BLM LIBRARY

88062109

'2fj£

Management

Environmental Tlmpa
RawlinsiField Office

Volumetl -1

Wyoming State Office - Rawlins Field Office

Mission Statement

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of
present and future generations.

-4

A?

A-} tA' cf3

A V' ^ ^

C-NS

p

BLM/W Y/PL-08/007+ 1610

IN REPLY REFER TO:

United States Department of the

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming State Office
P.O. Box 1828

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003-1828

1610

Rawlins RMP Revision

Interior

Take Pride*
,Ny\M ERICA

December 26, 2007

Dear Reader:

Attached for your review are the Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the Rawlins Field Office. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared
the Proposed RMP in consultation with cooperating agencies and with consideration of public comments
received during this planning effort. This Proposed RMP provides a framework for the future
management direction and appropriate use of BLM-administered lands and resources located in most of
Albany, Carbon, Laramie, and Sweetwater counties, Wyoming. The document contains land use planning
decisions to facilitate management of the public lands and resources administered by the Rawlins Field
Office. The Proposed RMP is open for a 30-day review and protest period beginning the date the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the Notice of Availability of the Final EIS in the
Federal Register.

The BLM developed the Proposed RMP and Final EIS in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The BLM based
the Proposed RMP on Alternative 4, the preferred alternative in the Draft RMP and EIS, released on
December 17, 2004. This Proposed RMP and Final EIS contains the proposed plan, potential impacts of
the proposed plan, summary of the written and verbal comments received during the public review period
of the Draft RMP and EIS, and responses to these comments.

Instructions for Filing a Protest

Any person who participated in the planning process for this Proposed RMP, and has an interest which is
or may be adversely affected, may protest approval of this Proposed RMP and land use planning
decisions contained within it (see 43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1610.5-2) during the 30-day
protest period. Only those persons or organizations who participated in the planning process leading to
the Proposed RMP may protest. The protesting party may raise only those issues submitted for the record
during the planning process leading up to the publication of this Proposed RMP. These issues may have
been raised by the protesting party or others. New issues may not be brought into the record at the protest
stage.

Please file protests with the BLM Director in writing. Mail protests to: Director (210), Attention: Brenda
Hudgens-Williams, P.O. Box 66538, Washington, DC, 20035. Send overnight mail to: Director (210),
Attention: Brenda Williams, 1620 L Street, NW, Suite 1075, Washington, DC, 20036. BLM will
consider protests sent by facsimile or electronic as an advance copy of a protest forthcoming through
regular or overnight mail. To receive full consideration, the protesting party must also provide to the
BLM the original letter by either regular or overnight mail postmarked by the close of the protest period.
Protests sent only by facsimile or electronically will not be accepted as valid protests. If you wish to
provide BLM with such advance notification, please contact Ms. Hudgens-Williams electronically to
Brenda_Hudgens-Williams@blm.gov or by facsimile to (202) 452-5112 (Attn: BLM Protest Coordinator).

All protests must be postmarked on or before the end of the 30-day protest period following
publication of this notice by the EPA.

IMPORTANT: In accordance with 43 CFR 1610.5-2, the protest must contain the information
described in the following critical elements checklist:

The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person filing the protest.

The “interest” of the person filing the protest. (How will you be adversely affected by the approval of the

resource management plan?)

A statement of the part(s) of the Proposed RMP, and the issue(s) being protested. (To the extent possible, this

should reference specific pages, paragraphs, sections, tables, maps, etc., which are believed to be incorrect or
incomplete.)

A copy of all documents addressing the issue(s) that the protesting party submitted during the planning process

OR a statement of the date they were discussed for the record.

A concise statement explaining why the protestor believes the BLM State Director’s proposed decision is

incorrect.

All of these elements are critical parts of your protest. Take care to document all relevant facts. As
much as possible, reference or cite the planning documents, or available planning records (e.g., meeting
minutes or summaries, correspondence, etc.). To aid in ensuring the completeness of your protest, a
printable protest checklist is available following this letter and online at www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/rawlins.

