Greater Sand Dunes and 

Steamboat Mountain ACECs, 

would be an avoidance area for 

rights-of-way. Large avoidance 

areas such as this would require 

routing around these areas which 

would affect other offsite areas 

and increase costs to the applicant. 

Land tenure, withdrawal, and 

access impacts would be the same 

as described for the general area. 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC and 

Essex Mountain would be closed 

to communication sites which 

could result in inefficient 

communication coverage for 

portions of the planning area. 

LANDS AND REALTY 

(Cumulative) 

The combined actions of large areas 

of avoidance and exclusion, much 

of it connecting, would affect rightof-way placement. Long linear 

rights-of-way particularly would be 

affected by potentially longer routes 

increasing construction costs. 

However, fewer rights-of-way 

would be needed as less acreage 

would be leased and fewer gas wells 

would be drilled. 

The combined actions of no new 

development in the core, 

avoidance, and exclusion areas, 

much of it connecting, would 

affect rights-of-way placement. 

Long linear rights-of-way 

particularly would be affected by 

potentially long reroutes increasing 

construction costs. 

The combined areas of avoidance 

and exclusion would affect rightof-way placement but not as much 

as identified in the No Action 

Alternative as there are less 

contiguous acres of avoidance 

areas. Long linear rights-of-way 

particularly would be affected by 

potentially longer routes increasing 

construction costs, but this would 

be less than for the No Action 

Alternative. 

The combined actions of no new 

oil and gas leasing in the core and 

connectivity areas, large areas of 

avoidance, and exclusion areas 

would affect right-of-way 

placement. Long linear rights-ofway particularly would be affected 

by potentially longer routes 

increasing construction costs. 

Fewer rights-of-way would be 

needed as less acreage would be 

leased and fewer gas wells would 

be drilled. 

409 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

LANDS AND REALTY 

(Cumulative) 

(continued) 

Withdrawal of 46,270 acres would 

preclude disposal, entry, and 

mineral location. Revocation of 

about 211,130 withdrawn acres 

would allow for entry and mineral 

location, and consideration of land 

disposal. 

Withdrawal of 37,290 acres would 

preclude disposal, entry, and 

mineral location. Revocation of 

211,130 acres of oil shale and coal 

withdrawals would allow for entry 

and mineral location, and 

consideration of land disposal. No 

new development within the core 

area would result in no new rightof-way needs from within the core. 

Withdrawal of 37,290 acres would 

preclude disposal, entry, and 

mineral location. Revocation of 

about 211,130 withdrawn acres 

would allow for entry and mineral 

location, and consideration of land 

disposal. 

Withdrawal of 267,590 acres 

would preclude disposal, entry, 

and mineral location. Revocation 

of about 211,130 withdrawn acres 

through the removal of the oil 

shale and coal withdrawals would 

allow for entry and mineral 

location, and consideration of land 

disposal. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING Authorized grazing use would not 

exceed the recognized permitted 

use. For analysis purposes, 

anticipated actual use would range 

from approximately 9,851 AUMs 

(5-year average 1994-1998) to the 

total permitted use of 26,032 

AUMs. The average between the 

two amounts is 17,941 AUMs 

(15,814 cattle and 2,127 sheep). 

Again, for analysis purposes, this 

grazing level was held constant 

throughout the planning period. 

Authorized grazing use would not 

exceed the recognized permitted 

use. For analysis purposes, 

anticipated actual use would range 

from approximately 13,038 AUMs 

(1998 base year usage) to the total 

permitted use of 26,032 AUMs. 

The average between the two 

amounts is 19,535 AUMs (17,379 

cattle and 2,156 sheep). Again, for 

analysis purposes, this grazing 

level was held constant throughout 

the planning period. 

Authorized grazing use would not 

exceed the recognized permitted 

use. For analysis purposes, 

anticipated actual use would be 

26,032 AUMs (22,767 cattle and 

3,265 sheep). This grazing level 

was held constant throughout the 

planning period for analysis 

purposes. 

Authorized grazing use would not 

exceed the recognized permitted 

use. For analysis purposes, 

anticipated actual use would be 

based on the 5-year average actual 

use of 9,851 AUMs (8,861 cattle 

and 990 sheep). This grazing level 

was held constant throughout the 

planning period for analysis 

purposes. 

Assessment of standards and 

guidelines and applying a variety 

appropriate actions would benefit 

livestock grazing in the long term 

by providing healthy rangelands. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Assessment of standards and 

guidelines and reducing levels of 

livestock use as the primary 

appropriate action would adversely 

affect livestock operators and 

constrain management options. 

Some benefit would occur to 

livestock grazing in the long term 

by providing healthy rangelands. 

410 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

(continued) 

Modifying turn-out dates to provide 

for growing season rest would 

benefit livestock grazing operations 

in the long term by providing 

healthy rangelands. However, 

adverse effects could occur to 

livestock operations in the short 

term as turn-out dates may be later. 

Continuing existing turn-out dates 

could adversely livestock grazing 

in the long term by not providing 

growing season rest. However, 

beneficial effects could occur to 

livestock operations in the short 

term as turn-out dates would not 

change. 

Modifying turn-out dates to 

provide for early turn-out and 

season-long use would benefit 

livestock grazing operations in the 

short term. However, adverse 

effects could occur to livestock 

operations in the long term as 

vegetation may be damaged, 

reducing available forage. 

Modifying turn-out dates to 

provide for growing season rest 

would benefit livestock grazing in 

the long term by providing healthy 

rangelands. However, adverse 

effects would occur to livestock 

operations in the short term as 

turn-out dates would be later. 

Considering changes of class of 

livestock on a case-by-case basis 

would benefit livestock grazing 

operations in the long term by 

providing opportunities for 

operators to adjust to changing 

economic situations. However, 

adverse effects could occur to 

livestock operations in the short 

term until suitability reviews were 

completed. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Considering only changes to sheep 

use could adversely affect 

livestock operations by limiting 

opportunities to diversify 

management and adjust to 

changing economic conditions. 

Adverse effects could occur to 

livestock operations in the short 

term until suitability reviews were 

completed. 

Not plowing roads in winter for 

livestock access except for 

emergency situations could limit 

opportunities for moving livestock 

into certain areas. However, effects 

of adverse weather on livestock, 

particularly calving and lambing, 

would be reduced. 

Consideration of plowing of roads 

in winter on a case-by-case basis 

could allow for access into areas in 

winter conditions. This would 

enhance flexibility of 

management; however, effects of 

adverse weather on livestock, 

particularly calving and lambing, 

would be increased. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

411 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

(continued) 

Limiting livestock use on upland 

key grass species to 40% would 

adversely affect livestock operations 

in the short term as livestock may 

be removed from areas earlier. 

Benefit to livestock grazing would 

occur in the long term by providing 

healthy rangelands. 

Limiting livestock use on upland 

key grass species to 50% would 

continue current operations and 

benefit livestock operations in the 

short term as livestock would 

remain in areas longer. Adverse 

effects to livestock grazing could 

occur in the long term by taking 

longer to provide for healthy 

rangelands. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Management actions implemented 

to achieve proper functioning condition could impact grazing through 

establishment of utilization limits or 

reduction of permitted active preference. 

No similar action. No similar action. No similar action. 

Establishing riparian pastures only 

to enhance wildlife habitat and 

watershed needs would reduce 

livestock management options. 

Not establishing riparian pastures 

would reduce livestock 

management options. 

Establishing riparian pastures to 

enhance livestock grazing 

management would benefit 

livestock grazing and increase 

management options. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Limiting placement of salt to no 

closer than 1⁄2 mile of water and 1/4 

mile from sensitive plant species 

locations and historic trails would 

reduce options for placement but 

enhance distribution in certain 

areas. 

Limiting placement of salt to no 

closer than 500 feet of water and 

sensitive plant species locations, 

and no closer than 1/4 mile to 

historic trails would increase 

options for placement and enhance 

distribution in certain areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

412 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

(continued) 

Closure of areas to surface disturbing activities (no surface 

occupancy) would adversely affect 

project placement and development 

aimed at improving livestock 

distribution. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. A reduction in closed areas (no 

surface occupancy) would allow 

project placement and development aimed at improving livestock 

distribution in more areas. This 

would have a beneficial effect on 

livestock distribution. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Placing range improvements outside Not developing any range Allowing range improvement Considering range improvements 

crucial habitats would limit improvements would adversely placement where necessary would only in areas where wildlife and 

opportunities for placement and affect management opportunities enhance livestock management wildlife habitat would benefit 

affect livestock distribution. and livestock distribution. opportunities and improve would limit opportunities for 

livestock distribution. placement and opportunities to 

improve livestock distribution. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING Effects would be similar as Effects would be similar as Effects would be similar as Same as No Action Alternative. 

(Core) described for the general area. 

However, limitations on placement 

of livestock water facilities would 

limit livestock grazing management 

opportunities. 

described for the general area. Not 

allowing any new livestock 

management facilities would limit 

livestock management 

opportunities. 

described for the general area. 

Allowing new livestock 

management facilities would 

provide the most livestock 

management opportunities. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

(Cumulative) 

Approximately 2,400 acres would 

be disturbed by various activities. 

This surface disturbance could 

cause displacement of wildlife into 

the surrounding herd areas. This 

could affect the ability of these 

areas to support existing wildlife 

populations and livestock numbers. 

Approximately 2,500 acres would 

be disturbed by various activities. 

This surface disturbance could 

cause displacement of wildlife into 

the surrounding herd areas. This 

could affect the ability of these 

areas to support existing wildlife 

populations and livestock numbers. 

Approximately 2,900 acres would 

be disturbed by various activities. 

This surface disturbance could 

cause displacement of wildlife into 

the surrounding herd areas. This 

could affect the ability of these 

areas to support existing wildlife 

populations and livestock numbers. 

Approximately 2,200 acres would 

be disturbed by various activities. 

This surface disturbance could 

cause displacement of wildlife into 

the surrounding herd areas. This 

could affect the ability of these 

areas to support existing wildlife 

populations and livestock 

numbers. 

413 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

(Cumulative) 

(continued) 

A combination of activities could 

result in future displacement of 

wildlife and fewer livestock 

numbers and/or shorter periods of 

livestock use. If livestock numbers 

remain the same, the impact from 

displaced wildlife should be 

minimal. The guidelines for vegetative management in riparian and 

upland areas should mitigate any 

impact to vegetative resources. 

However, in concentrated areas of 

surface disturbance livestock grazing could be impacted by limiting 

the length of time grazing is allowed on public lands or by decreasing livestock AUMs. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. A combination of activities would 

result in future displacement of 

wildlife. If livestock numbers 

increase for the planning area, the 

impact from displaced wildlife 

could be severe. The guidelines 

for vegetative management in 

riparian and upland areas should 

mitigate any impact to vegetative 

resources. However, increased 

livestock numbers with displaced 

wildlife would result in an impact 

to livestock by limiting the length 

of time grazing is allowed on 

public lands. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

MINERALS 

Oil and Gas and Coalbed 

Methane 

Fewer wells would be drilled than 

under Alternative A, reducing 

production. 

About 64 wells would be drilled, 

resulting in production of 116 

thousand barrels of oil and 84,177 

million cubic feet of gas. 

More wells would be drilled than 

under any alternative, increasing 

production. 

Fewer wells would be drilled than 

under Alternative A, reducing 

production. 

414 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

MINERALS 

Oil and Gas and Coalbed 

Methane 

(continued) 

Approximately 27% of the planning 

area would be designated no leasing 

and about 10% would have no 

surface occupancy/surface 

disturbance activity prohibitions. 

About 60% of the planning area 

would be affected by seasonal 

restrictions. About 72% of the area 

would be affected by controlled 

surface use restrictions. 

Restrictions would increase the 

costs of doing business and possibly 

preclude some activities. 

Approximately 34% of the 

planning area would be designated 

no leasing and about 5% would 

have no surface occupancy/surface 

disturbance activity prohibitions. 

About 60% of the planning area 

would be affected by seasonal 

restrictions. About 56% of the 

area would be affected by 

controlled surface use restrictions. 

Restrictions would increase the 

costs of doing business and 

possibly preclude some activities. 

Approximately 20% of the 

planning area would be designated 

no leasing and about 5% would 

have no surface occupancy/surface 

disturbance activity prohibitions. 

About 60% of the planning area 

would be affected by seasonal 

restrictions. About 56% of the 

area would be affected by 

controlled surface use restrictions. 

Restrictions would increase the 

costs of doing business and possibly preclude some activities. 

However, this impact would be 

greatly reduced from the No 

Action Alternative, Preferred 

Alternative, and Alternative B. 

Approximately 38% of the 

planning area would be designated 

no leasing and about 6% would 

have no surface occupancy/surface 

disturbance activity prohibitions. 

About 60% of the planning area 

would be affected by seasonal 

restrictions. About 80% of the 

area would be affected by 

controlled surface use restrictions. 

Restrictions would increase the 

costs of doing business and 

possibly preclude some activities. 

This impact would be greater than 

Alternative A. 

The reasonable foreseeable 

development (RFD) scenario 

projected that 202 wells (including 

5 coalbed methane wells) could be 

drilled if the entire planning area 

were open to exploration and 

development. 

The reasonable foreseeable 

development (RFD) scenario 

projected that 202 wells (including 

10 coalbed methane wells) could 

be drilled if the entire planning 

area were open to exploration and 

development. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

5 coalbed methane wells would not 

be drilled because of use 

restrictions. 55 oil and gas wells 

would not be drilled because of no 

leasing stipulations. 67 oil and gas 

wells would not be drilled because 

of use restrictions. Operating costs 

would increase. 

An unknown number of coalbed 

methane wells would not be drilled 

because of use restrictions. 61 oil 

and gas wells would not be drilled 

because of no leasing stipulations. 

67 oil and gas wells would not be 

drilled because of use restrictions. 

Operating costs would increase. 

An unknown number of coalbed 

methane wells would not be drilled 

because of use restrictions. 35 oil 

and gas wells would not be drilled 

because of no leasing stipulations. 

47 oil and gas wells would not be 

drilled because of use restrictions. 

Operating costs would increase. 

5 coalbed methane wells would 

not be drilled because of use 

restrictions. 92 oil and gas wells 

would not be drilled because of no 

leasing stipulations. 50 oil and gas 

wells would not be drilled because 

of use restrictions. Operating costs 

would increase. 

415 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

MINERALS 

Oil and Gas and Coalbed 

Methane 

(continued) 

In the short term (through 2007) the 

number of producing wells would 

increase from 48 to 58. In the long 

term (through 2017) the number of 

producing wells would decrease to 

41. 

In the short term (through 2007) 

the number of producing wells 

would increase from 48 to 61. In 

the long term (through 2017) the 

number of producing wells would 

decrease to 43. 

In the short term (through 2007) 

the number of producing wells 

would increase from 48 to 71. In 

the long term (through 2017) the 

number of producing wells would 

decrease to 64. 

In the short term (through 2007) 

the number of producing wells 

would increase from 48 to 56. In 

the long term (through 2017) the 

number of producing wells would 

decrease to 33. 

Not drilling 122 wells during the 

20-year analysis period represents a 

loss of opportunity for royalty and 

tax revenue to the government on 

143 billion cubic feet of gas; and an 

opportunity loss for direct and 

indirect employment. The 

opportunity loss for coalbed 

methane gas is not known. These 

losses of opportunity could be 

considered significant. 

