APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1

PLANNING CRITERIA

Planning criteria are the constraints or ground rules that 

will guide the planning effort for the Jack Morrow Hills 

Coordinated Activity Plan (JMHCAP) and that will guide the 

scope of the various management prescriptions and alternatives that are considered and analyzed. The planning criteria 

serve the following purposes: 

1. To ensure that the planning effort is focused on the 

issues, follows and incorporates legal requirements, 

addresses management of all public land resources and 

land uses in the planning area, and that plan preparation 

is accomplished efficiently; 

2. To identify the scope and parameters of the planning 

effort for the decision maker, the interdisciplinary 

planning team, and the public; and 

The JMHCAP will focus on the potential environmental 

consequences of reasonably foreseeable development and 

other land use activities in the planning review area, such as 

staking mining claims and mineral exploration and development, construction of rights-of-way, and the transfer or patenting of public lands through mineral patent, recreation uses 

and livestock grazing. Other criteria in relation to reasonably 

foreseeable development include vehicular use and transportation, and construction of range and watershed improvement 

projects and recreation site developments. 

Criteria for Hydrocarbon Leasing and Development. As 

an aid in developing alternatives for the EIS, special criteria 

were developed relative to the leasing and development of 

carbon-based minerals (oil, gas, and coalbed methane). By 

inference from available geologic information, reports of past 

production, and information from the minerals industry, parts 

of the planning area were determined to have a high potential 

for the occurrence of oil and gas, and to have high and 

moderate potential for the occurrence of coal and related 

coalbed methane. 

This information, along with analysis of past mineral 

leasing and development activity and production, was then 

utilized to project Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenarios for carbon-based mineral development. These scenarios are used as assumptions to aid in analysis of impacts. 

Because they are so broad, these resource occurrence and 

development potential classifications, projected for planning 

purposes, are not appropriate for or intended to predict future 

activity or the exact locations of new discoveries. 

Criteria for Locatable Minerals. Areas of potential for 

occurrence of locatable minerals were developed from the 

Green River RMP to help analyze effects of other land and 

resource uses and management actions on locatable mineral 

development and vice versa. These areas of potential were 

refined for the JMHCAP. This evaluation is based on a 

representative analysis by inference and does not imply that 

there may or may not be undiscovered locatable minerals, of 

economic value in the planning area. 

Areas identified as having potential for the occurrence of 

locatable minerals, include areas with current or past mining 

activity, areas where mining claims are located, areas where 

mineral occurrence has been proven from some type of 

activity (such as stratigraphic test holes), and areas where 

geologic formations are known to include locatable mineral 

occurrences (like zeolite, gold, jade, etc.). 

Criteria for Use of Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines. 

A consistent aspect of the activity planning process will be 

considering the application of mitigation or protective measures for surface disturbing or disruptive activities. These 

would be based on using the Wyoming BLM Mitigation 

Guidelines for Surface Disturbing and Disruptive Activities. 

Mitigation or protective measures would be applied as conditions of land and resource use: 

(a) to minimize soil movement; 

(b) to minimize disturbance of vegetation in sensitive areas 

such as riparian areas; 

(c) to protect important cultural and paleontological resources, 

recreational values, wildlife and wildlife habitat resources 

and threatened or endangered plant and animal species); 

and 

(d) to protect visual quality. 

Criteria for Healthy Rangelands. Another consistent aspect of the activity planning process will be considering the 

application of measures to achieve the four fundamentals of 

rangeland health. These would be based on using the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Appropriate management prescriptions and protection measures would be 

applied. The fundamentals are: 

(1) watersheds are functioning properly: 

(2) water, nutrients, and energy are cycling properly; 

(3) water quality meets State standards; and 

(4) habitat for special status species is protected. 

Criteria for Livestock Grazing Management. Another 

consistent aspect of the activity planning process will be 

considering the application of measures to meet the Wyoming 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management, and the Implementation plan for the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

Appropriate management prescriptions and protection measures would be applied. However, such prescriptions may not 

be allotment specific. Site specific measures would be applied 

on an allotment basis after a site specific standards and 

guidelines review, and in developing allotment management 

plans. 