If you submit a protest, the BLM Director will make every attempt to promptly resolve it. A decision will
be in writing and will be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The
decision of the BLM Director shall be the final decision of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

BLM’s practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for
public review. Before including your address, phone number, E-mail address, or other personal
identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment — including your personal
identifying information — may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your
comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that
we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses, will be available for
public inspection in their entirety.

Upon resolution of any protests and a determination a Supplemental Proposed RMP and Final EIS is not
warranted, an Approved Plan and Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued. The Approved Plan will be
mailed to all who expressed an interest in receiving a copy. The document will be available to all parties
through the “Planning” page of the BLM national website (www.blm.gov/eplanning), or by mail upon
request.

IW?0 [dUOc\

PROPOSED

Resource Management Plan

and

FINAL

Environmental Impact Statement

for

Public Lands Administered

A0

l/'N

by the

Bureau of Land Management
Rawlins Field Office
Rawlins, Wyoming

Prepared by

United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Rawlins Field Office

In cooperation with

The State of Wyoming
Carbon County
Albany County
Sweetwater County
Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District
Medicine Bow Conservation District
Little Snake River Conservation District
Sweetwater County Conservation District
Environmental Protection Agency

A ^

/OS

*<K

o' Ap

cfs

sjP o# scr

■ o-',:

January 2008

Final EIS

Abstract

PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
THE RAWLINS FIELD OFFICE
RAWLINS, WYOMING

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

Jurisdiction: Portions of Albany, Carbon, Laramie, and Sweetwater Counties

Abstract: This final environmental impact statement (EIS) addresses resource management plans (RMP)
for the Rawlins RMP Planning Area (RMPPA). The Rawlins RMP will result in a land use allocation plan
for the RMPPA and will provide management direction to address the planning issues that have been
identified through the planning process. This RMP and final EIS describe and analyze a reasonable range
of management alternatives for the public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) Rawlins Field Office (RFO). Within the planning area, the RFO administers
approximately 3.4 million acres of public land surface and mineral estate, 0.1 million acres of public land
surface where the mineral estate is state-owned or private, and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate
where the surface is state-owned or private.

When the Rawlins RMP is completed, it will provide a comprehensive framework for managing the
BLM-administered public lands and resources in the RMPPA. The analysis in this final EIS considers a
comprehensive range of alternatives that provide for various levels of resource protection and
opportunities for motorized and nonmotorized recreational activities, leasing and development of mineral
resources, livestock grazing, and other land use activities. The final EIS analyzes the potential
environmental consequences of implementing each management alternative and the potential land
allocation/resource use conflicts. Four alternatives that address the issues in the RMPPA have been
considered. They are Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative), Alternative 2 (Development of Resources),
Alternative 3 (Protection of Resources), and Alternative 4 (Conservation Alternative-Proposed Plan). The
proposed Rawlins RMP is a refinement of the Preferred Alternative presented in the draft EIS published
in December 2004.

Protests on the proposed Rawlins RMP and final EIS will be accepted for 30 days following the date that
the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of filing for this final EIS in the Federal
Register.

Further information regarding this proposed RMP and final EIS can be obtained from:

John Spehar

Planning and Environmental Coordinator
Bureau of Land Management
1 300 North Third Street
P.O. Box 2407
Rawlins, Wyoming 82301

Rawlins RMP

Abstract-1

Final EIS

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

This Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) documents the comprehensive analysis
of alternatives for the planning and management of public lands
and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) Rawlins Field Office (RFO) in Wyoming. The BLM RFO
administrative area is located in south-central and southeastern
Wyoming. The RFO includes approximately 1 1.2 million acres of
land in Albany, Carbon, Laramie, and Sweetwater Counties.