Not drilling 128 wells during the 

20-year analysis period represents 

a loss of opportunity for royalty 

and tax revenue to the government 

on 150 billion cubic feet of gas; 

and an opportunity loss for direct 

and indirect employment. The 

opportunity loss for coalbed 

methane gas is not known. These 

losses of opportunity could be 

considered significant. 

Not drilling 82 wells during the 

20-year analysis period represents 

a loss of opportunity for royalty 

and tax revenue to the government 

on 116.6 billion cubic feet of gas; 

and an opportunity loss for direct 

and indirect employment. The 

opportunity loss for coalbed 

methane gas is not known. These 

losses of opportunity could be 

considered significant. 

Not drilling 142 wells during the 

20-year analysis period represents 

a loss of opportunity for royalty 

and tax revenue to the government 

on 165 billion cubic feet of gas; 

and an opportunity loss for direct 

and indirect employment. The 

opportunity loss for coalbed 

methane gas is not known. These 

losses of opportunity could be 

considered significant. 

At least one and possibly up to three 

average natural gas “fields” would 

not be developed due to direct 

impacts of staged leasing and 

indirect impacts of applying no 

surface occupancy and surface use 

restrictions. 

At least one and possibly up to 

three average natural gas “fields” 

would not be developed due to 

direct impacts of not leasing and 

indirect impacts of applying 

surface use restrictions. 

At least one and possibly two 

average natural gas “fields” would 

not be developed due to direct 

impacts of not leasing and indirect 

impacts of applying surface use 

restrictions. 

At least one and possibly up to 

four average natural gas “fields” 

would not be developed due to 

direct impacts of not leasing and 

indirect impacts of applying 

surface use restrictions. 

416 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

Minerals 

Oil and Gas and Coalbed 

Methane 

(Core) 

47 wells have been completed of 

which 35 wells currently produce in 

the core and migratory corridor 

area. Over the long term, 33 of 

these wells are expected to be 

abandoned due to depletion of 

reservoir rocks in the area leaving 2 

producing wells. Under the RFD, 

35 wells could be drilled and 18 

would be expected to be productive 

which means 20 wells could still be 

producing after 20 years. 

30 wells currently produce in the 

core area. Over the long term, 29 

of these wells are expected to be 

abandoned due to depletion of 

reservoir rocks in the area leaving 

1 producing well. With 

restrictions on leasing, exploration 

and development activity, no new 

wells could be drilled to replace 

abandoned wells which means 1 

well could still be producing after 

20 years. 

30 wells currently produce in the 

core area. Over the long term, 29 

of these wells are expected to be 

abandoned due to depletion of 

reservoir rocks in the area leaving 

1 producing well. Under the RFD, 

28 wells could be drilled and 15 

would be expected to be 

productive which means 16 wells 

could still be producing after 20 

years. 

47 wells have been completed of 

which 35 wells currently produce 

in the core and migratory corridor 

area. Over the long term, 33 of 

these wells are expected to be 

abandoned due to depletion of 

reservoir rocks in the area leaving 

2 producing wells. Under the 

RFD, 20 wells could be drilled and 

11 would be expected to be 

productive which means 13 wells 

could still be producing after 20 

years. 

417 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

MINERALS 

Oil and Gas and Coalbed 

Methane 

(Cumulative) 

The cumulative impact on the oil 

and gas resource would be a greater 

or lesser depletion/use of that 

resource within the time frame of 

the plan, and the total preservation 

of some potential resources. 

Economic and market factors are 

the major controlling influences that 

determine the actual rate and extent 

of oil and gas exploration and 

development. Land use restrictions 

result in higher costs, and therefore 

influence to an unknown and 

variable degree the rate of resource 

exploration and development. No 

lease areas remove potential 

resources from exploration and 

development consideration, as can 

some NSO stipulations if they block 

the perceived only feasible access 

route to a reservoir. This would 

eliminate from depletion/use potential resources which might lay beneath these restrictions. Somewhat 

lesser amounts of resource depletion 

would be found in this alternative 

than Alternative A, but more than 

Alternative B. 

The impact on the oil and gas 

resource would be a greater or 

lesser depletion/use of that resource within the time frame of the 

plan, and the total preservation of 

some potential resources. Economic and market factors are the 

major controlling influences that 

determine the actual rate and extent of oil and gas exploration and 

development. Land use restrictions result in higher costs, and 

therefore influence to an unknown 

and variable degree the rate of 

resource exploration and development. No lease areas remove 

potential resources from exploration and development consideration, as can some NSO stipulations if they block the perceived 

only feasible access route to a 

reservoir. This would eliminate 

from depletion/use potential resources which might lay beneath 

these restrictions. Depletion/use of 

the oil and gas resource would 

occur over much of the area due to 

accessibility and limited restrictions. 

The impact on the oil and gas 

resource would be similar to the 

Preferred Alternative. However, 

depletion/use of the oil and gas 

resource would be greatest with 

this alternative. 

The impact on the oil and gas resource would be less than Alternative A. Depletion/use of the oil 

and gas resource would be least 

with this alternative due to the 

additional areas closed or 

restricted to resource uses. 

418 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

MINERALS 

Coal 

More opportunities for coal 

exploration would occur over the 

No Action Alternative. 

Opportunities for coal exploration 

could occur but would be limited 

due to about 218,420 acres that 

would be closed to coal 

exploration activities. 

The greatest opportunity for coal 

exploration would occur in this 

alternative. 

Same as No Action Alternative. 

MINERALS 

Coal 

(Cumulative) 

No additional effects would occur. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

MINERALS 

Sodium 

Closing areas to sodium prospecting 

would preclude any potential 

development in these areas. 

Potential for development is low so 

these impacts should be minor. The 

impact to exploration and 

development would be an increased 

cost of doing business, but would 

not likely preclude activities. 

Closing areas to sodium 

prospecting would preclude any 

potential development in these 

areas; however, potential for 

development is low. Resource 

management prescriptions for 

other activities would increase the 

cost of development and may 

inhibit some further development 

in this area. Specifically, the 

number of facilities and their 

locations may be relocated or even 

denied. Development of sodium 

brine would result in an 

irreversible irretrievable loss of the 

resource. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

MINERALS 

Sodium 

(Cumulative) 

No additional effects would occur. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

419 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

MINERALS 

Mineral Materials 

Increased mitigation (about 235,100 

acres closed to salable minerals) 

would increase costs of doing 

business over Alternative A, in both 

the short and long term. Some 

unauthorized use would continue. 

Materials sold would be an 

irreversible irretrievable loss of the 

mineral resource but would provide 

an economic benefit. 

Mitigation (about 207,850 acres 

closed to salable minerals) would 

increase costs of doing business in 

both the short and long term. 

Some unauthorized use would continue. Materials sold would be an 

irreversible irretrievable loss the 

mineral resource but would 

provide an economic benefit. 

Mitigation (about 207,490 acres 

closed to salable minerals) would 

decrease from the Preferred 

Alternative, resulting in reduced 

costs of doing business in both the 

short and long term. Some unauthorized use would continue. 

Materials sold would be an irreversible irretrievable loss of the 

mineral resource but would provide an economic benefit. 

Mitigation (about 406,080 acres 

closed to salable minerals) would 

increase costs of doing business 

over Alternative A in both the 

short and long term. Some 

unauthorized use would continue. 

Materials sold would be an 

irreversible irretrievable loss the 

mineral resource but would 

provide an economic benefit. 

MINERALS 

Mineral Materials 

(Cumulative) 

Additional areas would be available 

for mineral material sales than in 

Alternative B. 

Areas closed to mineral material 

sales would reduce the amount of 

materials available from within the 

planning area. 

More areas would be available for 

mineral material sales than for any 

alternative. 

Fewer areas would be available for 

mineral material sales than for any 

alternative. 

MINERALS 

Locatable Minerals 

Approximately 211,130 acres of 

withdrawals would be revoked thus 

opening the lands to mineral location. Approximately 46,270 acres 

would be subject to new withdrawals and 4,150 acres of existing withdrawals would be retained. These 

withdrawals close the lands to mineral location; however, effects 

would be much reduced from Alternative B. 

Existing withdrawals on approximately 211,130 acres would be 

revoked and 37,290 acres of new 

withdrawals close the lands to 

mineral location. This would 

cause an adverse effect to the 

exploration and development of 

mineral resources. 

Approximately 211,130 acres of 

withdrawals would be revoked thus 

opening the lands to mineral location. Approximately 37,290 acres 

would be subject to new withdrawals and about 4,150 acres of existing withdrawals would be retained. 

These withdrawals close the lands 

to mineral location. Adverse effects would be less than either Alternative B or the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Approximately 211,130 acres of 

withdrawals would be revoked 

thus opening the lands to mineral 

location. Approximately 267,590 

acres would be subject to new 

withdrawals. These withdrawals 

close the lands to mineral location. 

Adverse effects would be more 

than Alternative A and the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Additional requirements and mitiga- Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

tion for Special Management Areas 

would increase costs of doing business for both short- and long-term 

periods. 

420 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

MINERALS 

Locatable Minerals 

(Cumulative) 

See discussion under Lands and 

Realty. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

MINERALS 

Geophysical 

Areas closed to geophysical activity 

result in a loss of data, which would 

be considered an unavoidable adverse impact. Increased costs for 

mitigation would affect operations. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

MINERALS 

Geophysical 

(continued) 

Areas open to off-road vehicle use 

and exploration activity provide 

beneficial effects because retrieval 

of information is allowed. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

MINERALS 

Geophysical 

(Cumulative) 

About 245,580 acres would be 

closed to geophysical vehicles and 

explosive charges which affects the 

off-road use of vehicles in retrieval 

of information and can increase 

costs of operations. 

About 119,890 acres would be 

closed to geophysical vehicles and 

explosive charges which affects 

off-road use of vehicles in retrieval 

of information and can minimally 

increase costs of operations. 

Effects would be substantially less 

than the Preferred Alternative. 

Same as the No Action 

Alternative. 

About 245,580 acres would be 

closed to geophysical vehicles and 

explosive charges. Effects would 

be the same as the Preferred 

Alternative. 

421 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES 80% of the planning area would 

remain available for off-road 

vehicle use. All-terrain vehicle 

(ATV) or 4-wheeler use will 

continue to grow in popularity (300­

400% over the next 5 years). 

10,500 acres in the Sand Dunes 

ORV open area would remain open 

as an off-road vehicle play area. 

Existing health and safety issues 

between vehicles and oil and gas 

facilities in the Sand Dunes would 

continue. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 80% of the planning area would 

remain available for off-road 

vehicle use. ORV use in the 

Greater Sand Dunes open area 

would be limited to 5,500 acres 

because of increased oil and gas 

production. Safety concerns would 

be reduced because there would be 

fewer hazards in the reduced open 

area. Reducing the ORV open 

acreage in the planning area would 

be an adverse impact to ORV 

users. Removing the 16,000-acre 

Steamboat Mountain seasonal 

closure would benefit some ORV 

enthusiasts. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES 

(continued) 

ORV use would be more restricted 

by limiting winter access to 

identified roads and accessing areas 

off identified roads by over-thesnow vehicles only. 

ORV use would be somewhat less 

restricted than for the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES 

(Cumulative) 

Long-term beneficial effects would 

result from the large number of 

existing roads and trails available 

for vehicle use, and from newly 

constructed roads anticipated with 

additional development which 

would provide access to new areas. 

The areas closed or limited to designated roads and trails are small in 

comparison. 

Long-term beneficial effects would 

result from the large amount of 

area available to off-road vehicle 

use. The off-road vehicle user enjoys few restrictions on vehicle 

use. 

Long-term beneficial effects would 

be similar to the Preferred 

Alternative. There would be 

additional ORV opportunities over 

Alternative A in areas with the 

increased access development. 

However, the ORV open area 

would be reduced in size, 

restricting some ORV use. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

422 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

RECREATION Because of increasing demand for 

recreation opportunities, visitor use 

in the planning area would continue 

to grow. Non-consumptive 

recreation days are projected to 

increase by 2% per year during the 

planning period. About 1.18 

million resident and nonresident 

non-consumptive recreation days 

would be used in the 20-year live of 

the project. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Non-consumptive recreation days 

were projected to increase by 1% 

per year during the planning 

period. About 1.07 million 

resident and nonresident nonconsumptive recreation days would 

be used in the 20-year life of the 

project. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

As developments occur and 

recreation pressure increases, 

opportunities for unconfined and 

solitary recreation experiences 

would diminish and the “quality” of 

recreation would be affected. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Increased development would 

affect recreation more than the 

other alternatives. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

RECREATION 

(Cumulative) 

Recreation demand and uses could 

increase to a point where conflicts 

would occur to unconfined 

dispersed recreation opportunities. 

However, management 

prescriptions would mitigate these 

impacts somewhat, to lessen the 

effects identified in Alternative A. 

It is anticipated that as developments occur, populations increase, 

and other traditional recreation use 

areas become saturated, more demands would continue to be placed 

on recreation sites and facilities in 

the planning area. 

More impacts would occur to 

recreation users than for No Action 

Alternative. The settings available 

for dispersed recreation 

opportunities would be further 

diminished over a larger area by 

increased development activity, 

vehicular travel and access into 

previously undeveloped areas. 

This would create lost opportunities for unconfined recreation experiences for some recreation users. 

Impacts would be lessened from 

Alternative A as more areas would 

remain unmodified, providing 

areas for dispersed recreation 

opportunities. 

423 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

Some hunting opportunities may 

diminish for the general public in 

areas where development occurs 

due to the displacement of animals 

and because of measures applied to 

protect public health and safety. 

The ability of some pristine habitat 

areas to support wildlife may also 

be diminished due to increased 

recreation uses and access into these 

areas. 

Some hunting opportunities may 

diminish for the general public but 

these would be less than the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as the No Action 

Alternative. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

("Cumulative economic 

output" includes direct, 

indirect, and induced economic values) 

Mineral development and 

exploration (oil, gas, and coalbed 

methane), recreation related 

businesses (travel, tourism, and 

hunting) and agricultural livestock 

would remain the area’s major 

economic activities. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

424 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

Oil and Gas 

65 oil and gas wells and 20 coalbed 

methane wells would be drilled over 

the 20-year period of 1998 to 2017. 

Almost 116 thousand barrels of oil 

and 83,669.4 MMCF of natural gas 

would be produced. The total 

economic impact for drilling and 

production would be approximately 

$242 million. Employment 

produced by the oil and gas activity 

over the life of the project would be 

734 annual job equivalents with a 

total earnings of about $22.5 

million. 

64 oil and gas wells and 25 

coalbed methane wells would be 

drilled over the 20-year period of 

1998 to 2017. Almost 116 

thousand barrels of oil and 84,177 

MMCF of natural gas would be 

produced. The total economic 

impact for drilling and production 

would be approximately $246 

million. Employment produced by 

the oil and gas activity over the 

life of the project would be 711 

annual job equivalents with a total 

earnings of about $23 million. 

100 oil and gas wells and 25 

coalbed methane wells would be 

drilled over the 20-year period of 

1998 to 2017. Almost 138 

thousand barrels of oil and 

99,489.6 MMCF of natural gas 

would be produced. The total 

economic impact for drilling and 

production would be 

approximately $303.5 million. 

Employment produced by the oil 

and gas activity over the life of the 

project would be 915 annual job 

equivalents with a total earnings of 

about $29 million. 