587
APPENDIX 1

Some issues that directly or indirectly apply to the planning 

area were raised and addressed in the Green River RMP 

planning effort. These same issues will not again be raised 

and addressed in the EIS for the JMHCAP. These include: 

Criteria for the Coal Screening/Planning Process. The 

coal screening/planning process for management of the federal coal resources in the planning area was conducted in the 

Green River RMP planning process. A complete application 

of the coal screening process, including application of the 

Coal Unsuitability Criteria (43 CFR 3461), (documented in 

Appendix 3-2 of the RMP) was completed in the course of the 

Green River RMP planning effort. The coal screening/ 

planning process will not be revisited in the JMHCAP planning effort. However, potential coalbed methane development in the area will be considered. 

Criteria for Wilderness Study Areas. Interim management 

of Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) will not be addressed in the 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan. Management 

of WSAs within the planning area is addressed in the Rock 

Springs District Final Wilderness EIS (August 1990). Within 

the planning area, there are approximately 117,100 acres of 

BLM-administered public land in WSAs, of which approximately 70,000 acres have been recommended for designation 

as wilderness and are pending Congressional decision (see 

Map 4). When Congress makes decisions regarding the 

WSAs in the planning area, they will be incorporated into the 

Green River RMP. Until Congress acts, these WSAs will be 

managed under the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review (USDI 1987). No 

other potential wilderness areas in the planning area have been 

identified for wilderness review. 

Should Congress designate any of the WSAs (partially or 

wholly) as wilderness, the management of the designated 

areas will be in conformance with the Wilderness Act of 1964 

and as described in the above-mentioned Wilderness EISs 

and/or in the designation legislation. Wilderness activity 

plans will be prepared for any wilderness areas designated by 

Congress. 

Should Congress not designate part or all of any of the 

WSAs as wilderness, the nondesignated areas will lose their 

identity as WSAs and will be managed along with the adjoining land area as prescribed in the approved Green River RMP. 

It must be understood that this Coordinated Activity Plan 

will not address management prescriptions specifically for the 

WSAs. If WSAs are included in an area with management 

prescriptions that are more stringent than wilderness management prescriptions, the WSA would be managed under those 

more stringent prescriptions. Where this occurs, it is to be 

assumed that the more stringent management prescriptions 

would apply, whether or not the areas involved were designated as wilderness. 

Criteria for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC). The relevance and importance criteria for ACEC 

designation, found in BLM Manual 1613, were applied and 

documented in the Green River RMP EIS. These criteria and 

their application, and the determinations made in the RMP 

regarding the designation or non designation of ACECs, will 

not be revisited in developing the JMHCAP. However, if new 

areas are identified that meet the ACEC relevance and importance criteria, this information will be included in the EIS for 

the JMHCAP. 

Criteria for Wild Horses. The Green River RMP EIS 

considered appropriate management levels for wild horses. 

These will not be revisited in developing the JMHCAP. 

Criteria for Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Green River RMP 

EIS identified BLM-administered public lands along waterways that meet the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act suitability 

factors to be given further consideration for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Wild and scenic 

river reviews will not be revisited in developing the JMHCAP. 

Criteria for Livestock Grazing. The Green River RMP EIS 

addressed and provided for livestock grazing management. 

As a result, the JMHCAP will consider some level of grazing 

use in all alternatives and a no grazing alternative will not be 

revisited in developing the JMHCAP. 

GENERAL CRITERIA AND 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR 

ALTERNATIVE 

FORMULATION 

The following factors will be considered in one or more of 

the alternatives of the JMHCAP EIS: 

Fire management and fire suppression options. 

Intensive management of cultural and historic resources, 

including rock art occurrences, historic trails and Native 

American respected places. 

Various types and levels of vegetation uses, including 

wildlife habitat, watershed protection, livestock grazing, etc. 

Minerals exploration and development, authorizations related to rights-of-way and other lands and realty actions, offroad vehicle use, and other activities that may result in surface 

disturbance. 

Opportunities for land disposal or acquisition that could be 

useful in meeting goals for resource manageability and condition. 

Acquisition of access to provide reasonable levels of 

resource uses for the public and for resource development and 

manageability. 

Recommendation of protective withdrawals needed to 

improve resource manageability. 

Identification of right-of-way concentration areas, exclusion areas, and avoidance areas to provide for development 

needs and protection of resource values. 

Various levels of livestock grazing. 

Management of recreational use. 

Protecting unique and nonrenewable geological, cultural, 

paleontological, and recreational values. 

588
APPENDIX 1

Management options for protecting or enhancing wetlands 

and riparian areas. 

The big game population goals of the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD). 

Protection and enhancement of habitat for sensitive or 

important wildlife and plant species, including the protection 

of key elk and deer habitat. 