Within the approximately 1 1.2 million acres, the RFO administers
approximately 3.4 million acres of public land surface and
mineral estate, 0. 1 million acres of public land surface where the
mineral estate is state-owned or private, and 1 .2 million acres of
federal mineral estate where the surface is state-owned or private.

The public lands and federal mineral estate within the Rawlins
RMP Planning Area (RMPPA) are the subject of the planning
effort and this associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
document. Neither this document nor the RFO’s current land use plan applies to lands or minerals within

the RMPPA that are administered by federal
agencies other than BLM, such as the U.S.
Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR), and the U.S. Air Force.

This RMP FEIS provides analysis of potential
management direction for important resource
values and resource uses within the RMPPA,
and allocates the use of public lands for
multiple-use. The RMP FEIS also provides
management direction for the protection of
certain resources while allowing for leasing and
development of mineral resources, livestock
grazing, and other activities at appropriate
levels.

The Great Divide RMP, approved by the Wyoming BLM State Director on November 8, 1990, currently
covers the public lands included in the Rawlins RMP. The Great Divide RMP provides guidance and
direction for management of BLM-administered public land surface and federal mineral estate.

The purpose of the Rawlins RMP Revision and EIS is to replace the existing Great Divide RMP, and to
address the deficiencies described in the Great Divide RMP Evaluation (Section 1.2.3). The Rawlins

Rawlins RMP

ES-1

Executive Summary

Final EIS

RMP will provide the overall management direction for the public lands and resources administered by
the RFO. Adequate decisions from the Great Divide RMP will be carried forward to the revised plan.

The Great Divide RMP includes 5 Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) — Encampment River Canyon,
Prospect Mountain, Bennett Mountains, Adobe Town, and Ferris Mountains; 4 Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC) — Jep Canyon, Como Bluff, Shamrock Hills, and Sand Hills; 3 Wild
Horse Herd Management Areas (HMA) — Adobe Town, Stewart Creek, and Lost Creek; and 3 Special
Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) — Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, North Platte River,
and Shirley Mountain. Major land uses include mineral development, wildlife habitat, wild horse use,
livestock grazing, and recreation.

Issues and Conflicts

The identified issues are based upon the demands, concerns, conflicts and problems involving the use or
management of the public lands and resources within the RMPPA. The following planning issues were
identified through public scoping and other public outreach efforts. Issues were also identified through an
evaluation of the Great Divide RMP completed by the BLM on July 5, 2001. Planning issues and
conflicts between various resources and activities addressed in the Rawlins RMP include:

• Energy resource development (e.g., oil and gas, coal, solar, and wind energy) and related
transportation network conflicts with other land and resource uses and values (e.g., wildlife
habitat, recreation values, historic resources, cultural resources, sensitive vegetation types, and
sensitive watersheds).

• There are unique areas or sensitive lands and resources in the RMPPA that meet the criteria for
protection and management under special designations and management areas (SD/MA). There
are also concerns that SD/MAs may result in too many restrictions on the use of the public lands.

• Resource accessibility relates to the value or usability of some resources. To be used, resources
must be accessible — legally and physically — and manageable.

• New demands are being placed on public lands due to growth in and around some cities, towns,
and rural subdivisions in the RMPPA. Considerations include balancing development with the
desire for open space.

• Attention is needed where development activities may conflict with special status species and
their habitat requirements.

• Federal and state requirements for water quality warrant additional attention as the RMP is
implemented and updated.

• There are conflicting demands for consumptive (e.g., livestock, wildlife, and wild horse grazing
and vegetation removal for development activities) and non-consumptive (e.g., watershed
protection, soil stabilization, and wildlife habitat) uses of the vegetation resources.

• Recreation uses and demands are increasing. Certain areas and resources need protection while
others need to be considered for more public recreation uses.