45 oil and gas wells and 20 

coalbed methane wells would be 

drilled over the 20-year period of 

1998 to 2017. Approximately 104 

thousand barrels of oil and 

75,534.2 MMCF of natural gas 

would be produced. The total 

economic impact for drilling and 

production would be 

approximately $212 million. 

Employment produced by the oil 

and gas activity over the life of the 

project would be 587 annual job 

equivalents with a total earnings of 

about $19 million. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

Livestock Grazing 

316,280 cattle AUMs and 42,540 

sheep AUMs would be available for 

livestock grazing during the 20-year 

life of the project. The total 

economic impact of livestock 

grazing would be $22.3 million. 

Employment in the livestock sector 

would be 252 annual job 

equivalents earning $16,353 

average per year. 

347,580 cattle AUMs and 43,120 

sheep AUMs would be available 

for livestock grazing during the 20­

year life of the project. The total 

economic impact of livestock 

grazing would be $24.4 million. 

Employment in the livestock sector 

would be 274 annual job 

equivalents earning $16,373 

average per year. 

455,340 cattle AUMs and 65,300 

sheep AUMs would be available 

for livestock grazing during the 20­

year life of the project. The total 

economic impact of livestock 

grazing would be $32.3 million. 

Employment in the livestock sector 

would be 365 annual job 

equivalents earning $16,337 

average per year. 

177,220 cattle AUMs and 19,800 

sheep AUMs would be available 

for livestock grazing during the 

20-year life of the project. The 

total economic impact of livestock 

grazing would be $12.4 million. 

Employment in the livestock 

sector would be 139 annual job 

equivalents earning $16,396 

average per year. 

425 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

Recreation 

Non-consumptive recreation days 

were projected to increase by two 

percent per year during the planning 

period. 1.18 million resident and 

nonresident non-consumptive 

recreation days would be used in the 

20-year life of the project. The total 

economic impact of the nonconsumptive nonresident recreation 

days would be $62.7 million. 

19,070 nonresident hunting days 

(elk, deer, and antelope) with a total 

economic impact of $6 million 

would be realized over the life of 

the project. Employment in the 

recreation sector would be 875 

annual job equivalents earning 

approximately $12,521 average per 

year. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Non-consumptive recreation days 

were projected to increase by one 

percent per year during the 

planning period. The growth rate 

is lower under this alternative due 

to potential impacts from 

development that could impact 

open spaces and opportunities for 

solitude. 1.07 million resident and 

nonresident non-consumptive 

recreation days would be used in 

the 20-year life of the project. The 

total economic impact of the nonconsumptive nonresident 

recreation days would be $56.8 

million. 19,070 nonresident 

hunting days (elk, deer, and 

antelope) with a total economic 

impact of $6 million would be 

realized over the life of the project. 

Employment in the recreation 

sector would be 798 annual job 

equivalents earning approximately 

$12,521 average per year. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

426 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

(Cumulative) 

The Preferred Alternative is 

basically comparable to the No 

Action Alternative and represents a 

midpoint between Alternative A and 

Alternative B. Direct impacts, total 

impacts, total earnings, total 

employment, local government 

revenue, and resident recreation 

benefits are all 99 to 100 percent of 

the No Action Alternative. 

The total economic impact for all 

economic sectors (oil and gas, 

recreation, and livestock grazing) 

over the 20-year life of the project 

is $333.6 million. The total 

employment or annual job 

equivalents is 1,860.2 with total 

earnings of $37.7 million. 

Revenues to local governments is 

approximately $10.9 million. 

The total economic impact for all 

economic sectors (oil and gas, 

recreation, and livestock grazing) 

over the 20-year life of the project 

is $338.9 million. The total 

employment or annual job 

equivalents is 1,860.1 with total 

earnings of $38.4 million. 

Revenues to local governments is 

approximately $11 million. 

Due to the increased emphasis on 

production, Alternative A 

generates the most economic 

activity in southwest Wyoming of 

all the alternatives in the long 

term. Under Alternative A, direct 

and total economic impacts are 18 

percent higher than the No Action 

Alternative. Total labor earnings 

are 17 percent higher than the No 

Action Alternative. Total 

employment is 12 percent higher 

than the No Action Alternative. 

Revenues to local governments are 

16 percent higher than the No 

Action Alternative. Because there 

is less emphasis on protection of 

resources, Alternative A generates 

the least resident recreation 

benefits of all alternatives with 7 

percent less net economic benefits 

than the No Action Alternative. 

The total economic impact for all 

economic sectors (oil and gas, 

recreation, and livestock grazing) 

over the 20-year life of the project 

is $398.8 million. The total 

employment or annual job 

equivalents is 2,078 with total 

earnings of $45.1 million. 

Revenues to local governments is 

approximately $12.8 million. 

Due to the increased emphasis on 

protection, Alternative B generates 

the least economic activity in 

southwest Wyoming of all 

alternatives. Under Alternative B, 

direct and total economic impacts 

are about 13 percent lower than 

the No Action Alternative and 26 

percent lower than Alternative A. 

Total employment is 14 percent 

lower than the No Action 

Alternative and 23 percent lower 

than Alternative A. Revenues to 

local government are 12 percent 

lower than the No Action 

Alternative and 24 percent lower 

than Alternative A. Resident 

recreation benefits under 

Alternative B are the same as the 

No Action Alternative. Because 

there is more emphasis on 

protection, Alternative B generates 

8 percent more resident recreation 

benefits than Alternative A. 

The total economic impact for all 

economic sectors (oil and gas, 

recreation, and livestock grazing) 

over the 20-year life of the project 

is $292.6 million. The total 

employment or annual job 

equivalents is 1,600.5 with total 

earnings of $32.5 million. 

Revenues to local governments is 

427 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

SPECIAL STATUS 

PLANT SPECIES 

MANAGEMENT 

Given standard BLM mitigation 

measures (avoidance), actions 

related to Air Quality Management, 

Cultural Resource Management, 

Fire, Hazardous Materials, Coal 

Exploration, Sodium Leasing, 

Leasable Minerals, Mineral 

Materials, Geophysical Activities, 

Reclamation and Monitoring, 

Recreation Management, 

Riparian/Wetlands, Special 

Management Areas, 

Vegetation/Woodlands/Weeds, 

Visual Resource Management, 

Watershed/Water Quality 

Management, Wild Horses, and 

Wildlife would have little, no, or 

slightly beneficial impacts on 

Special Status Plant Species 

resources. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Generally, actions taken under 

Alternative A are slightly less 

beneficial to special status plant 

species than the other alternatives. 

Generally, actions taken under 

Alternative B are slightly more 

beneficial to special status plant 

species than the other alternatives. 

Increased activity could cause 

unintentional plant removal and 

habitat alteration. Chemical control 

of weeds along rights-of-way could 

cause significant loss of plant 

populations if their habitat is on or 

adjacent to the right-of-way. 

Chemical control of weeds along 

rights-of-way could cause 

significant loss of plant 

populations if their habitat is on or 

adjacent to the right-of-way. 

Same as No Action Alternative and 

increased activity could cause 

unintentional plant removal and 

habitat alteration to a greater 

extent than the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

428 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

SPECIAL STATUS 

PLANT SPECIES 

MANAGEMENT 

(continued) 

Activities related to livestock 

grazing such as assessing Standards 

and applying Guidelines, limiting 

upland utilization levels, and 

developing grazing plans would 

benefit special status plant species. 

Management prescriptions for 

salting, conversions, and changing 

seasons of use would reduce adverse 

effects over the No Action 

Alternative. 

Activities related to livestock 

grazing such as salting or 

providing concentration areas, 

chemical control of noxious weeds, 

changing numbers of AUMs, 

conversions from sheep to cattle, 

and changing seasons of use could 

cause significant loss of plant 

populations. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

There would be more potential 

impacts to special status plant 

species under this alternative than 

Alternative B, but fewer impacts 

than No Action or Alternative A. 

Special status plant locations 

would be managed for No Surface 

Occupancy for surface disturbing 

activities, providing protection for 

the plants and their habitat. 

Same as the No Action 

Alternative. Additionally, 

increased surface disturbing 

activity could negatively impact 

large-fruited bladderpod habitat. 

Controlling noxious weeds spread 

by increased activity could 

negatively impact special status 

plant communities. 

There would be fewer impacts to 

special status plant communities 

under Alternative B because less 

surface disturbing activity would 

occur. 

Withdrawals would benefit special 

status plants communities. This 

alternative would provide more 

protection from mining claims for 

special status plant communities 

than No Action or Alternative A, 

but less than Alternative B. 

Mining claim development could 

cause significant loss of plant 

populations if their habitat is on or 

adjacent to the claims. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as No Action Alternative; 

however, additional withdrawals 

would protect more area from 

potential mining claim activity. 

429 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

SPECIAL STATUS 

PLANT SPECIES 

MANAGEMENT 

(continued) 

Transportation planning would 

benefit special status plant 

communities and fewer stream 

crossings would benefit special 

status plant habitat. Rehabilitation 

of unused roads and trails would 

reduce vehicular access in sensitive 

habitat. 

Transportation planning would 

benefit special status plant 

communities. Some loss of special 

status plant habitat could occur 

from vehicle access. 

Same as No Action Alternative and 

the number of stream crossings 

could increase thereby impacting 

habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

SPECIAL STATUS 

PLANT SPECIES 

MANAGEMENT 

(Core) 

More activity would occur than 

under the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative B, but less than in 

Alternative A. Conducting searches 

for plant species and applying 

protective measures would prevent 

adverse effects. 

No surface disturbing activity 

would occur in the core area, 

providing the least potential 

impact to special status plant 

species. 

The most activity would occur in 

this alternative, providing the 

greatest potential for impact. 

Searches for plant species and 

protective measures would help 

mitigate this impact. 

Same as No Action Alternative. 

SPECIAL STATUS 

PLANT SPECIES 

MANAGEMENT 

(Cumulative) 

Development activities, such as 

those associated with recreation 

sites and minerals actions, could 

have an impact on Special Status 

Plant species in areas where several 

different resource concerns may 

limit options for placement of 

development facilities. However, 

increased inventory for these 

species in areas projected for development could provide more information about rare plant species and 

their status. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

430 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

SPECIAL STATUS 

PLANT SPECIES 

MANAGEMENT 

(Cumulative) 

(continued) 

Grandfathered mining claims and 

unauthorized uses could impact 

these species through unavoidable 

surface disturbance. However, impacts from future mineral location 

activities would be minimal. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

VEGETATION/ 

WOODLANDS/WEEDS 

Given standard BLM mitigation 

measures, actions related to Air 

Quality Management, Cultural 

Resource Management, Hazardous 

Materials, Leasable Minerals 

(geothermal), Geophysical 

Activities, Monitoring, 

Reclamation, Special Status Species 

Management, Visual Resource 

Management, Woodlands, 

Watershed/Water Quality 

Management, and Wildlife 

Management would have little, no, 

or slightly beneficial impacts on 

Vegetation. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Generally, actions taken under 

Alternative A are slightly less 

beneficial to vegetation than the 

other alternatives. 

Generally, actions taken under 

Alternative B are slightly more 

beneficial to vegetation than the 

other alternatives. 

Prescribed burning and wildfires 

would cause long-term decrease in 

sagebrush species, a short-term 

increase in annual weeds, and longterm increase in grasses. Two or 

three years after a fire, total forage 

production increases. Surface 

disturbance from fire suppression 

activities can damage vegetation. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

431 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

VEGETATION/ 

WOODLANDS/WEEDS 

(continued) 

Rights-of-way for pipelines, access 

roads, and utility lines would cause 

short-term decreases in vegetation, 

but reestablishment of desirable 

grasses and forbs would occur 3 to 5 

years after reclamation. Big 

sagebrush/scurfpea communities 

would be avoided. 

Same as Preferred Alternative 

except big sagebrush/scurfpea 

communities could be impacted. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Direct impacts to vegetation would 

decrease with decreased livestock 

use. Less intensive grazing would 

promote healthier and more diverse 

plant communities. Vegetation 

would benefit from actively 

managed grazing turnout dates. 

Direct impacts to vegetation would 

increase with increased livestock 

use, although implementing 

standards and guidelines would 

mitigate the impacts somewhat. 

Continuing season-long cattle use 

would have negative impacts on 

grasses. Localized overuse could 

result in less desirable plant 

species establishing. Establishing 

new grazing management plans 

with riparian objectives and 

desired plant communities would 

benefit vegetation. 

Same as No Action Alternative and 

active AUMs would increase to 

full permitted use of 26,032 per 

year, which could increase impacts 

to vegetation. 

Same as Preferred Alternative but 

with decreased livestock use. 

432 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

VEGETATION/ 

WOODLANDS/WEEDS 

(continued) 

Up to 85 oil, gas, and coalbed 

methane wells would be drilled. 

Constructing drill pads, roads, 

pipelines, etc., associated with oil 

and gas operations would remove 

vegetation on about 2,240 acres in 

the long term. After reclamation, 

the net loss of vegetation would be 

about 365 acres. 

Up to 89 oil, gas, and coalbed 

methane wells would be drilled. 

Constructing drill pads, roads, 

pipelines, etc., associated with oil 

and gas operations would remove 

vegetation on about 2,285 acres in 

the long term. After reclamation, 

the net loss of vegetation would be 

about 381 acres. Disturbance to 

big sagebrush/scurfpea 

communities could result in longterm loss. 

Up to 125 oil, gas, and coalbed 

methane wells would be drilled. 

Constructing drill pads, roads, 

pipelines, etc., associated with oil 

and gas operations would remove 

vegetation on about 2,650 acres in 

the long term. After reclamation, 

the net loss of vegetation would be 

about 525 acres. Disturbance to 

big sagebrush/scurfpea 

communities could result in longterm loss. 

Up to 65 oil, gas, and coalbed 

methane wells would be drilled. 

Constructing drill pads, roads, 

pipelines, etc., associated with oil 

and gas operations would remove 

vegetation on about 2,040 acres in 

the long term. After reclamation, 

the net loss of vegetation would be 

about 289 acres. 

Coal exploration activities would 

avoid sensitive plant communities, 

such as big sagebrush/scurfpea 

communities, and those 

communities would be closed to 

sodium exploration and mineral 

material sales (gravel pit, etc.). 

Disturbance to big 

sagebrush/scurfpea communities 

from coal or sodium exploration or 

mineral materials sales could result 

in long-term loss. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Sensitive plant communities, such 

as big sagebrush/scurfpea 

communities, would be protected by 

additional mineral withdrawals, 

though there would be fewer 

withdrawals than Alternative B. 

Disturbance to big 

sagebrush/scurfpea communities 

from mining claim activities could 

result in long-term loss as mineral 

withdrawals would not be pursued. 

Location of mining claims on 

Steamboat Mountain could result 

in vegetation loss. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Sensitive plant communities would 

be protected by additional mineral 

withdrawals. 

All vegetation classifications can be 

damaged and eventually destroyed 

by repeated off-road vehicle use. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

433 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

VEGETATION/ 

WOODLANDS/WEEDS 

(continued) 

Retaining the seasonal road closure 

would benefit important sagebrush 

communities. Higher activity rates 

could lead to increased weed 

invasions resulting in vegetation 

loss. Recreation facilities 

construction would remove 

vegetation. Concentrated recreation 

use could damage vegetation. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Removing the seasonal road 

closure could result in long-term 

loss of important sagebrush 

communities due to increased 

ORV use and driving in wet, 

muddy conditions. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Surface disturbance activities from 

all actions would affect about 2,500 

acres in the long term resulting in 

loss of vegetation on about 600 

acres after reclamation. Weed 

invasions would increase due to 

surface disturbing activities, but 

would be less than the No Action 

Alternative. 