Protection of recovery and essential habitat for threatened 

or endangered wildlife and plant species. 

Criteria for Effects to be Considered 

The following types of effects will be addressed in identifying and analyzing the environmental consequences of the 

planning alternatives: 

Effects of wild horse use and management . 

Effects of surface disturbing land uses and other disruptive 

human activities on air quality, cultural resources, recreational opportunities, watershed, and wildlife resources. 

Effects caused by livestock grazing, disposal or acquisition 

of land, and use of or restrictions on Off Road Vehicular use. 

Effects of fencing on wildlife movement and migration. 

Effects of all types of land and resource uses on the 

vegetation resource. 

Economic impacts of land use restrictions on economic 

sectors that are heavily dependent on the use of public lands 

and resources (for example, minerals exploration and development, livestock grazing, recreation activities). 

Effects in all alternatives generally use existing data for 

analysis. 

Criteria for Selection of the Preferred Alternative 

Answers to the following questions will be used to guide 

selection of the preferred alternative: 

Does the alternative(s) meet guidelines for reduction of 

sedimentation and salinity, as stated in water quality plans of 

the State of Wyoming and the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA)? 

What levels of land use restrictions are needed to provide 

adequate protection of resource values? 

Does the alternative(s) retain reasonable accessibility of 

public lands for purposes of public access, public land use, and 

resource development? 

In proposing resource allocations that would affect the 

availability of lands for mineral development, has the BLM 

considered the potential of those lands for occurrence and 

development of energy and mineral resources? 

Is/Are the alternative(s) consistent with plans, programs, 

and policies of other federal agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes? 

Is/Are the alternative(s) consistent with the objectives 

established in the Green River RMP? 

ACEC CRITERIA 

As part of the process for developing the Jack Morrow Hills 

Coordinated Activity Plan, BLM planning team members 

reviewed all BLM-administered public lands in the planning 

area to determine if any areas should be considered for 

designation as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC). Existing ACECs were not reviewed to determine if 

any existing ACEC designations should be modified or terminated because this task was recently accomplished and documented through preparation of the Green River RMP. Only 

BLM-administered public lands (i.e., public land “surface”) 

can be considered for ACEC designation. 

To be eligible for designation as an ACEC, an area must 

meet the relevance and importance criteria described in 43 

CFR 1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613. 

Relevance and Importance are defined as follows: 

(1) Relevance. There shall be present a significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value; a fish or wildlife resource or other 

natural system or process; or natural hazard. 

(2) Importance. The above described value, resource, system, process, or hazard shall have substantial significance 

and values. This generally requires qualities of more than 

local significance and special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern. A natural 

hazard can be important if it is a significant threat to life 

or property. 

An area meets the “relevance” criterion if it contains one or 

more of the following: 

1. A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value (including but not limited to rare or sensitive archeological resources and religious or cultural resources 

important to Native Americans). 

2. A fish and wildlife resource (including but not limited to habitat for endangered, sensitive, or threatened species, or habitat essential for maintaining 

species diversity). 

3. A natural process or system (including but not limited to endangered, nonsensitive, or threatened plant 

species; rare, endemic, or relic plants or plant communities which are terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian; or 

rare geological features). 

4. Natural hazards (including but not limited to areas of 

avalanche, dangerous flooding, landslides, unstable 

soils, seismic activity, or dangerous cliffs). A hazard 

caused by human action may meet the relevance 

criteria if it is determined through the resource management planning process that it has become part of 

a natural process. 

An area meets the “importance” criterion, if it further 

meets one or more of the following: 

1. Has more than locally significant qualities which 

give it special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource. 

589
APPENDIX 1

2. Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, 

sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse 

change. 

3. Has been recognized as warranting protection in 

order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry 

out the mandates of FLPMA. 

4. Has qualities which warrant highlighting in order to 

satisfy public or management concerns about safety 

and public welfare. 

5. Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or 

to property. 

Table A1-1 shows the areas that were identified in the 

review and the BLM relevance and importance determinations that were made. 

The Green River RMP Interdisciplinary Team identified 

potential expansions to two of the existing ACECs, to be 

addressed during the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity 

planning effort. 

Based on the criteria, expansions were reviewed for two 

areas. The existing ACECs were not reevaluated. One of the 

proposed expansions would add an additional species to the 

existing Special Status Plant Species ACEC. The other 

expansion would add the wildlife habitat and migration corridors of the core area to the Steamboat Mountain ACEC. 

590
APPENDIX 1 

591