Actions taken under the Great Divide RMP created land use patterns and valid existing rights that
influence options for future management. For example, many of the oil and gas resources in the RMPPA
have been leased. The presence of these valid existing rights will affect the management choices available
for BLM to consider in developing the Rawlins RMP. Alternatives will address potential stipulations to

ES-2

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Executive Summary

be attached to new leases or leases to be re-offered if existing leases are relinquished, the availability of
unleased lands for future oil and gas leasing, and additional mitigation measures to be considered in
reviewing Applications for Permits to Drill.

General Description of the Final EIS Alternatives

Chapter 2 describes four alternative RMPs: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1 — Continuation of
Existing Management Direction) and three action alternatives; Alternative 2 (Emphasis on the
Development of Resources), Alternative 3 (Emphasis on Protection of Resources), and Alternative 4
(Conservation Alternative - Proposed Plan). The No Action Alternative (Continuation of Existing
Management Direction) includes direction provided by the Great Divide RMP (November 1990) as well
as new direction and policy that have been developed since completion of the Great Divide RMP and
resulting amendments to the plan. The three action alternatives were developed to present a range of
management options. Each alternative management plan is intended to minimize adverse impacts on
cultural and natural resources while providing for compatible resource use and development
opportunities, as consistent with current law, regulation, and policy.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative is a continuation of the current management direction. Ongoing programs
initiated under existing legislation, regulations, and in the Great Divide RMP would continue. Thus, the
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) describes the current resource and land use management direction
in the RMPPA. The No Action Alternative and its impact analysis represent the baseline to which the
other management alternatives and their associated analyses are compared. Management actions proposed
under the No Action Alternative are presented in Table 2-1.

Alternative 2 (Development of Resources)

Alternative 2 provides expanded opportunities to use and develop resources found within the RMPPA.
This alternative emphasizes development and intensive management, while placing less emphasis on
environmental protection. Resources would be protected to the extent required by applicable laws and
regulations. Development and activities would occur throughout the RMPPA as proposed through
management actions consistent with existing BLM guidelines. Management actions proposed under
Alternative 2 (Emphasis on the Development of Resources) are presented in Table 2-1 .

Alternative 3 (Protection of Resources)

Alternative 3 changes the mix of opportunities to use, develop, and manage resources. The alternative
emphasizes the improvement and protection of habitat for wildlife and sensitive plant and animal species;
improvement of riparian areas and water quality; preservation of unique genetic phenotypes in wild
horses of the Lost Creek HMA; increase in designation of ACECs and SD/MAs; and protection of
historic and cultural sites. Development of resources within the RMPPA would occur with intensive
management of surface-disturbing activities. Management actions proposed under Alternative 3
(Emphasis on Protection of Resources) are presented in Table 2-1.

Alternative 4 (Conservation Alternative-Proposed Plan)

The Proposed Plan provides a balance for opportunities to use and develop resources within the RMPPA
while ensuring environmental conservation. The Proposed Plan provides the guidance that emphasizes

Rawlins RMP

ES-3

Executive Summary

Final EIS

neither resource use nor resource protection. This balanced alternative best meets the issues and concerns
raised during scoping. The Proposed Plan represents the management actions recommended by the Field
Manager to the State Director as the actions that best resolve planning issues within the RMPPA and that
best promote balanced multiple use objectives. Management actions proposed under the Proposed Plan
are presented in Table 2-1.

Environmental Consequences

The environmental consequences that could result from the management prescriptions of the four
alternatives are described in Chapter 4 and are summarized and compared in Table 2-4, Summary
Comparison of Impacts. These potential consequences are discussed for each resource program, providing
an analysis of environmental effects resulting from management of all resources and resource uses. This
includes an analysis of cumulative effects, which are defined as the impacts that result from the
incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future
actions.

Overview of the Proposed Plan

Key points of the Proposed Plan are listed below.