Surface disturbance activities from 

all actions would affect about 

2,500 acres in the long term 

resulting in loss of vegetation on 

about 600 acres after reclamation. 

Weed invasions would increase 

due to surface disturbing activities. 

Surface disturbance activities from 

all actions would affect about 

2,900 acres in the long term 

resulting in loss of vegetation on 

about 750 acres after reclamation. 

Weed invasions would increase 

due to surface disturbing activities. 

Surface disturbance activities from 

all actions would affect about 

2,300 acres in the long term 

resulting in loss of vegetation on 

about 500 acres after reclamation. 

Weed invasions would increase 

due to surface disturbing activities, 

but would be less than the No 

Action Alternative. 

Transportation planning would 

benefit vegetation by avoiding 

riparian areas and sensitive plant 

communities. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Minimal transportation planning 

would be done. Benefits to 

vegetation would be less than the 

other alternatives and there would 

be more use and disturbance in 

riparian areas. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Continued concentration of wild 

horses near water sources could 

severely damage vegetation in 

localized areas. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

434 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

VEGETATION/ 

WOODLANDS/WEEDS 

(continued) 

Given standard BLM mitigation 

measures, actions related to Air 

Quality Management, Cultural 

Resource Management, Hazardous 

Materials, Vegetation and Weed 

Management, Visual Resource 

Management, Watershed/Water 

Quality Management, Wild Horses, 

and Wildlife/Fisheries Management 

would have little, no, or slightly 

beneficial impacts on 

riparian/wetlands resources. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Generally, actions taken under 

Alternative A are slightly less 

beneficial to riparian/wetland 

resources than the other 

alternatives. 

Generally, actions taken under 

Alternative B are slightly more 

beneficial to riparian/wetland 

resources than the other 

alternatives. 

Prescribed fire activity would have 

short-term negative impacts to 

water quality due to sedimentation 

and erosion, but would have longterm benefits to watersheds and 

riparian areas through increased 

plant health and diversity. Wildfire 

would have more negative impacts 

to watersheds and streams than 

prescribed fire. There would be 

more full suppression areas under 

this alternative than the No Action 

or Alternative A. 

Same as Preferred Alternative but 

with fewer full suppression areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

435 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

VEGETATION/ 

WOODLANDS/WEEDS 

(continued) 

Rights-of-way corridors and 

avoidance areas would be identified 

to minimize impacts to riparian 

areas. Fewer areas would be 

identified for mineral withdrawal 

than Alternative B. 

Lands and realty actions for linear 

activities (pipelines, roads, etc) can 

negatively impact riparian areas in 

the short term after mitigation. 

Mineral withdrawals can protect 

riparian areas from disturbance. 

Lack of rights-of-way avoidance 

areas would impact sensitive 

resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Rights-of-way corridors and 

avoidance areas would be 

identified to minimize impacts to 

riparian areas. Additional areas 

identified for mineral withdrawal 

would benefit riparian areas by 

protecting them from disturbance. 

Keeping active AUMs at the 9,851 

five-year average level and 

implementing Standards and 

Guidelines would recover degraded 

riparian areas and improve water 

quality. 

If season-long grazing use 

continues, riparian areas would 

remain static and not move 

towards Proper Functioning 

Condition. Even with utilization 

levels not exceeding 50% and no 

change in active AUMs, riparian 

areas might not improve. 

Implementing Standards and 

Guidelines and setting Desired 

Plant Community objectives would 

improve riparian health. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

except active AUMs would 

increase making appropriate 

actions taken to improve riparian 

areas insufficient. Intensive 

management would be needed to 

meet riparian objectives. 

Same as Preferred Alternative but 

aggressive action for Standards 

and Guidelines and Desired Plant 

Communities would bring riparian 

health to Proper Functioning 

Condition within shorter time 

frames. 

Most actions associated with 

mineral development have adequate 

mitigation measures to prevent 

damage to riparian areas. 

Prospecting in the Oregon Gulch 

could increase erosion. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative and 

unrestricted crossings of riparian 

areas and streams could increase 

erosion and sedimentation. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

436 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

VEGETATION/ 

WOODLANDS/WEEDS 

(continued) 

Proper ORV use has no impact on 

riparian areas; however, ORV use 

causes significant damage to 

wetlands and riparian areas when 

operated outside of management 

prescriptions. If predicted increases 

in ORV sales occur, negative 

impacts could also increase. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Camping and recreation in riparian 

areas and wetlands can have 

negative impacts. Enforcement of 

the 200-foot buffer zone protects 

riparian areas. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

VEGETATION/ 

WOODLANDS/WEEDS 

(Core) 

Fewer surface disturbing activities 

in the core area would reduce shortand long-term impacts to 

vegetation. 

No surface disturbing activities in 

the core area would prevent shortand long-term impacts to 

vegetation. 

Surface disturbing activities in the 

core area could have both shortand long-term impacts to 

vegetation. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

VEGETATION/ 

WOODLANDS/WEEDS 

(Cumulative) 

Vegetation and habitat quality 

would improve in some areas; 

however, more surface disturbance 

from development, recreational, and 

ORV activities could occur. Effects 

could become more severe when 

high intensity development occurs 

over broader areas. One result 

could be a reduction in forage 

availability and, consequently, 

livestock and wildlife use. 

However, an evaluation would be 

conducted of rates and levels of 

development and reclamation to 

determine if further activities, such 

Development activities, such as 

those associated with recreation 

sites and minerals actions, and use 

authorizations such as livestock 

grazing, could affect vegetation 

quality, diversity, density, and 

general health; however, no 

activity in the core area, reclamation prescriptions and livestock 

management practices would reduce this effect. Weeds would 

increase and in some places, and 

impacts would be considered long 

term due to the difficulty of 

eradicating established weed 

Impacts would be greater than 

those described under No Action 

as more acreage would be disturbed. The cumulative effect of 

surface disturbing activities, developments and use authorizations 

would increase effects to 

vegetation communities. Removal 

of the seasonal road closure could 

result in both short- and long-term 

loss of unique and important big 

sagebrush communities due to 

increased vehicle use and 

destruction of vegetation, 

especially when roads are 

The most beneficial impacts to 

vegetation communities in riparian 

areas and wetlands would occur 

under this alternative. 

Management actions limiting 

surface disturbance and providing 

for less intensive grazing of 

riparian areas would benefit 

riparian plant communities. Less 

intensive grazing would promote 

healthier, more biologically 

diverse native plant communities. 

Implementation of more restrictive 

riparian utilization standards 

would directly benefit willows, 

437 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

as leasing of areas, would be 

allowed and still meet stated 

management objectives. The 

evaluation would assess exploration 

and development activity and its 

effects on elk, habitat use (potential 

fragmentation), effects on wildlife 

species and habitat, and other 

sensitive resources. This would 

benefit these resources. Habitat 

degradation and deterioration of 

healthy native plant communities 

that promotes noxious weed 

invasions would be minimal. 

Desired Plant Community 

objectives would be established to 

enhance wildlife habitat, watershed, 

and biodiversity values. Livestock 

grazing systems would be designed 

to achieve desired plant 

communities. These actions would 

have a long-term positive impact on 

uplands and riparian areas. 

infestations. Surface disturbing 

activities in the stabilized dune 

areas would cause an increase in 

blowout areas, and long-term loss 

of vegetation. Disturbance of the 

unique big sagebrush/lemon 

scurfpea plant community on the 

stabilized dunes would likely result 

in the long-term loss of this unique 

vegetation type. 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 

become available. Establishment 

of these objectives would have a 

positive long-term impact to plant 

community biological diversity 

and health. 

impassable due to wet muddy 

conditions. A long-term loss of 

native vegetation due to weed 

invasions would be expected to 

increase with the higher rate of 

activity in the area, especially with 

unauthorized use of ORVs through 

previously undisturbed areas. Not 

limiting access through riparian 

areas or sensitive plant 

communities would cause 

irreversible damage to vegetation, 

by direct removal, habitat 

degradation and deterioration of 

healthy native plant communities 

that promotes noxious weed 

invasions. In addition, woodland 

habitat would be open to road 

construction which would have 

direct negative impacts to aspen 

and associated woodland species 

and their habitat. 

grasses, and sedges by maintaining 

plant vigor, community structure, 

and diversity. The quickest 

progress toward riparian health 

and Desired Plant Communities 

would be achieved. Minimal 

development would occur in the 

big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea 

communities and long-term 

beneficial effects would occur. 

Transportation planning would 

benefit sensitive vegetation 

resources, such as riparian areas, 

mountain shrubs, and big 

sagebrush/scurfpea and cushion 

plant communities, by channeling 

access to certain areas, allowing 

other areas to remain undisturbed 

or to revegetate. In addition, 

seasonal road closures and 

limitations on riparian area 

crossings would reduce impacts to 

vegetation. 

438 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

VISUAL RESOURCES Allowing communication sites 

would cause potential visual 

impacts on Essex Mountain and 

Pacific Butte. The Red Desert 

Watershed would remain a VRM 

Class III area. Avoiding unsuitable 

areas for rights-of-way would 

protect visual resources. Visual 

values for National Historic Trails 

and the South Pass Historic 

Landscape would be protected. Not 

allowing surface mining and surface 

occupancy around the Boars Tusk 

and Steamboat Mountain-Killpecker 

Dune Fields would retain and 

enhance visual resources. 

No additional development in the 

core would maintain current VRM 

classes in the Greater Sand Dunes 

and Steamboat Mountain ACECs. 

Visual values for National Historic 

Trails and the South Pass Historic 

Landscape would be protected. 

Not allowing surface mining and 

surface occupancy around the 

Boars Tusk and Steamboat 

Mountain-Killpecker Dune Fields 

would retain and enhance visual 

resources. 

Visual values on Steamboat 

Mountain and Pacific Butte would 

be impacted by communication 

sites. VRM Class III lands in Eden 

Valley would be downgraded to 

Class IV. Visual values for 

National Historic Trails and the 

South Pass Historic Landscape 

would be protected. 

Not allowing communications 

sites on Steamboat Mountain, 

Essex Mountain, and Pacific Butte 

would maintain visual values. 

Increasing VRM Class II lands on 

Steamboat Mountain would 

benefit visual values, Native 

American respected places, and 

protect soil and plants. Upgrading 

the Red Desert Watershed Area 

from Class III to Class II would 

enhance visual values. Visual 

values for National Historic Trails 

and the South Pass Historic 

Landscape would be protected. 

Not allowing surface mining and 

surface occupancy around the 

Boars Tusk and Steamboat 

Mountain-Killpecker Dune Fields 

would retain and enhance visual 

resources. 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

(Cumulative) 

No additional effects would occur. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

WATERSHED/WATER 

QUALITY 

More benefits than for Alternative 

A would occur to watershed 

resources from management 

prescriptions for mitigation measures and particularly no surface 

occupancy restrictions and right-ofway avoidance/ 

exclusion areas preventing disruption of soil and watershed values. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Generally, actions taken under 

Alternative A are slightly less 

beneficial to watersheds than the 

other alternatives. 

Generally, actions taken under 

Alternative B are slightly more 

beneficial to watersheds than the 

other alternatives. 

439 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WATERSHED/WATER 

QUALITY 

(continued) 

Prescribed fire activity would have 

short-term negative impacts to 

water quality due to sedimentation 

and erosion, but would have longterm benefits to watersheds and 

riparian areas through increased 

plant health and diversity. Wildfire 

would have more negative impacts 

to watersheds and streams than 

prescribed fire. There would be 

more full suppression areas under 

this alternative than the No Action 

Alternative or Alternative A. 

Same as Preferred Alternative but 

with fewer full suppression areas. 

Full suppression would not take 

place in as many areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Achieving proper functioning 

condition on streams and riparian 

areas would greatly benefit 

watershed and soil resources. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Achieving proper functioning condition on riparian areas over a 

longer period would benefit 

watershed and soils less than the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Achieving proper functioning 

condition on riparian areas in a 

shorter time frame would benefit 

watershed and soils more than the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Hazardous materials are generally 

confined to areas such as drilling 

sites and transportation systems. 

Soil contamination can occur from 

drilling fluids and chemicals. These 

effects should be minor due to 

applied mitigation measures. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative; 

however, this alternative has the 

greatest activity and therefore the 

greatest anticipated potential for 

problems involving hazardous 

material. 

Same as Preferred Alternative and 

has the least activity and therefore 

the lowest potential for problems 

involving hazardous materials. 

440 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WATERSHED/WATER 

QUALITY 

(continued) 

Closing areas to potential 

communication sites and limiting 

rights-of-way to existing 

disturbances would concentrate 

activity and decrease overall 

disturbance but might create a 

greater level of disturbance for an 

individual project. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. More communication sites and 

rights-of-way are proposed under 

this alternative than the others 

which would result in more surface 

disturbance over a wider area and 

potential water quality 

degradation. 

Similar to Preferred Alternative as 

location of communication sites 

and transportation corridors would 

be limited. 

Livestock grazing has a major Similar to Preferred Alternative. Increased grazing use, winter road This alternative provides the most 

influence on land and stream plowing, extended grazing seasons, positive effects and potential for 

conditions and thus erosion and and managing riparian areas for achieving water quality goals. 

water quality. Assessing Standards grazing would conflict with 

and implementing appropriate watershed goals. Negative impacts 

Guidelines benefits watersheds and to watersheds would be the 

helps achieve water quality goals. greatest under this alternative. 

More development activity and Similar to Preferred Alternative, This alternative has the most This alternative has the least 

resulting surface disturbance could except that an unleased corridor potential development activity and potential development activity and 

impact water quality. Standard would not be established. therefore the greatest potential for therefore the least potential for 

mitigation measures would offset water quality degradation. water quality degradation. 

the level of disturbance. Creating 

an unleased corridor could reduce 

water quality impacts by reducing 

development activity on steep areas. 

Disposal methods of water obtained Higher levels of potential coalbed Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

from coalbed methane operations is methane development activities 

a concern and would be addressed would have higher potential to 

on a case-by-case basis. Standard impact watershed values. 

mitigation measures for surface 

disturbance associated with coalbed 

methane operations would offset the 

level of disturbance and protect 

watershed values. 

441 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WATERSHED/WATER 

QUALITY 

(continued) 

Maintaining seasonal road closures 

for existing roads and seasonal 

closures for new roads would 

mitigate erosion impacts. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Reducing seasonal road closures 

would increase erosion potential 

by allowing traffic on roads during 

a time when soils are vulnerable to 

erosion. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Transportation planning benefits 

watersheds by effectively managing 

road networks thereby reducing 

erosion. Planning other linear 

facilities in conjunction with roads 

increases benefits. 

By not using effective 

transportation planning, there is a 

greater potential for erosion. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Oil and gas drilling, completion, 

and plugging operations, and water 

well plugging could impact 

groundwater resources. Adhering to 

BLM and Wyoming DEQ 

guidelines for protecting 

groundwater quality would make 

impacts unlikely. Likewise, 

cleaning up spills and following 

guidelines for evaporation ponds 

and fluid pits would prevent 

groundwater impacts. 

Same as Preferred Alternative with 

more potential for impacts as much 

of the planning area is open to new 

oil and gas development with 

fewer restrictions than the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Alternative B has the lowest level 

of projected oil and gas activity 

and therefore the lowest potential 

for impacting groundwater and 

surface water resources. 

