APPENDIX 6

APPENDIX 6

RECLAMATION AND MONITORING

RECLAMATION GOALS 

Reclamation goals are to: stabilize disturbed sites by 

reducing runoff and erosion; reestablish healthy, vigorous 

ground cover on these areas to their original condition or 

better by using native plant species; restore wildlife habitat 

and livestock forage; and restore visual quality to meet established visual resource management objectives on all areas of 

surface disturbance, reducing visual contrast and enhancing 

aesthetic values. 

RECLAMATION OBJECTIVES 

In order to achieve the above goals, disturbed sites would 

be reclaimed with perennial native grasses/forbs/shrub species reflecting the species naturally growing on the site before 

disturbance occurs. The goal is to achieve 100 percent of predisturbance cover of desired species, with bond release occurring when 80 percent of the pre-disturbance cover exists and 

the site is judged to be on its way toward 100 percent. 

Objectives may be modified as new information is acquired or 

if needed to conform with JMHCAP objectives. 

PLANNED ACTIONS AND 

REQUIREMENTS 

Surface disturbing projects would be required to utilize the 

best management practices described in Appendix 12. 

All surface disturbing and reclamation activities that would 

occur within the Steamboat ACEC, Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC, South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC, or the Oregon 

Buttes ACEC would meet the vegetation and habitat management objectives specific to that ACEC. 

Within the ACECs and overlapping crucial elk winter 

range and parturition areas, revegetation of disturbed areas 

with big sagebrush and other shrubs would be required to 

maintain and/or improve big game habitat. Planting of shrubs 

would be required to the same density that occurred on-site 

prior to disturbance. 

Prior to any on-site activity, an Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Restoration Plan (ERRP) (outlined in the Green 

River RMP ROD Appendix 5-3) may be required. The 

operator and the BLM would perform an on-site inventory in 

critical areas, such as shrub and cushion plant communities, to 

document plant species composition and cover values. This 

will establish a baseline standard to use in developing postdisturbance plant composition and cover values, seed mixes, 

and site information required for the restoration plan. Reseeding would be performed with plant species native to the 

vegetation communities of the planning area. 

Monitoring 

All sites would be monitored by the BLM for reclamation 

success under the standard BLM guidelines. Inspections 

would be based upon the standards in Appendix 12. 

Monitoring of a reclaimed area is a joint effort between the 

BLM and the operator. The BLM would inspect the site 

during the initial seeding and the following growing season 

for compliance with the reclamation requirements. The 

operator is responsible for notifying the BLM as soon as the 

site has met the reclamation objectives identified for the sites. 

If the BLM agrees that the site’s reclamation objectives have 

been met, the operator is released from any further reclamation responsibilities. If the BLM does not feel the reclamation 

objectives have been met, further treatment may be prescribed. 

Especially sensitive areas, such as basin big sagebrush, 

mountain mahogany, chokecherry, serviceberry, or bitterbrush communities would be monitored on an annual basis by 

the BLM and the lessee/operator/permittee until shrubs are 

reestablished on site. Specific monitoring techniques in 

critical shrub areas would be developed. 

Revegetation 

Standard native plant seed mixes would be developed for 

each ecological site type in the planning area, however, more 

specific seed mixes could be designed as needed as part of the 

ERRP process. In sensitive areas, plantings of containerized 

native shrub seedlings may be required. 

The following revegetation time frames are assumed for 

reclaimed sites in the respective precipitation zones of the 

planning area. These time frames represent the minimum 

amount of time it would likely take to see re-establishment of 

a native plant community similar in composition to the one 

existing on-site pre-disturbance. These rates do not assume 

that the plant community would be re-established to the same 

height and cover value. In some cases, reestablishment of a 

healthy, vigorous grass stand may provide better forage values than existed prior to disturbance. 