Air Quality

BLM would minimize, within the scope of its authority, any emissions that may add to atmospheric
deposition, cause violations of air quality standards, or degrade visibility. For example, BLM would
require proponents of a proposed project to periodically demonstrate that potential impacts to air quality
from their project are below applicable significance criteria in the EIS for that project. EPA approves the
State of Wyoming SIP and provides oversight on State compliance with the Clean Air Act. State
standards enforced in the RMPPA would be as strict as or stricter than federal standards. Special
requirements to alleviate air quality impacts would be considered on a case-by-case basis in processing
land use authorizations within the scope of BLM's authority. BLM would cooperate with the operation of
the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)/National Trends Network atmospheric deposition
monitoring site, as well as in the collection of basic climate and meteorological data from remote
automatic weather stations.

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources would be identified and protected on a case-by-case basis, according to site-specific
needs. Cultural properties eligible for National Register of Flistoric Places (NRHP) listing would be
managed for preservation of cultural and historic values. Where the setting contributes to NRHP
eligibility, actions that diminish the visual integrity of the property’s significant historic features would
not be allowed within !4-mile of the cultural property or the visual horizon, whichever is closer.
Unevaluated portions of the setting would be protected until a cultural inventory is complete. Protective
measures would be developed for threatened or sensitive sites determined as a result of Section 110
inventory (National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA]) and monitoring.

ES-4

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Executive Summary

Fire and Fuels Management

BLM would conduct wildland fire suppression and fuels management activities to first provide for
firefighter and public safety. Public lands within the checkerboard or other intermixed landownership
areas would be managed to protect private property; most often resulting in fire suppression activities.

Wildland fire suppression activities in the remainder of the
RMPPA would be managed for Appropriate Management
Response (AMR). AMRs for SD/MAs would protect or
enhance the relevant and important values for the ACEC or
SD/MA. A high priority for fire management activities
would be given to areas identified as:

• Communities at risk (as identified in Federal
Register, Volume 66, Number 3, 2001)

• Industrial interface areas

• Areas of high priority resource values within the
RMPPA

Fuels treatments, including prescribed fire, mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments, would be
used to reduce fuels levels and meet other multiple-use resource objectives, including returning fire to its
natural ecological role in the ecosystem. Wildland urban interfaces and communities at risk would receive
priority for fuels reduction. Rehabilitation and restoration efforts would be undertaken to protect and
sustain ecosystems, for public health and safety, and to help communities protect infrastructure.

Forest Management

Approximately 21,813 acres of commercial forest would be available for commercial timber harvest. All
forest and woodlands in the RMPPA would be open to non-commercial harvest of minor wood products,
such as fuelwood, posts and poles, Christmas trees, and wildings. Forest and woodlands management
would also include manipulation of aspen, juniper, and other non-commercial tree species to meet forest
health and/or other multiple-use objectives. Forests and woodlands would be managed using natural
processes, prescribed fire, and chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments. Approximately 6,700
acres of steep slopes and riparian areas and their associated buffer zones would not be available for
commercial timber harvest.

Lands and Realty

Existing withdrawals in the RMPPA would
remain in place unless it is determined they
should be terminated. Such determination
(and plan amendment) would be based upon
full examination of the issues associated
with withdrawal terminations, including
land use, environmental, and other factors
associated with opening public lands now
closed to entry under the public land laws or
to mineral location under the mining laws.
Where appropriate and necessary to protect
other resource values, new withdrawals

Rawlins RMP

ES-5

Executive Summary

Final EIS

would be pursued and implemented prior to terminating any existing withdrawals. Proposed new
withdrawals of approximately 16,980 acres would be pursued.

Coal classifications on 671,768 acres in the RMPPA are no longer necessary (Coal classifications are no
longer necessary because: (1) the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 requires competitive
leasing on all, not just known, deposits of federal coal; and (2) the Multiple Mineral Development Act of
1954 established procedures to regulate conflicts between coal leases and mining claims). Existing
withdrawals would be reviewed and terminated, as appropriate.

When practicable, develop and maintain a land ownership pattern that will provide better access for
management and protection of public lands.

Approximately 46,230 acres of BLM-
administered public lands meet the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(FLPMA) criteria and would be available
for consideration for disposal. The preferred
method of disposal is exchange.