442 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WATERSHED/WATER 

QUALITY 

(continued) 

Coalbed methane development 

involves dewatering the coalbed to 

stimulate gas production. 

Dewatering aquifers would be a 

direct impact that would last until 

methane production ceased and the 

aquifer is recharged. Water wells 

and surface waters connected to the 

affected aquifer could be affected 

by water table drawdown. 

Hydrological investigations to 

determine the extent of impacts 

would be required of proponents 

before development is allowed. 

Appropriate mitigation would be 

applied to protect water quality and 

quantity. 

Same as Preferred Alternative with 

more potential for impacts as much 

of the planning area is open to new 

coalbed methane development 

with fewer restrictions than the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Alternative B has the lowest level 

of projected coalbed methane 

activity and therefore the lowest 

related potential for impacting 

groundwater and surface water 

resources. 

WATERSHED/WATER 

QUALITY 

(Core) 

The potential for water quality 

degradation would be closely 

related to the level of disturbance 

that would occur under each 

alternative. The potential for this 

alternative would be somewhere 

between the No Acton Alternative 

and Alternative B. 

The potential level of disturbance 

under this alternative would be 

moderate overall. However, 

because of the areas that would be 

closed to surface disturbing 

activities, there is a potential for 

areas of concentrated disturbance 

outside the core area. 

The greatest amount of surface 

disturbance would be allowed 

under this alternative and therefor 

it has the highest potential for 

water quality degradation of all the 

alternatives. 

Although the level of activity 

proposed under this alternative is 

slightly greater than that proposed 

under the No Action Alternative, it 

would have a greater distribution 

over the landscape, which would 

lower the potential for water 

quality degradation. 

443 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WATERSHED/WATER 

QUALITY 

(Core) 

(continued) 

New oil and gas leases would not be 

issued within the Greater Sand 

Dunes ACEC; however, existing 

leases could be developed. Portions 

of the remaining core area and the 

connectivity area would be open to 

new oil and gas leases. Existing 

leases within those areas could be 

developed as well. See general 

discussion of impacts under the 

Preferred Alternative. 

No new oil and gas development 

would occur within the core area. 

Therefore, no impacts from new 

development would occur. 

Accidental spills from existing 

facilities would be cleaned up 

under existing guidelines. 

The core area, connectivity area, 

and Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

would be open to development of 

existing oil and gas leases and new 

leases. See general discussion of 

impacts under the No Action 

Alternative. Alternative A has the 

highest potential among all 

alternatives for impacting 

groundwater and possibly surface 

water resources in the core area. 

The core area and the connectivity 

area would not be open to issuing 

new oil and gas leases. Existing 

leases; however, would be 

developed. Projected development 

is greater than the No Action 

Alternative, but less than the 

Preferred Alternative or 

Alternative A. 

Coalbed methane development 

within the core area, especially on 

existing leases within the Greater 

Sand Dunes ACEC, could impact 

certain groundwater aquifers. See 

the general discussion of coalbed 

methane impacts under the 

Preferred Alternative. 

No new coalbed methane 

development would occur within 

the core area. 

The core area, connectivity area, 

and Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

would be open to development of 

coalbed methane leases. See the 

general discussion of impacts 

under the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative A has the highest 

potential among all alternatives for 

impacting groundwater and 

possibly surface water resources in 

the core area. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

It would be expected that 

riparian/wetland areas in the core 

area would recover quickly from 

degraded states or would achieve 

Desired Plant Communities in a 

timely manner because greater 

attention would be given to those 

resources. 

It would be expected that 

riparian/wetland areas in the core 

area would recover from degraded 

states or would achieve Desired 

Plant Communities in a timely 

manner. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

444 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WATERSHED/WATER 

QUALITY 

(Cumulative) 

Impacts would be less than 

described for Alternative A. This 

alternative would provide for 

reclamation of current and future 

surface disturbances. Constraints 

on surface disturbing activities on 

steep slopes would help maintain 

soil stability thereby reducing sediment load. Revoking withdrawals 

and allowing increased locatable 

mineral development has the 

potential of causing adverse effects 

on a local scale. 

The greater the degree of surface 

disturbance the greater the potential for adverse impacts to water 

quality. Soil productivity would 

continue to be disrupted in areas 

with surface disturbance, but with 

no new activity in the core area 

and proper management this would 

be temporary and short term. This 

principle applies to immediate and 

cumulative impacts. 

Alternative A would produce the 

greatest disturbance, and thus the 

greatest potential impact. 

Increased development of resources would cause a temporary increase in disturbed landscapes and 

consequently could increase soil 

loss and subsequent sedimentation. 

This alternative would provide for 

the greatest conservation of watershed resources due to a decline in 

surface disturbing activities and 

implementation of management 

prescriptions. 

With mitigation and proper management practices, increased sedimentation should be containable. Not 

leasing areas for mineral development, constraining road location 

and rights-of-way, and requiring 

designed road plans should reduce 

soil erosion. Application of guidelines from EPA's Stormwater Discharge policy would aid in maintaining landscape stability. 

Increased sedimentation could 

result from any activity which 

disturbs vegetation and causes soil 

compaction, such as road and pad 

construction, livestock trampling, 

and recreational use (especially 

off-road vehicle activity). 

Concomitant with loss of 

vegetative cover and soil loss is 

increased runoff from denuded 

surfaces which could de-stabilize 

drainages. Appropriate mitigation 

and project design during site specific analysis would minimize offsite sedimentation to a lesser extent than the Preferred Alternative. 

This alternative would produce the 

greatest amount of sediment. 

Long-term benefits should occur to 

soils resources as a result of 

mitigation measures and pro-active 

efforts to prevent long-term 

disruption of landscapes, 

decreasing sedimentation. 

445 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WILD HORSES Given standard BLM mitigation, 

actions related to Air Quality 

management, Cultural Resource 

management, Reclamation, 

Recreation, Special Status Species 

management, Surface Disturbance, 

Vegetation management, Visual 

Resource management, Watershed 

management, and Wildlife Habitat 

management would have little, no, 

or slightly beneficial impacts on 

wild horses. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Generally, actions taken under this 

alternative are slightly less 

beneficial to wild horses than the 

other alternatives. 

Generally, actions taken under this 

alternative are slightly more 

beneficial to wild horses than the 

other alternatives. 

Natural and prescribed fires have 

the potential to benefit wild horses 

by converting shrub communities to 

grass communities. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

The use of hazardous materials 

poses a threat to wild horses if they 

come into contact with them or 

consume contaminated forage or 

water. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Transportation planning for linear 

rights-of-way using existing roads 

and locating utility corridors to 

avoid critical habitat areas would 

mitigate impacts to wild horses 

from land and realty actions. 

Pipelines, utility corridors, and 

other linear rights-of-way have the 

potential to impact wild horses. 

Linear facilities and frequent 

human activity located adjacent to 

water sources can negatively 

impact wild horses. Impacts can 

be mitigated with transportation 

planning. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

446 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WILD HORSES 

(continued) 

New fencing in the Great Divide 

Wild Horse Herd Management Area 

could cause negative impacts to 

wild horses including riparian 

fencing which precludes access to 

water. Cattle conversions to sheep 

would benefit wild horses and sheep 

conversions to cattle would 

negatively impact wild horses. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Current seasons of livestock use 

would continue or be modified and 

no additional impact to wild horses 

would occur. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Early turnout of livestock and 

season-long use would negatively 

impact wild horses and their 

habitat. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Oil and gas developments inside the 

HMA could impact wild horses 

because of surface disturbance and 

human activity. Developments 

outside HMA would have no 

impact. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Locatable minerals withdrawals 

inside the HMA would benefit wild 

horses. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Fewer withdrawals could allow for 

increased activity which could 

impact wild horses by reducing 

habitat. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Retaining the seasonal Steamboat 

Mountain road closure would 

benefit wild horses. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Modifying the Steamboat 

Mountain seasonal closure 

allowing for increased human 

activity would negatively impact 

wild horses and their distribution 

during the period. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

447 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WILD HORSES 

(continued) 

The existing Great Divide Basin 

Wild Horse Herd Management Area 

boundary would be maintained. 

Horses residing outside the HMA 

would be removed. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Expanding the boundaries of the 

Great Divide Basin Wild Horse 

Herd Management Area to include 

the Jack Morrow Hills planning 

area would benefit existing horses 

by decreasing density and 

competition for forage and water. 

WILD HORSES 

(Core) 

A small portion of the Great Divide 

Basin Wild Horse Herd 

Management Area lies within the 

core area, and no impacts to wild 

horses are anticipated. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. The Great Divide Basin Wild 

Horse Herd Management Area 

boundary would be expanded to 

include the core area. 

Management actions would benefit 

wild horses and their habitat. 

WILD HORSES 

(Cumulative) 

Wild horses would not be adversely 

affected by activities largely due to 

their ability to move into other 

areas, and the large amount of area 

they have to move into. Long-term 

displacement would not necessarily 

affect wild horses as they seem to 

adapt to activities. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Wild horses would not be adversely affected by activities in the 

expanded area largely due to their 

ability to move into other areas, 

and the large amount of area they 

have to move into. Long-term displacement would not necessarily 

affect wild horses as they seem to 

adapt to activities. 

WILDLIFE Management actions under this 

alternative would result in fewer 

adverse impacts to wildlife and their 

habitat than Alternative A and the 

No Action Alternative. 

Activities would continue to have 

direct and indirect effects to wildlife habitat, although impacts 

would be less than under Alternative A. Continuation of existing 

management would show continued impacts to wildlife habitat 

both beneficial and adverse. 

Increased activity overall and emphasis on production of other commodities would increase adverse 

effects to wildlife habitat and populations. 

Wildlife habitat would benefit the 

most under this alternative. 

448 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WILDLIFE 

(continued) 

Seasonal constraints would be used 

to mitigate impacts to wildlife during crucial periods and would provide short-term protection for wildlife. Long-term maintenance and 

operations activities in crucial wildlife habitats would continue to 

cause displacement of wildlife from 

crucial habitats, including 

disruption of nesting, fawning and 

calving areas, and crucial big game 

winter habitats, creating long-term 

adverse impacts. Effects would be 

less than Alternative A. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Impacts would be greatest under 

this alternative, as more activity 

would take place and some roads 

currently closed seasonally would 

remain open year round. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Management prescriptions under 

this alternative would provide longterm benefits to wildlife habitat by 

providing for continued use of crucial habitats. However, displacement and loss of habitat from development and disruptive activities 

would create an unavoidable 

adverse impact. 

The combination of mineral and 

livestock activities in crucial wildlife habitats would continue to 

create impacts that may be unacceptable in some locations. Displacement of part of the Steamboat 

Mountain elk herd could result in 

an inability to maintain this herd 

objective. Displacement and loss 

of habitat from development and 

disruptive activities would create 

an unavoidable adverse impact. 

The effects of activities causing 

displacement would be greatest 

under this alternative. 

Effects of activities causing 

displacement would be less than 

for the Preferred Alternative. 

449 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WILDLIFE 

(continued) 

Wildfire would generally result in a 

short-term loss of habitat but would 

generally benefit wildlife habitat 

over the long term. Wildfire could 

result in a long-term loss of habitat 

and could be considered an 

unavoidable adverse impact to the 

habitat if livestock graze the burned 

area immediately after the fire. 

Same as Preferred Alternative; 

however, no activity in the core 

area would reduce this effect. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Conducting a resource evaluation of 

activities prior to issuing oil and gas 

leases or other actions in crucial 

habitats would benefit wildlife 

resources. 

A resource evaluation would not 

be conducted prior to issuing oil 

and gas leases or other actions in 

crucial habitats which could 

adversely affect wildlife resources. 

A resource evaluation would not 

be conducted prior to issuing oil 

and gas leases or other actions in 

crucial habitats which could 

adversely affect wildlife resources 

to the greatest extent under this 

alternative as the most 

development activity would take 

place. 

A resource evaluation would not 

be conducted prior to issuing oil 

and gas leases or other actions in 

crucial habitats which could 

adversely affect wildlife resources. 

However, other management 

prescriptions proposed for this 

alternative would reduce these 

effects and provide benefits to 

wildlife resources. 

Rights-of-way construction and use, 

especially road construction and use 

would cause adverse effects to 

wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Management prescriptions for the 

locations of rights-of-way in 

identified windows and 

transportation planning would 

reduce these effects. 

Rights-of-way construction and 

use, especially road construction 

and use would cause adverse 

effects to wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. Management prescriptions 

for the locations of rights-of-way 

in identified windows and 

transportation planning would 

reduce these effects to a lesser 

extent than the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Rights-of-way construction and 

use, especially road construction 

and use would cause adverse 

effects to wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. Management prescriptions 

for the locations of rights-of-way 

in identified windows and 

transportation planning would not 

reduce these effects as much as the 

other alternatives. 

Rights-of-way construction and 

use, especially road construction 

and use would cause adverse 

effects to wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. Management 

prescriptions for the locations of 

rights-of-way in identified 

windows and transportation 

planning would reduce these 

effects to a greater extent than the 

Preferred Alternative. 

450 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WILDLIFE 

(continued) 

Pursuing withdrawals for portions of 

the planning area, particularly for 

parturition areas, would benefit 

wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Fewer withdrawals would be 

pursued than for the Preferred 

Alternative, providing fewer 

benefits for wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Pursuing withdrawals for portions 

of the planning area, particularly 

for parturition areas, would benefit 

wildlife and wildlife habitat to the 

greatest extent under this 

alternative as more areas would be 

withdrawn. 

Livestock grazing management Fewer livestock grazing Livestock grazing management Livestock grazing management 

prescriptions for conversions, water management prescriptions for prescriptions for conversions, prescriptions for conversions, 

developments, and utilization levels conversions, and utilization levels water developments, and water developments, and 

would benefit wildlife and wildlife would benefit wildlife and wildlife utilization levels would provide the utilization levels would provide 

habitat. habitat to a lesser extent than the least benefit wildlife and wildlife the greatest benefit to wildlife and 

Preferred Alternative. habitat of any alternative. wildlife habitat of all alternatives. 

Substantial progress would be 

expected in improving trends in 

riparian/wetland areas and 

achieving Desired Plant Community 

objectives with the application of 

mitigation measures and guidelines 

proposed in this alternative. 

Under this alternative, currently, 

all possible mitigation measures to 

correct problems in 

riparian/wetland areas would not 

be applied. With the assumptions 

of this alternative in effect, 

reversing the downward trends or 

correcting the problems in the 

riparian areas might be achievable 

but the progress may be very slow 

in coming and not constitute a 

“significant” rate. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Assumptions under this alternative 

require very stringent mitigation 

measures and “tools” to be applied 

that protect and/or correct adverse 

conditions in riparian/wetland 

areas (and thus fishery habitat). 

Progress in reversing downward 

trends and achieving the Desired 

Plant Community objectives 

would be expected to be very 

rapid. 

Surface mining exploration activity Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

could result in an irreversible 

irretrievable loss of wetlands and 

springs, and although mitigation occurs, the original site would be lost. 

451 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WILDLIFE 

(Core) 

Closing portions of the core area to 

surface disturbing activities would 

reduce the potential for habitat 

fragmentation, animal 

displacement, and provide 

protection for some of the most 

crucial habitats, such as elk and 

deer wintering and parturition areas. 

Benefits would be somewhat less 

than the No Action Alternative but 

greater than Alternative A. 