It is expected that basin big sagebrush, chokecherry and 

serviceberry shrubs removed during site disturbance would 

not likely be reestablished to pre-disturbance size and cover 

rates during the life of this plan. Therefore, revegetation of the 

site would not necessarily replace the wildlife forage/browse 

values that were found on the site pre-disturbance (e.g., the 

replacement time of the basin big sagebrush to reach the same 

height and cover values that existed prior to disturbance may 

be as long as 70 years or more). However, it is expected that 

adherence to reclamation requirements would eventually provide for the return of these areas to shrub communities. 

643
APPENDIX 6

7-9" Precipitation Zone 

Typical establishment of perennial native grasses/forbs in 3-

5 years 

Typical establishment of shrub species in 20-30 years 

10-14" Precipitation Zone 

Typical establishment of perennial native grasses/forbs in 2-

3 years 

Typical establishment of shrub species in 20-30 years. 

Stabilized Dunes 

Disturbing stabilized dunes would create blowout areas 

that would be difficult to reclaim. Plant succession in dunes 

is a very long process, depending on stabilizing the dune, and 

establishing appropriate pioneer species which then build up 

nutrients and organic matter in the sand-soil. Phases of dunal 

succession last for hundreds of years, until reestablishment to 

pre-disturbance vegetation occurs. Shrub communities such 

as basin big sagebrush, mountain mahogany and bitterbrush 

are documented to require 100 to 150 years to become reestablished on activated sand dunes (Chadwick 1965) It is unknown how successful artificial revegetation may be on the 

dunes. For that reason, surface disturbing activities on stabilized, vegetated dunes are not recommended. However, if 

such activities do take place, it is recommended that at the time 

of permitting, the site ERRP and APD reclamation plans 

include what extra measures would be taken to ensure site 

stability. These methods may include erosion control matting, 

soil stabilizers, and/or snow fences. 

Active Dunes 

Surface disturbing activities which would require reclamation in the active dune field are not recommended as the dunes 

continue to shift and move. Road construction and new access 

may not be feasible. Even if sand stabilization could be 

temporarily achieved in the immediate vicinity of the disturbance, the nearby shifting dunes would likely interfere with 

the activity. In addition, the dunal ponds (flockets) could be 

affected and these would be extremely difficult to reclaim and 

revegetate. 

MONITORING OIL AND GAS 

DEVELOPMENT, ROADS, 

WILDLIFE, RANGELAND, 

GROUNDWATER, AND 

WATERSHED 

To meet the objectives of the JMHCAP, and conform with 

the Green River RMP, monitoring would be accomplished by 

BLM and/or required of operators (oil and gas, rancher, rightof-way applicants, etc.). Monitoring is a requirement provided for in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1505.2(c) 

and 1503.3). The regulation, in its requirements relative to 

NEPA and Agency decision making, states “...A monitoring 

and enforcement program shall be adopted and summarized 

where applicable for any mitigation” (1505.2(c)). 

The BLM would conduct extensive monitoring inspections of construction, drilling, and rehabilitation operations, 

through a compliance officer and/or interdisciplinary team, to 

ensure acceptable attainment of objectives. The monitoring 

inspections would be based upon the standards in Appendix 

12. 

Specific activities and resources to be monitored include 

oil and gas, wildlife, and forage. 

Oil and Gas 

Reclamation: All past, present, and future reclamation 

would be monitored to ensure the following goals have been 

met with regards to successful revegetation and restoration. 

- Immediate site stabilization to limit wind and water 

erosion. 

- Establishment of vigorous stands of desirable plant 

species to limit invasion by noxious weeds. 

- Implementation of noxious weed control in cooperation 

with County Weed and Pest Control Agent. 

- Establishment of vegetation consistent with wildlife, 

livestock, and wild horse needs. 

- Reduction of visual contrast and enhancement of aesthetic values. 

- Compliance with site-specific revegetation requirements. 

- Regenerating and self-supporting vegetation. 