BLM-administered public lands within 14-
mile of the incorporated boundaries of cities
and towns would be open to oil and gas
leasing with an NSO stipulation and closed
to locatable mineral entry and mineral
material disposals. Existing activities would
be intensively managed.

All BLM-administered public lands, except WSAs and some SD/MAs, would be open to consideration
for placement of transportation and utility right-of-way (ROW) systems. Each system would be located
adjacent to existing facilities when possible. Existing major transportation and utility ROW routes would
be designated corridors. However, major transportation routes within the RMPPA that are located east of
the Carbon County-Albany County line would not be considered for ROW corridor designation because

of the scattered public land ownership pattern in the area. Mitigation
requirements for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be applied to
activities related to utility/transportation systems to protect important resource
values. Sensitive resource values would be avoided. Wind energy development
would also be considered outside of avoidance or exclusion areas.

Certain scattered parcels of land withdrawn for Seminoe Reservoir (2,000 acres)
and the Savery-Pothook area (1,205 acres), currently managed by BOR, are being
considered for revocation because they are no longer needed for the purpose for
which they were withdrawn. BLM determined that the lands are suitable for
return to public domain status. When returned to BLM administration, these lands
would be managed the same as adjacent public lands.

Livestock Grazing

Current livestock grazing uses would be continued until monitoring indicates an adjustment is necessary.
Monitoring would include coordination, cooperation, consultation, and negotiation with grazing
permittees and the interested public. Requests for changes in season-of-use or kind-of-livestock would be
considered on a case-by-case basis, and reviewed to determine range suitability and to evaluate potential

i, Ms**

Map 2-33

Utility fT ransporliWxjni Systems
AvokJanee Areas.
A&ematwe*

ES-6

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Executive Summary

impacts to both riparian and upland vegetation and other land resource uses. Grazing systems and range
improvements would be designed to achieve the management goals for livestock grazing and maintain
healthy rangelands. New fence construction would be authorized to BLM standards. Existing fences
would be modified according to current BLM standards where needed or as older fences are reconstructed
following consultation with affected parties.

Livestock grazing would be managed to sustain and enhance livestock grazing opportunities and to

provide for protection or enhancement of all resource values. The
Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for livestock
Grazing Management would be implemented when authorizing livestock
grazing use and related activities within the RMPPA. BLM would work
closely with operators and others to determine the most appropriate
methods to achieve Standards and desired plant community.

Designated camping areas, wetland/riparian spring exclosures, sensitive
plant species exclosures, some cooperative wildlife management areas,
coal mines, and some oil and gas production facilities would not be
authorized for livestock grazing. Management of domestic sheep and
goats would be in accordance with national BLM policy and, to the extent possible, the recommendations
of the Wyoming Bighom/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group. Conversions from cattle or sheep
to domestic bison would not be allowed in areas of blocked federal surface land ownership.

Minerals

Oil and Gas

BLM is integrating the results of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Inventory into its
RMPs. EPCA inventory data is integrated into the Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario
that predicts future mineral development within the RMPPA. RMP actions that apply to mineral resource
development are evaluated to:

• Clearly present best management practices (BMP), mitigation, and reclamation requirements
necessary to reduce impacts of oil and gas operations on other resources.

• Ensure that BMPs and mitigation are either statutorily required or scientifically justifiable and are
the least restrictive measure necessary to accomplish the desired level of resource protection.

• The BMPs and mitigation requirements would be monitored to determine if more or less
restrictive measures might accomplish the same goal.

Oil and Gas Reasonably Foreseeable Development for the 20-Year Planning Period.