The entire core area would be 

closed to surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities. The greatest 

benefits would occur to wildlife 

and wildlife habitat in the core 

area under this alternative. 

A larger portion of the core area 

would be open to surface 

disturbing and disruptive activities. 

The greatest adverse effects would 

occur to wildlife and wildlife 

habitat under this alternative. 

Limiting surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities in the core are 

would benefit wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. These benefits would be 

somewhat less than the No Action 

Alternative but greater than for 

Alternative A. 

WILDLIFE 

(Cumulative) 

The effects to wildlife habitat would 

be lessened somewhat from Alternative A mostly due to transportation 

planning, and management prescriptions for oil and gas leasing, 

livestock grazing management, and 

surface disturbing and disrupting 

activities. However, the capability 

of crucial habitats to support some 

herd objective numbers for big 

game would still be adversely 

affected. 

The combined effects of habitat 

fragmentation, access, surface and 

human disturbances, livestock 

grazing management practices, and 

increased recreation could adversely affect the capability of crucial 

habitats to support herd objective 

numbers in some areas. 

The effects would be greatest for 

this alternative. Fewer 

prescriptions for habitat protection 

would be applied, which would 

have a direct effect on the ability 

of a crucial winter range to support 

population objectives, especially 

for elk. 

The effects would be lessened 

from those described for Alternative A and the Preferred 

Alternative due to transportation 

planning, fewer developments, and 

management prescriptions for 

livestock grazing. However, the 

combined effects of habitat 

fragmentation, access, surface and 

human disturbances and 

availability of forage could still 

affect the capability of some 

crucial habitats to support herd 

objective numbers. 

452 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

WILDLIFE 

(Cumulative) 

(continued) 

Conducting a resource evaluation of 

activities prior to issuing oil and gas 

leases or other actions in crucial 

habitats would benefit wildlife 

resources. Activity could occur on 

existing leases which could have 

some adverse effects on wildlife 

resources. 

Not conducting a resource 

evaluation of activities prior to 

issuing oil and gas leases or other 

actions in crucial habitats would 

have no effect on wildlife 

resources in the core area as no 

additional areas would be leased 

and no activity would occur under 

this alternative. Wildlife resources 

in the core would benefit the most 

under this alternative. However, 

activities could be concentrated 

outside the core area which could 

adversely affect the capability of 

crucial habitats to support herd 

objective numbers in some areas. 

Not conducting a resource 

evaluation of activities prior to 

issuing oil and gas leases or other 

actions in crucial habitats could 

adversely affect wildlife resources 

to the greatest extent under this 

alternative. New leases would be 

issued and activity would occur on 

existing leases providing for the 

most development activity to take 

place. 

A resource evaluation would not 

be conducted prior to issuing oil 

and gas leases or other actions in 

crucial habitats which could 

adversely affect wildlife resources. 

However, limitations on new 

activities such as leasing and 

livestock grazing improvements 

would provide the greatest benefit 

to wildlife resources. 

453 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

DESIGNATED SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC 

Western Portion 

No impacts are anticipated with 

implementation of the prescribed 

management actions and 

restrictions, and with implementation of the Interim Management Guidelines for Lands 

Under Wilderness Review. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC 

Eastern Portion 

Management prescriptions would 

minimize effects to geological, 

cultural, visual, and wildlife habitat. 

Effects from mineral development, 

rights-of-way construction, ORV 

use, and residual effects would be 

minor but would include: 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Adverse effects would occur to 

geological, cultural, and visual 

values and wildlife habitat. Additional impacts would occur from 

increased mineral development 

and rights-of-way construction. 

Off-road vehicle use would be 

reduced on 5,000 acres and 

residual effects would include: 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

-Seasonal displacement of elk 

and deer through ORV activity. 

-Same as Preferred 

Alternative. 

-Same as Preferred 

Alternative. 

-Seasonal displacement of 

elk, deer, and wild horses 

through ORV activity. 

454 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC 

Eastern Portion 

(continued) 

-Additional development on 

existing leases in the Sand 

Dunes ACEC would have a 

direct effect on the ability of 

the area to support deer and 

elk. This would place more 

importance on other undeveloped areas such as Steamboat 

Rim. Displacement of deer 

and elk into smaller habitat 

locations would increase 

competition and could lead to 

deterioration of these areas. 

-No additional development 

would result in no direct 

effects to deer and elk 

distribution. 

-The effects to deer and elk 

distribution would be greatest 

under this alternative. 

-Same as Preferred 

Alternative. 

-Reductions in the visual 

integrity of the Greater Sand 

Dunes area through surface 

facilities (e.g., pump jacks, 

tanks, dehydrators, etc.) 

associated with the 

development of new oil and 

gas wells. 

-No reductions in visual 

integrity through surface 

facilities associated with 

development would occur. 

-Reductions in visual integrity 

through surface facilities 

associated with the development of new oil and gas 

wells. This would affect the 

ability to retain the scenic 

quality for the area. 

-Same as Preferred 

Alternative. 

-An increase in safety hazards 

to ORV users through the 

development of oil and gas 

related surface facilities (e.g., 

pipelines, snow fencing, etc.). 

This alternative would be less 

hazardous to off-road vehicle 

users than Alternative A. 

-No increases in safety 

hazards would occur. 

-Although 5,000 acres may 

not be open to off-road 

vehicle use, there would still 

be an increase in safety 

hazards to ORV users through 

the development of oil and 

gas related surface facilities 

(e.g., pipelines, snow fencing, 

etc.). 

-Effects would be less than 

the Preferred Alternative or 

Alternative A. 

455 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC 

Eastern Portion 

(continued) 

-Trampling and use of dune 

ponds and adjacent riparian 

habitat by livestock would continue in the short term. 

-Same as Preferred 

Alternative. 

-Same as Preferred 

Alternative. 

-Same as Preferred 

Alternative. 

Beneficial effects realized through Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

the implementation of the proposed 

management prescriptions include: 

-Protection of sensitive cultural -Same as Preferred -Same as Preferred -Same as Preferred 

resource sites. Alternative. Alternative. Alternative. 

-Protection of the structures -Same as Preferred -Same as Preferred -Same as Preferred 

and historical setting of the Alternative. Alternative. Alternative. 

Crookston Ranch. 

-Protection of Native American -Same as Preferred -Same as Preferred -Same as Preferred 

religious and important Alternative. Alternative. Alternative. 

geological values. 

-Maintaining forage and native -Same as Preferred -Maintaining some forage and -Same as Preferred 

plant composition for wildlife. Alternative. native plant composition for Alternative. 

wildlife. 

Greater Sand Dunes No additional effects would occur. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

ACEC 

(Cumulative) 

Oregon Buttes ACEC The natural values of the ACEC Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

would benefit from resource 

management actions. 

Oregon Buttes ACEC 

(Cumulative) 

No additional effects would occur. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

456 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC 

Adverse effects to historical and 

scenic resources from surface disturbing activities would be reduced 

by implementation of management 

actions. 

Surface disturbing activities would 

adversely affect historical and 

scenic resources more than in the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Requiring proposed communication 

sites on Pacific Butte to conform 

with prescriptions in place for the 

South Pass Historic Landscape 

would greatly enhance BLM efforts 

to manage and protect certain 

classes of heritage resources and 

especially the South Pass Historic 

Landscape viewshed. The Green 

River RMP and other management 

document prescriptions would 

significantly enhance BLM efforts 

to manage and protect heritage 

resources of all kinds. 

Closing Pacific Butte as a possible 

communication site would greatly 

enhance BLM efforts to manage 

and protect certain classes of 

heritage resources and especially 

the South Pass Historic Landscape 

viewshed. The Green River RMP 

and other management document 

prescriptions would significantly 

enhance BLM efforts to manage 

and protect heritage resources of 

all kinds. 

Allowing Pacific Butte to remain 

open for consideration of 

communication sites would 

significantly diminish BLM efforts 

to manage and protect certain 

classes of heritage resources, 

especially the South Pass Historic 

Landscape viewshed. The Green 

River RMP and other management 

document prescriptions would 

significantly enhance BLM efforts 

to manage and protect heritage 

resources of all kinds. 

Same as No Action Alternative. 

457 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC 

(continued) 

Given standard BLM mitigation 

measures actions related to Air 

Quality Management, Cultural 

Resource Management, Fire, 

Hazardous Materials, Coal 

Exploration, Sodium Leasing, 

Leasable Minerals, Mineral 

Materials, Geophysical Activities, 

Reclamation and Monitoring, 

Recreation Management, 

Riparian/Wetlands, Special 

Management Areas, 

Vegetation/Woodlands/Weeds, 

Visual Resource Management, 

Watershed/Water Quality 

Management, Wild Horses, and 

Wildlife would have little, no, or 

slightly beneficial impacts on the 

South Pass Historic Landscape. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Generally, actions taken under 

Alternative A are slightly less 

beneficial to the South Pass 

Historic Landscape than the other 

alternatives. 

Generally, actions taken under 

Alternative B are slightly more 

beneficial to the South Pass 

Historic Landscape than the other 

alternatives. 

Management prescriptions for the 

locatable mineral activity would 

reduce adverse effects to the landscape. Closure to mineral location 

and entry under the land laws of 

4,790 acres would preclude mineral 

location and disposal, and benefit 

cultural and historical resources in 

the landscape. 

Locatable mineral activity could 

create adverse effects to the landscape and cultural and historical 

values. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Exclusion and avoidance areas 

would protect the visual integrity of 

the National Historic Trails 

corridor. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

458 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC 

(Cumulative) 

Impacts upon the visual integrity of 

historic trails would be the same as 

for the general area. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Special Status 

(Candidate) Plant 

Species Management 

Wildfire, livestock concentration 

areas, increased recreation use, and 

trampling by wild horses could 

cause adverse impacts to actual 

plant populations and potential 

habitat. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Management actions for off-road 

vehicle use, geophysical activities, 

and fire suppression within the habitat area would reduce impacts to 

plant populations. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Closure to mineral location and 

entry under the land laws would 

reduce effects associated with 

locatable mineral development and 

exploration. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

The Special Status Plant Species 

ACEC would not be expanded by 

2,660 acres. These acres would 

remain avoidance area for rights-ofway. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. The Special Status Plant Species 

ACEC would be expanded by 

2,660 acres to include Lesquerella 

macrocarpa. These acres would be 

exclusion areas for rights-of-way. 

Special Status 

(Candidate) Plant 

Species Management 

(Cumulative) 

No additional effects would occur to 

special status plant species areas. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Some additional benefits would 

occur from including 2,660 acres 

in the Special Status Plant ACEC. 

These acres would be exclusion 

areas for rights-of-way. 

459 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

Steamboat Mountain 

ACEC 

Surface disturbing activities would 

take place but at a reduced rate 

from Alternative A. Management 

of the area could protect wildlife 

values and reduce impacts to the elk 

and deer herds if mitigation took 

place. 

Surface disturbing activities would 

not take place and displacement of 

the Sands elk and deer herds on 

Steamboat Mountain would not 

occur. 

Surface disturbing activities would 

result in loss of wildlife habitat and 

displacement of the Sands elk and 

deer herds on Steamboat 

Mountain. 

Adverse effects from surface 

disturbance activities would be 

less than for the Preferred 

Alternative since the area would 

be closed to mineral leasing. 

Closure to mineral location and 

entry under the lands laws of up to 

960 acres would benefit wildlife 

habitat but could adversely affect 

the opportunity for development of 

locatable minerals. 

Closure to mineral location and 

entry under the lands laws would 

not occur which would adversely 

affect wildlife habitat but could adversely affect benefit the 

opportunity for development of 

locatable minerals. 

Same as No Action Alternative. Closure to mineral location and 

entry under the land laws of up to 

43,310 acres would benefit 

wildlife habitat but could 

adversely affect the opportunity 

for development of locatable 

minerals. 

Effects from not expanding the 

ACEC would be somewhat less 

beneficial than Alternative B. 

However, management 

prescriptions for this alternative 

would still provide protection for 

resources in the core area. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Effects from not expanding the 

ACEC would be less beneficial 

than Alternative B. Management 

prescriptions for this alternative 

would provide less protection for 

resources in the core than the other 

alternatives. 

Expanding the ACEC boundary to 

include the core area outside 

existing ACECs (to 65,610 acres) 

would provide some additional 

protection to the expanded area 

through application of ACEC 

management prescriptions. 

Steamboat Mountain 

ACEC 

(Cumulative) 

With additional management prescriptions applied, impacts would be 

reduced from Alternative A for the 

elk herd. However, similar effects 

would still occur to the deer herd 

due to development activities and 

intrusions into the few areas that 

offer good fawning, and 

competition with elk for parturition 

and winter use areas. 

Beneficial effects would occur due 

to management prescriptions 

preventing surface disturbance and 

new roads and access. 

Maintenance of elk herd objectives 

would be very likely. 

Development activities, human 

disturbance, competition with livestock, and access into remote areas 

would significantly affect the ability of the habitat in this area to 

support deer and elk herd objective 

levels. 

Due to additional management 

prescriptions preventing new 

disturbances and access, impacts 

would be reduced from Alternative 

A. The ability to meet herd 

objectives would not be 

significantly affected. 

460 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

White Mountain 

Petroglyphs ACEC 

The existing withdrawal would be 

retained to protect cultural values 

which would protect the area from 

adverse effects associated with 

locatable mineral exploration and 

development. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Management prescriptions for surface disturbing activities applied to 

1⁄2 mile surrounding the rock art site 

(petroglyphs) would increase benefits to the visual integrity and traditional cultural values. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. In 

addition, closing the area to fluid 

mineral leasing would provide 

additional protection. 

White Mountain 

Petroglyphs ACEC 

(Cumulative) 

No additional effects would occur. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

461 
TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

AFFECTED 

RESOURCE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B 

OTHER MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Red Desert Watershed 

Management Area 

Management prescriptions would 

allow some development activities 

which could cause localized adverse 

effects; however, these would not 

have a significant impact on the 

watershed. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Management prescriptions would 

allow the most development 

activities which would cause 

localized adverse effects greater 

than for all the alternatives. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. 

Adverse effects to visual values 

from construction of facilities could 

occur, particularly in VRM Class II 

areas. Effects are expected to be 

minimal as most activity would 

occur adjacent to the area. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Increased benefits to visual values 

would occur from managing the 

entire area as a VRM Class II. 

Red Desert Watershed 

Management Area 

(Cumulative) 

No additional effects would occur 

relative to the Red Desert 

Watershed Management Area. 

Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. Same as Preferred Alternative. 