- Long term shrub and big game habitat establishment 

Monitoring of a reclaimed area is a joint effort between the 

BLM and the operator. The BLM would inspect the site 

during the initial seeding and the following fall for compliance with the reclamation requirements. The operator is 

responsible for notifying the BLM as soon as the site has met 

the reclamation objectives identified for the site. If the BLM 

agrees that the site’s reclamation objectives have been met on 

wells where final reclamation has been completed, the operator is released from any further reclamation responsibilities. If 

the BLM does not feel the reclamation objectives have been 

met, further treatment may be prescribed. The reclamation 

monitoring goal for revegetation would be to adequately 

characterize ground cover and vegetation canopy cover, and 

to determine vegetation species occurrence. 

These data would be compared to acceptance criteria as 

follows: reclamation vegetative cover is 50 percent of predisturbance vegetative cover at 2 years, and 80 percent of predisturbance vegetative cover at 5 years. Other acceptance 

criteria may be adopted as a result of a reclamation technical 

review. 

Monitoring would consist of a step-point transect which 

would record ground and canopy cover in the reclaimed area. 

These data would be compared against acceptance criterion 2 

(BLM Manual, Physical Resource Studies, 4412.14 D2 and 

4). 

644
APPENDIX 6

To use acceptance criterion 1, a second transect would be 

run in the adjacent undisturbed vegetation recording ground 

and canopy cover on a minimum of 100 points. These cover 

data would be compared to the 2-year and 5-year pre-disturbance cover parameters. 

During monitoring, species would be identified and recorded in the reclaimed area to determine the composition. 

These data would be compared with the species that were in 

the seeding requirements. Evaluations would be made of the 

effectiveness of the seeding effort and appropriateness of the 

seed mix. 

Erosion condition ratings for the reclaimed sites would 

also be evaluated at the same time the vegetation is monitored. 

This would be done by visually assessing the amounts of soil 

movement, surface rock, pedestaling, flow patterns, and rills 

(BLM’s Erosion Condition Class Rating system). 

Roads 

As a continuing monitoring effort, all existing access roads 

would be continually evaluated to determine if they are: 1) 

still necessary, 2) safe, and 3) whether they have erosion 

problems. The roads would be reclaimed or maintained as is 

appropriate. It would be the responsibility of the authorized 

users to conduct preventative and corrective road maintenance, throughout the life of their operations, on the roads 

permitted for their use. 

Wildlife 

The scheduling of wildlife monitoring activities is dependent upon the implementation of habitat improvement treatments. Specific monitoring practices would be as follows: 

- Big game distribution within the planning area would 

continue to be monitored annually. Monitoring would 

occur at a level adequate to obtain estimates of mule 

deer densities year round and particularly during midwinter. Big game classification information would be 

provided by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(WGFD). 

- At least one permanent-line intercept transect with a 

belt transect and permanent photo points would be 

established within each treatment area before disturbance and after reclamation treatment implementation. 

From these permanent transects post-treatment estimates of browse species canopy cover, browse species 

density by age class, and browse species hedging classes 

within each treatment area would be obtained. Monitoring intensity would be at least once every 3 years. 

Coordination with the WGFD would occur. 

- Two permanent exclosures (one livestock exclosure 

and one livestock and big game exclosure, actual size to 

be determined) would be established within the sagebrush-grassland, sagebrush-salt desert shrub, and mountain shrub-sagebrush types within the planning area. 

Within these exclosures, all of the vegetative characteristics outlined would be monitored, as appropriate, at 

least once every 5 years. The construction and monitoring responsibilities would be coordinated with the 

WGFD. 

- Utilization levels within and adjacent to treated areas 

(key areas) would be monitored by BLM using currently accepted BLM methods. 

An evaluation to assess the fluid mineral exploration and 

development activity and its effects on elk and their movement patterns, elk use of habitat (potential fragmentation), and 

effects on other wildlife species and habitats, and other 

sensitive resources would be conducted over a 3-year period. 