462 
TABLE 4-2 

VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT IN SENSITIVE AREAS 

IN THE JACK MORROW HILLS REGION 

Sensitive Area PSD Designation # days > 0.5 

dV 

# days > 1.0 

dV Maximum dV 

Bridger Wilderness Area I 9 0 0.9 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area I 2 0 0.7 

Washakie Wilderness Area I 0 0 0.4 

Grand Teton National Park I 0 0 0.4 

Popo Agie Wilderness Area II 2 0 0.6 

Wind River Roadless Area II 2 0 0.7 

TABLE 4-3

SUMMARY OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AVOIDANCE AND EXCLUSION AREAS

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE1 

Right-of-Way Avoidance Areas Estimated Acres2 

Back Country Byway Interpretive Sites 10 

Big Sagebrush/scurfpea vegetation associations and mountain shrub

 communities 21,500 

Boars Tusk3 90 

Connectivity Area 140,380 

Core Area, including Steamboat Mountain ACEC 80,410 

Crookston Ranch3 40 

Historic Trails and Expansion Era Roads (1/4 mile)3, 4 17,890 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (and lands within 1 mile or visual horizon)3 70,850 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (developed recreation sites, ORV parking lot) 50 

Native American areas of concern (1 mile to 2.5 miles) 28,470 

Paleosol deposition area (individual sites)5 18,200 

Rock Art Sites (1/2 mile)6 280 

Sage Grouse Leks (1/4 mile buffer)3 8,170 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (not visible within landscape boundary)3 22,190 

Special Status Plants (actual sites)3, 7 2,680 

Special Status Plants (potential sites)3, 7 4,970 

White Mountain Petroglyphs (Vista)3, 6 480 

Estimated Total 416,660 

Right-of-Way Exclusion Areas 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible within landscape boundary)3 23,640 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC (communication sites) 43,310 

Oregon Buttes ACEC3 3,450 

Continental Peak (communication sites) 90 

Indian Gap 690 

Face of Steamboat Mountain 9,400 

Tri-Territory Marker3 10 

White Mountain Petroglyphs3, 6 20 

Estimated Total 80,610 

1

 In accordance with transportation planning.

2

 Actual acreage to be determined.

3

 Established in the Green River RMP (USDI 1997).

461
4

 Managed in their historical context.

5

 Only those cultural properties discovered within the identified area would be avoided by 100 feet.

6

 Petroglyphs and vistas total 760 acres.

7

 The actual plant sites are closed to surface disturbing rights-of-way. The existing two-track roads could be

considered for non-surface disturbing uses.

TABLE 4-4

SUMMARY OF WITHDRAWALS TO BE PURSUED

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Estimated Existing 

Site Acres1 Withdrawal

 Overlap2 

Crookston Ranch3 40 

Cultural Site 320 

Elk Calving Areas (2 northern areas) 7,440 Coal 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC3

 (Western portion) 23,850 

Native American Respected Places (White Mountain and Steamboat) 280 

Public Water Reserve3 5,900 

South Pass Historic Landscape3 4,790 Coal 

Special Status Plant Species3 2,680 Coal 

Steamboat Mountain Area 960 Coal 

Tri-Territory Marker3 10 

Estimated Total 46,270 

1

 Actual withdrawal acreage to be determined.

2

 Data is unavailable at this time to delineate the actual overlap with existing withdrawals identified for revocation in

the Green River RMP.

3

 Established in the Green River RMP (USDI 1997).

TABLE 4-5

SUMMARY OF AREAS CLOSED TO COAL EXPLORATION AND SODIUM PROSPECTING

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Areas Closed Estimated Acres 

Boars Tusk1 90 

Crookston Ranch1 40 

Floodplains1,2 41,170 

NSO areas3 29,710 

Oregon Buttes ACEC1 3,450 

Petroglyphs: White Mountain (1/2 mile vista)1 480 

Raptor Nesting1 83 

Sage Grouse Leks (1/4 mile buffer)1 8,170 

South Pass Historic Landscape1 23,640 

Special Status Plant Species Sites1 2,680 

Steamboat Mountain Area (outside area with coal recommendation)1 33,530 

Tri-Territory Marker1 10 

Wilderness Study Areas1 117,060 

Estimated Total 4 227,600 

1

 Established inthe Green River RMP (USDI 1997)

2

 Floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, waters, and the area within 500 feet

3

 Exploration activities would be limited to existing roads and trails

4

 Acres do not add due to overlap of NSO areas, Boars Tusk, Crookston Ranch, floodplains, ACECs, and WSAs. 

There are about 32,513 acres of overlap.

462
TABLE 4-6

SUMMARY OF AREAS CLOSED TO MINERAL MATERIAL SALES

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Areas Closed Estimated Acres 

Boars Tusk1 90 

Crookston Ranch1 40 

Crucial habitats and other sensitive resource values 29,380 

Elk Calving Areas 58,890 

Mountain Sagebrush Communities (including sagebrush/scurfpea communities) 21,500 

Occupied Raptor Nests1 83 

Oregon Buttes ACEC1 3,450 

Rock Art Sites (including White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC)1 480 

Sand Dunes ACEC1 38,650 

South Pass Historic Landscape1 4,790 

South Pass Historic Landscape (in the Vista and not including

 the above noted 4,790 acres)1 18,850 

Special Status Plant Species Sites1 2,680 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC2, 3 1,710 

Wilderness Study Areas1 117, 060 

Estimated Acres 4 235,100 

NOTE: Surface collecting (picking materials off the ground by hand) would be considered in these areas on a caseby-case basis.

1

 Established in the Green River RMP (USDI 1997)

2

 Top of Steamboat Mountain would be closed (lava material only). No pits would be developed in the Steamboat

Mountain ACEC.

3

 Mineral material disposal would only occur when in support of project development in this area and the core area. 

Appropriate mitigation would be applied to insure this activity would not detract from the important resource values of

the respective areas. New road construction and upgrading of existing roads for mineral material extraction would

only be allowed if in accordance with transportation planning.

4

 Acres do not add due to overlap of WSAs, ACECs, special status plants, elk calving areas, crucial habitats and

other sensitive resource values, Crookston Ranch, and Boars Tusk. There are about 62,553 acres of overlap.

TABLE 4-7

SUMMARY OF AREAS CLOSED TO GEOPHYSICAL VEHICLES & EXPLOSIVE CHARGES

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE and ALTERNATIVE B

Areas Closed Estimated Acres 

Boars Tusk1 90 

Core Area2 80,410 

Cultural Site 320 

NSO Areas2 56,550 

Special Status Plant Species Locations 2,680 

Crookston Ranch1 40 

White Mountain Petroglyphs1 480 

Wilderness Study Areas1 117,060

 Estimated Total3 245,580 

1

 Established in the Green River RMP (USDI 1997)

2

 Exploration activities without the use of explosive charges could occur on existing roads and trails

in conformance with transportation planning.

3

 Acres do not add due to overlap of core area, NSO areas, Boars Tusk, Crookston Ranch, and

WSAs. There are about 12,050 acres of overlap.

463
TABLE 4-8

ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

Oil & Gas Wells Coalbed Methane Wells 

Drilled & 

Completed 

Drilled & 

Abandoned 

Drilled & 

Completed 

(Deep) 

Drilled & 

Abandoned 

(Deep) 

Drilled & 

Completed 

(Shallow) 

Expenditures (1) $567,600 $277,800 $500,000 $244,700 $65,000 

Total Impact (1) $774,600 $377,700 $682,400 $332,800 $88,705 

Earnings (1) $119,500 $57,600 $105,300 $50,800 $13,685 

Jobs – AJE* (1) 4.395 2.121 3.872 1.869 0.503 

* Annual Job Equivalent (AJE)

Source: Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation, Socio/Economic Evaluation, 1997

TABLE 4-9 

DRILLING PROJECTIONS FOR OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT 

Alternative 

Oil & Gas Wells Coalbed Methane Wells 

Drilled & 

Completed 

Drilled & 

Abandoned 

Drilled & 

Completed 

(Deep) 

Drilled & 

Abandoned 

(Deep) 

Drilled & 

Completed 

(Shallow) 

No Action (1998-2007) 17 15 5 5 15 

No Action (1998-2017) 34 30 5 5 15 

Alternative A (1998-2007) 25 23 5 5 15 

Alternative A (1998-2017) 53 47 5 5 15 

Alternative B (1998-2007) 12 10 3 2 15 

Alternative B (1998-2017) 24 21 3 2 15 

Preferred (1998-2007) 16 15 3 2 15 

Preferred (1998-2017) 34 31 3 2 15 

Source: Jack Morrow Hills CAP Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario, 1997 

464
TABLE 4-10

ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION

Crude Oil 

(Barrel) 

Natural Gas 

(MMCF) 

Value of Production (1) $15.00 $1,750.00* 

Total Impact (2) $23.16 $2,363.38 

Earnings (2) $2.50 $188.14 

Jobs - AJE (2) 0.000072 0.005387 

LG Revenue (2) $1.00 $107.38 

*The value of production for natural gas is based on a price of $1.75 per MCF. 

Sources: 

(1) CREG, Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast, January 1999; 

(2) Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation, Socio/Economic Evaluation, 1997. 

TABLE 4-11

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION PROJECTIONS

Alternative Oil 

(Barrels) 

Gas 

(MMCF) 

No Action (1998-2007) 62,244 45,007.2 

No Action (1998-2017) 116,415 84,177.0 

Alternative A (1998­

2007) 

66,573 48,137.4 

Alternative A (1998­

2017) 

137,592 99,489.6 

Alternative B (1998­

2007) 

58,734 42,469.2 

Alternative B (1998­

2017) 

104,130 75,534.2 

Preferred (1998-2007) 61,308 44,330.4 

Preferred (1998-2017) 115,722 83,669.4 

Source: Jack Morrow Hills CAP Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario 

465
TABLE 4-12

ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Cattle 

Grazing 

(Per AUM) 

Sheep 

Grazing 

(Per AUM) 

Production (1) $33.27 $22.82 

Total Impact (2) $65.07 $41.16 

Earnings (2) $11.81 $8.99 

Jobs (2) 0.000710 0.000639 

LG Revenue (3) $1.88 $1.44 

Sources: 

(1) Five-year average derived from Wyoming Agricultural Statistic, 1993­

97 

(2) Updated from Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation, Socio/Economic 

Evaluation, 1997. 

(3) Estimated. 

TABLE 4-13

ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR RECREATION

Elk 

Hunters 

(Per Day) 

Deer 

Hunters 

(Per Day) 

Antelope 

Hunters 

(Per Day) 

Non-consumptive 

Recreation 

Expenditures (1) $239.40 $139.06 $239.62 $55.00 

Total Impact (2) $330.69 $181.06 $331.25 $80.78 

Earnings (2) $47.28 $21.09 $45.59 $13.16 

Jobs (2) 0.003307 0.001525 0.003214 0.001051 

LG Revenue (3) $3.69 $1.85 $3.85 $1.33 

Net Econ Value (4) $41.46 $41.46 $41.46 $26.57 

Sources: 

(1) Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Annual Report, 1998 for hunting and Wyoming Division of Tourism, 

Region 2, 1997 for non-consumptive. 

(2) Updated from Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation, Socio/Economic Evaluation. 

(3) Estimated 

(4) USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, 1999. 

466
TABLE 4-14

SHORT-TERM CUMULATIVE PHYSICAL OUTPUTS (1998-2007)

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Oil & Gas Wells Drilled 32 48 22 31 

Oil & Gas Wells Completed 17 25 12 16 

Oil Production (BBLs) 62,244 66,573 58,734 61,308 

Gas Production (MMCF) 45,007.2 48,137.4 42,469.2 44,330.4 

Coalbed Wells Drilled 25 25 20 20 

Coalbed Wells Completed 20 20 18 18 

Livestock Grazing (AUM) 195,350 260,320 98,510 179,410 

Nonresident Hunting Days 9,520 9,589 9,520 9,589 

Resident Hunting Days 35,760 36,140 35,760 36,140 

NRNC Rec Days 349,844 334,268 349,844 349,844 

Resident NC Rec Days 183,408 175,242 183,408 183,408 

Oil & Gas Wells Drilled 100.0% 150.0% 68.8% 96.9% 

Oil & Gas Wells Completed 100.0% 147.1% 70.6% 94.1% 

Oil Production (BBLs) 100.0% 107.0% 94.4% 98.5% 

Gas Production (MMCF) 100.0% 107.0% 94.4% 98.5% 

Coalbed Wells Drilled 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 80.0% 

Coalbed Wells Completed 100.0% 100.0% 90.0% 90.0% 

Livestock Grazing (AUM) 100.0% 133.3% 50.4% 91.8% 

Nonresident Hunting Days 100.0% 100.7% 100.0% 100.7% 

Resident Hunting Days 100.0% 101.1% 100.0% 101.1% 

NRNC Rec Days 100.0% 95.5% 100.0% 100.0% 

Resident NC Rec Days 100.0% 95.5% 100.0% 100.0% 

467
TABLE 4-15

SHORT-TERM CUMULATIVE ECONOMIC EFFECTS (1998-2007)

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Direct Impacts $125,931,969 $139,443,420 $112,376,699 $121,921,014 

Total Impacts $176,547,748 $195,991,237 $156,320,910 $170,781,215 

Total Earnings $19,771,046 $23,321,742 $16,925,705 $18,974,740 

Total Employment (AJE) 923.9 1,022.4 796.2 891.4 

Local Govt. Revenue $5,753,214 $6,190,458 $5,300,248 $5,650,018 

Resident Recreation $6,355,755 $6,154,552 $6,355,755 $6,371,517 

Direct Impacts 100.0% 110.7% 89.2% 96.8% 

Total Impacts 100.0% 111.0% 88.5% 96.7% 

Total Earnings 100.0% 118.0% 85.6% 96.0% 

Total Employment (AJE) 100.0% 110.7% 86.2% 96.5% 

Local Govt. Revenue 100.0% 107.6% 92.1% 98.2% 

Resident Recreation 100.0% 96.8% 100.0% 100.2% 

TABLE 4-16

LONG-TERM CUMULATIVE PHYSICAL OUTPUTS (1998-2017)

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Oil & Gas Wells Drilled 64 100 45 65 

Oil & Gas Wells Completed 34 53 24 34 

Oil Production (BBLs) 116,415 137,592 104,130 115,722 

Gas Production (MMCF) 84,177.0 99,489.6 75,534.2 83,669.4 

Coalbed Wells Drilled 25 25 20 20 

Coalbed Wells Completed 20 20 18 18 

Livestock Grazing (AUM) 390,700 520,640 197,020 358,820 

Nonresident Hunting Days 19,040 19,070 19,040 19,070 

Resident Hunting Days 71,520 71,686 71,520 71,686 

NRNC Rec Days 776,301 703,507 776,301 776,301 

Resident NC Rec Days 406,981 368,818 406,981 406,981 

468
Oil & Gas Wells Drilled 100.0% 156.3% 70.3% 101.6% 

Oil & Gas Wells Completed 100.0% 155.9% 70.6% 100.0% 

Oil Production (BBLs) 100.0% 118.2% 89.4% 99.4% 

Gas Production (MMCF) 100.0% 118.2% 89.7% 99.4% 

Coalbed Wells Drilled 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 80.0% 

Coalbed Wells Completed 100.0% 100.0% 90.0% 90.0% 

Livestock Grazing (AUM) 100.0% 133.3% 50.4% 91.8% 

Nonresident Hunting Days 100.0% 100.2% 100.0% 100.2% 

Resident Hunting Days 100.0% 100.2% 100.0% 100.2% 

NRNC Rec Days 100.0% 90.6% 100.0% 100.0% 

Resident NC Rec Days 100.0% 90.6% 100.0% 100.0% 

TABLE 4-17

LONG-TERM CUMULATIVE ECONOMIC EFFECTS (1998-2017)

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Direct Impacts $241,042,651 $283,759,214 $209,623,136 $237,640,262 

Total Impacts $338,894,815 $398,767,593 $292,630,396 $333,642,985 

Total Earnings $38,446,126 $45,144,903 $32,491,821 $37,670,140 

Total Employment (AJE) 1,860.1 2,078.0 1,600.5 1,860.2 

Local Govt. Revenue $10,973,457 $12,776,687 $9,679,263 $10,858,691 

Resident Recreation $13,778,703 $12,771,602 $13,778,703 $13,785,583 

Direct Impacts 100.0% 117.7% 87.0% 98.6% 

Total Impacts 100.0% 117.7% 86.3% 98.5% 

Total Earnings 100.0% 117.4% 84.5% 98.0% 

Total Employment (AJE) 100.0% 111.7% 86.0% 100.0% 

Local Govt. Revenue 100.0% 116.4% 88.2% 99.0% 

Resident Recreation 100.0% 92.7% 100.0% 100.0% 

469
TABLE 4-18 

WATERSHED ANALYSIS SUMMARY 

Watershed Comments 

Nitch Creek (J2NC . . )1 Four of the 48 sub watersheds listed in Appendix 10 as having the highest 

percentage disturbance, excluding tables A and B, were in Nitch Creek. 

The watershed has stabilized sand dunes, that are sensitive to disturbance. 

It is located within a known gas producing area and also has a potential for 

coal and methane development. 

Jack Morrow Creek 

(J1JM . . )2 

Seven of the 48 sub watersheds listed in Appendix 10 as having the 

highest percentage disturbance, excluding tables A and B, were in Jack 

Morrow Creek. The Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) survey of the 

main channel of Jack Morrow Creek showed 18 miles of stream in an at 

Risk condition with an apparent upward trend and 2 miles in an At Risk 

condition with an apparent downward trend. This indicates a stream that is 

in a situation that is sensitive to disturbance. 

Pacific Creek (J1PC . .)3 Eleven of the 48 sub watersheds listed in Appendix 10 as having the 

highest percentage disturbance, excluding tables A and B, were in Pacific 

Creek. The Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) survey of Pacific Creek 

showed 1.5 miles had achieved or exceeded the minimal condition of PFC, 

1.2 miles of stream in an At Risk condition with an apparent upward trend, 

4 miles in an At Risk condition with no apparent trend, and 13 miles in an 

At Risk condition with an apparent downward trend. The tributaries to 

Pacific Creek showed similar conditions. This indicates that Pacific Creek 

is sensitive to disturbance. 

1

 Nitch Creek is a tributary to Killpecker Creek (J2KP...). Several of the subwatersheds of Killpecker Creek have similar soils 

and similar concerns with development. 

2

 Jack Morrow Creek is a tributary to Pacific Creek (J1PC...). Tributaries to Jack Morrow include South Pack Saddle Creek 

(J1SPC...), Rock Cabin Creek (J1RCC...), Box Canyon Creek (J1BXC...), Johnson Canyon (J1JC...), LaFonte Canyon 

(J1LAF...), and Parnell Creek (J1PAR...). 

3

 Tributaries to Pacific Creek include: Jack Morrow Creek (J1JM...), North Pacific Creek (J1NPC...), North Pack Saddle Creek 

(J1NPS...), Alkali Creek (J1AKC...), Alkali Wash (J1AKW...), and White Horse Creek (J1WH...). 

TABLE 4-19 

SUMMARY OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AVOIDANCE AND EXCLUSION AREAS 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Right-of-Way Avoidance Areas Estimated Acres1 

Boars Tusk2 90 

Crookston Ranch2 40 

Historic Trails and Expansion Era Roads2, 3 (1/4 mile) 17,890 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (and lands within 1 mile or visual horizon)2 70,850 

Native American areas of concern (100 feet) 42 

Paleosol deposition area (100 feet of individual sites)4 18,200 

Sage Grouse Leks (1/4 mile buffer)2 8,170 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC2 (not visible within landscape boundary) 22,190 

Special Status Plants (actual sites)2, 5 2,680 

Special Status Plants (potential sites)2, 5 4,970 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC2 43,310 

White Mountain Petroglyphs (Vista)2 480 

Estimated Total 188,912 

Right-of-Way Exclusion Areas 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC2 (visible within landscape boundary) 23,640 

470
Steamboat Mountain ACEC (Communication sites) 43,310 

Oregon Buttes ACEC2 3,450 

Continental Peak (Communication sites) 90 

Tri-Territory Marker2 10 

White Mountain Petroglyphs2 20 

Estimated Total 70,520 

1

 Actual acreage to be determined.

2

 Established in the Green River RMP (USDI 1997).

3

 Managed in their historical context.

4

 Only those cultural properties discovered within the identified area would be avoided by 100 feet.

5

 The actual plant sites are closed to surface disturbing rights-of-way. The existing two-track roads could be

considered for non-surface disturbing uses.

TABLE 4-20 

SUMMARY OF WITHDRAWALS TO BE PURSUED1 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE and ALTERNATIVE A 

Site Estimated Acres Existing Withdrawal Overlap 

Crookston Ranch 40 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 23,870 

Public Water Reserve 5,900 

South Pass Historic Landscape2 4,790 Coal 

Special Status Plant Species 2,680 Oil Shale/Coal 

Tri-Territory Marker 10 Coal 

Estimated Total 37,290 

1

 Established in the Green River Resource Management Plan (USDI 1997). 

2

 Actual withdrawal acreage to be determined. 

TABLE 4-21

SUMMARY OF AREAS CLOSED TO MINERAL MATERIAL SALES1

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Areas Closed Estimated Acres 

Boars Tusk 90 

Crookston Ranch 40 

Occupied Raptor Nests 83 

Oregon Buttes ACEC 3,450 

Rock Art Sites (including White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC) 480 

Sand Dunes ACEC 38,650 

South Pass Historic Landscape 4,790 

South Pass Historic Landscape (in the Vista and outside the 4,790 of the ACEC) 18,850 

Special Status Plant Species Sites 2,680 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 43,310 

Wilderness Study Areas 117,060 

Estimated Acres2 207,850 

NOTE: Surface collecting (picking materials off the ground by hand) would be considered in these areas on a

case-by-case basis.

1

 Established in the Green River RMP (USDI 1997).

2

 Acres do not add due to overlap of WSAs, ACECs, special status plants, Crookston Ranch, and Boars Tusk. 

There are about 21,633 acres of overlap.

TABLE 4-22

SUMMARY OF AREAS CLOSED TO GEOPHYSICAL VEHICLES & EXPLOSIVE CHARGES1

NO ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE A

471
Areas Closed Estimated Acres 

Boars Tusk 90 

Special Status Plant Species Locations 2,680 

Crookston Ranch 40 

White Mountain Petroglyphs 20 

Wilderness Study Areas 117,060 

Estimated Total 119,890 

1

 Established in the Green River RMP (USDI 1997). 

TABLE 4-23

SUMMARY OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AVOIDANCE AND EXCLUSION AREAS

ALTERNATIVE A

Right-of-Way Avoidance Areas Estimated Acres1 

Back Country Byway Interpretive Sites 10 

Boars Tusk2 90 

Crookston Ranch2 40 

Historic Trails and Expansion Era Roads2, 3 (1/4 mile) 17,890 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (& lands within 1 mile or visual horizon)2 70,850 

Native American areas of concern (1⁄4 mile) 610 

Paleosol deposition area (100 feet of individual sites)4 18,200 

Sage Grouse Leks (1/4 mile buffer)2 8,170 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC2

 (not visible within landscape boundary) 22,190 

Special Status Plants (actual sites)2, 5 2,680 

Special Status Plants (potential sites)2, 5 4,970 

White Mountain Petroglyphs (Vista)2 480 

Estimated Total 146,180 

Right-of-Way Exclusion Areas 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC2 (visible within landscape boundary) 23,640 

Oregon Buttes ACEC2 3,450 

Continental Peak (Communication sites) 90 

Tri-Territory Marker2 10 

White Mountain Petroglyphs2 20 

Estimated Total 27,210 

1

 Actual acreage to be determined.

2

 Brought forward from the Green River RMP (USDI 1997).

3

 Managed in their historical context.

4

 Only those cultural properties discovered within the identified area would be avoided by 100 feet.

5

 The actual plant sites are closed to surface disturbing rights-of-way. The existing two-track roads could

be considered for non-surface disturbing uses.

472
TABLE 4-24

SUMMARY OF AREAS CLOSED TO COAL EXPLORATION AND SODIUM PROSPECTING

ALTERNATIVE A1 

Areas Closed Estimated Acres 

Boars Tusk 90

Crookston Ranch 40

Floodplains 41,170

Oregon Buttes ACEC 3,450

Petroglyphs: White Mountain (1/2 mile vista) 480

Raptor Nesting 83

Sage Grouse Leks (1/4 mile buffer) 8,170

South Pass Historic Landscape 23,640

Special Status Plant Species Sites 2,680

Tri-Territory Marker 10

Wilderness Study Areas 117,060

Estimated Total 2 188,420 

1

 Established in the Green River RMP (USDI 1997).

2

 Acres do not add due to overlap of Boars Tusk, Crookston Ranch, special status plant

species, floodplains, and WSAs. There are about 8,453 acres of overlap.

TABLE 4-25

SUMMARY OF AREAS CLOSED TO MINERAL MATERIAL SALES

ALTERNATIVE A

Areas Closed Estimated Acres 

Boars Tusk1 90 

Crookston Ranch1 40 

Occupied Raptor Nests1 83 

Oregon Buttes ACEC1 3,450 

Rock Art Sites (including White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC)1 480 

Sand Dunes ACEC1 38,650 

South Pass Historic Landscape1 4,790 

South Pass Historic Landscape (in the Vista and outside the 

4,790 of the ACEC)1 18,850 

Special Status Plant Species Sites1 2,680 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC2 42,770 

Wilderness Study Areas1 117,060 

Estimated Acres 3 207,490 

NOTE: Surface collecting (picking materials off the ground by hand) would be considered in these areas

on a case-by-case basis.

1

 Established in the Green River RMP (USDI 1997).

2

 A portion of the lava material on Steamboat Mountain proper (in SE1/4 of Section 10; W1/2W1/2 of

Section 11; N1/2N1/2 of Section 15; T. 23 N., R. 102 W.) would be available for mineral material

disposal. The remainder of the ACEC would be closed to disposal. 3

 Acres do not add due to overlap of WSAs, ACECs, special status plants, Crookston Ranch, and Boars

Tusk. There are about 21,633 acres of overlap.

473
TABLE 4-26

SUMMARY OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY AVOIDANCE AND EXCLUSION AREAS

ALTERNATIVE B1 

Right-of-Way Avoidance Areas Estimated Acres2 

Back Country Byway Interpretive Sites 10 

Big Sagebrush/scurfpea vegetation associations and mountain shrub

 communities 21,500 

Boars Tusk3 90 

Connectivity Area 140,380 

Core Area, including Steamboat Mountain ACEC 80,410 

Crookston Ranch3 40 

Historic Trails and Expansion Era Roads (1/4 mile)3, 4 17,890 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (and lands within 1 mile or visual horizon)3 70,850 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (developed recreation sites, ORV parking lot) 50 

Native American areas of concern (1 mile) 5,490 

Paleosol deposition area (entire area) 18,200 

Rock Art Sites (1/2 mile)5 280 

Sage Grouse Leks (1/4 mile buffer)3 8,170 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (not visible within 

landscape boundary)3 22,190 

Special Status Plants (actual sites)3, 6 2,680 

Special Status Plants (potential sites)3, 6 4,970 

White Mountain Petroglyphs (Vista)3, 5 480 

Estimated Total 393,680 

Right-of-Way Exclusion Areas 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible within landscape boundary)3 23,640 

Special Status Plant (Lesquerella macrocarpa)

6 2,660 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC (communication sites) 43,310 

Essex Mountain (communication sites) 140 

Oregon Buttes ACEC3 3,450 

Continental Peak (communication sites) 90 

Pacific Buttes (communication sites) 1,010 

Indian Gap 690 

Face of Steamboat Mountain 9,400 

Tri-Territory Marker3 10 

White Mountain Petroglyphs5 20 

Estimated Total 84,420 

1

 In accordance with transportation planning.

2

 Actual acreage to be determined.

3

 Established in the Green River RMP (USDI 1997).

4

 Managed in their historical context.

5

 Petroglyphs and vistas total 760 acres.

6

 The actual plant sites are closed to surface disturbing rights-of-way. The existing two-track roads

could be considered for non-surface disturbing uses.

474
TABLE 4-27

SUMMARY OF WITHDRAWALS TO BE PURSUED

ALTERNATIVE B

Site Estimated Acres1 Existing 

Withdrawal

 Overlap2 

Connectivity Area 140,380 

Core Area 80,410 

Crookston Ranch3 40 

Cultural Site 320 

Elk Calving Areas 58,890 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC3 23,870 

Public Water Reserve3 5,900 

South Pass Historic Landscape3 4,790 Coal 

Special Status Plant Species3 2,680 Oil Shale/Coal 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 43,310 Coal 

Tri-Territory Marker3 10 Coal 

White Mountain (Native American Respected Places) 280 

Estimated Total4 267,590 

1

 Actual withdrawal acreage to be determined.

2

 Data is unavailable at this time to delineate the actual overlap with existing withdrawals identified for

revocation in the Green River RMP.

3

 Established in the Green River RMP (USDI 1997).

4

 Acres do not add due to overlapping sites.

TABLE 4-28

SUMMARY OF AREAS CLOSED TO COAL EXPLORATION AND SODIUM PROSPECTING

ALTERNATIVE B1

Areas Closed Estimated Acres 

Boars Tusk2 90

Crookston Ranch2 40

Floodplains3 41,170

Oregon Buttes ACEC2 3,450

Petroglyphs: White Mountain (1/2 mile vista)2 480

Raptor Nesting2 83

Sage Grouse Leks (1/4 mile buffer)2 8,170

South Pass Historic Landscape2 23,640

Special Status Plant Species Sites2 2,680

Steamboat Mountain Area (outside area w/coal recommendation) 33,530

Tri-Territory Marker2 10

Wilderness Study Areas2 117,060

Estimated Total 4 218,420 

The entire planning area would be closed to sodium exploration activities. 2

 Established in the Green River RMP (USDI 1997). 

3

 Floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas (within 500 feet of 100-year floodplains and waters). 

4

 Acres do not add due to overlap of Oregon Buttes ACEC, floodplains, special status plant species, and WSAs. 

There are about 11,983 acres of overlap. 

475

1 
TABLE 4-29

SUMMARY OF AREAS CLOSED TO MINERAL MATERIAL SALES

ALTERNATIVE B

Areas Closed Estimated Acres 

Boars Tusk1 90 

Core Area 80,410 

Connectivity Area 140,380 

Crookston Ranch1 40 

Elk Calving Areas 58,890 

Mountain Sagebrush Communities (including sagebrush/scurfpea communities) 21,500 

Occupied Raptor Nests1 83 

Oregon Buttes ACEC1 3,450 

Rock Art Sites (including White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC)1 480 

Sand Dunes ACEC1 38,650 

South Pass Historic Landscape1 4,790 

South Pass Historic Landscape (in the Vista and outside the 4,790 of the ACEC)1 18,850 

Special Status Plant Species Sites1 2,680 

Split Rock 12,340 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC1 43,310 

Tri-Territory Marker 10 

White Mountain 32,890 

Wilderness Study Areas1 117,060 

Estimated Acres 2 406,080 

NOTE: Surface collecting (picking materials off the ground by hand) would be considered in these areas on a case-bycase basis. 

1

 Established in the Green River RMP (USDI 1997).

2

 Acres do not add due to overlap of core area, elk calving areas, mountain sagebrush communities, and connectivity

area. There are about 169,823 acres of overlap.

476