The evaluation would incorporate information from the elk 

study initiated in 1999; application of the standards and 

guidelines for healthy rangelands; proper functioning condition determinations; and from other activities and uses. At the 

end of the evaluation (about 3 years) a determination would be 

made on whether currently unleased areas, and currently 

leased areas that may become available for future leasing 

consideration (shown on Map 9), would be offered for fluid 

mineral leasing. Should these areas be offered for lease, 

appropriate mitigation would be applied to meet planning area 

management objectives. If the evaluation concludes that 

planning area management objectives are not being met, these 

areas would either not be leased, or would be leased with an 

NSO stipulation. 

Jack Morrow Hills Elk Study 

This is a cooperative effort between the BLM, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the University of 

Wyoming Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. The study’s 

purpose is to determine the distribution and habitat use of the 

Steamboat elk herd, both seasonally and year-round. It is also 

examining the effects of human and vehicular disturbances on 

elk behavior. For this study, 40 cow elk were fitted with radio 

collars and tracked by air bimonthly (weather permitting) and 

weekly by ground searches during weeks they did not track 

them aerially. 

The study is designed to improve our ability to measure and 

mitigate the effect of energy development and its associated 

impacts on the Steamboat elk herd. Without this information 

it will be difficult or impossible to mitigate the impacts; the 

viability of the elk herd may be threatened. 

Rangeland 

Monitoring in conformance with the application of the 

standards and guidelines for healthy rangelands would be 

accomplished. Monitoring plans would be developed as part 

of AMPs, grazing plans, and permit terms and conditions as 

appropriate. Monitoring plans would be developed to assess 

progress toward meeting and in accordance with JMHCAP 

objectives. All rangeland monitoring activities would use 

approved BLM methodologies and may include actual use, 

utilization, climate, trend, and use supervision. 

Additional key areas would be identified on a case-by-case 

basis, and monitoring studies may be changed as needed. 

645
APPENDIX 6

Groundwater 

Plans for groundwater monitoring in this area would be 

initiated when necessary. 

The BLM currently is requiring surface casing and cement 

through the Wasatch Formation, or isolation of other zones 

from the Wasatch, in an effort to protect the water bearing 

zones in that formation. The Wasatch is the chief source for 

groundwater in the area. 

The monitoring program hopefully would add to our understanding of the area’s aquifer systems. The Wasatch 

aquifer system includes many discrete water-bearing sand 

lenses separated by relatively impermeable beds. It is unknown if, or to what extent, the permeable beds are interconnected. Less is known about interconnections between porous 

water-bearing zones in the Paleozoic carbonates. Because the 

available wells are developed in various sands and carbonate 

sections in different formations, water quality data may indicate whether mixing of aquifers is occurring. 

Mixing of aquifers is of concern due to the large number of 

wells which penetrate rocks bearing waters of varying quality 

as well as hydrocarbons. Several fields in the area produce 

from strata in close stratigraphic proximity to good quality 

aquifers (Fort Union “Almy” and Mesaverde near the Wasatch). 

Artificial pressure variations (e.g., water flooding), as well as 

natural pressure variations, can lead to aquifer mixing, especially when aquifers are breached by wellbores. 

Information may also be gained about groundwater supplies which could be made available for other resource activities such as wildlife and grazing management. 

BLM policy is to comply with State requirements regarding the use and protection of groundwater. Federal laws and 

regulations (including FLPMA and Executive Orders) define 

BLM’s responsibility relative to groundwater. The BLM has 

authority and responsibility to monitor activities so as to 

protect and enhance the quality of the environment. Oil and 

gas leasing and subsequent permitting of development have 

the potential to result in environmental quality problems such 

as groundwater contamination. 

Watershed 

Plans for watershed monitoring would be initiated in the 

area when necessary. Watershed monitoring needs would be 

included in all resource monitoring plans if appropriate. 

646