Action

Total

Wells Projected to be Drilled

8,822

Miles of New Oil and Gas Roads

3,158

Acres Disturbed in the Short Term

57,819

Wells Abandoned

1,184

Well Sites Reclaimed

1,066

Miles of Roads Closed (Reclaimed)

500

Rawlins RMP

ES-7

Executive Summary

Final EIS

Action

Total

Acres of Disturbance Remaining over the
Long Term

15,472

Oil and gas opportunity for leasing, exploration and development on 4,587,900 acres of subsurface fluid
mineral within the Rawlins RMPPA is subject to the following constraints:

Oil and Gas Classifications for Mineral Estate (4.59 million acres).

Classification

Acres

Open to leasing consideration and subject to standard lease form
stipulations

803,070

Open to leasing consideration and subject to moderate lease constraints
such as seasonal restrictions

3,070,180

Open to leasing consideration and subject to major lease constraints such
as no surface occupancy (NSO)

605,860

Closed to leasing

108,790

Oil and Gas Constraints for Mineral Estate in High and Moderate

EPCA Gas Potential Areas

Oil and Gas Potential

Closed

No Surface
Occupancy

High Potential

510 acres

34,730 acres

Moderate Potential

28,550 acres

59,170 acres

Total

29,060 acres

93,900 acres

Oil and gas lease stipulations may be modified or eliminated using
the exception, waiver, or modification criteria outlined in this
RMP. Stipulations that do not accomplish the desired resource
protection would be changed based on monitoring or new
scientific data.

All lands open to oil and gas leasing consideration also would be
open to geophysical exploration, subject to appropriate resource
surveys, surface protection measures, adequate bonding, and
adherence to State of Wyoming standards for geophysical
operations. Vehicular use for “necessary tasks,” such as geophysical exploration purposes, including
project survey and layout, would be permitted except where specifically prohibited, such as some
SD/MAs (see definition of “necessary tasks” in the glossary).

Oil and Gas Disturbance

Private Wells

Private

Acreage

Federal Wells

Federal

Acreage

Total #
Wells

Total Acreage

5,111

35,400

3,711

22,419

8,822

57,545

ES-8

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Executive Summary

Coal

New applications for leasing federal coal are not expected during the 20-year analysis period for this EIS.
Existing leases may be developed. The first two steps of the coal screening process (Appendix 2) were
completed for federal coal lands in the RMPPA. Approximately 4,990 acres (containing an estimated 70.1
million tons of surface mineable federal coal) were unsuitable for surface coal mining. Approximately
51,250 acres (containing an estimated 2,318.7 million tons of surface mineable federal coal) were
identified as acceptable for further leasing consideration. Applications would be considered on a case-by-
case basis and the remaining steps of the coal screening process would be completed. There are seven
existing coal leases that are exempt from the coal screening process that are subject to existing lease
terms. Development of existing coal leases in the Carbon Basin is addressed in the cumulative impact
section of Chapter 4.

Other Leasable Minerals

With the exception of WSAs and some SD/MAs, the remainder of the RMPPA would be open to
consideration for leasing of geothermal resources and non-energy leasable minerals.

Locatable Minerals

Approximately 952,510 acres would be closed to locatable mineral entry. The remainder of the RMPPA
would be open to locatable mineral entry.

Salable Minerals

Mineral material sales are discretionary actions. Disposal would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Stipulations to protect important surface values would be based on interdisciplinary review of individual
proposals.

Off-Highway Vehicle Use

The RMPPA is generally open to use of motorized over-the-snow vehicles. Checkerboard lands would
remain primarily limited to existing roads and vehicle routes. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel in
Limited to Designated Areas (LDAs) would remain limited to existing roads and vehicle routes until a site
specific analysis and transportation plan is completed for each LDA. Those areas that are defined as
’’limited” may have seasonal restrictions or travel limitations to either existing or designated roads and
vehicle routes, or any combination of these. Travel on parcels of public land not having legal public
access would remain limited to existing roads and vehicle routes.

Off-Highway Vehicle Classifications

Classification

Acres

Limited to either designated or existing roads and vehicle routes

2,190,690

Limited to existing roads and vehicle routes (within checkerboard or
other intermixed land ownership)

1,283,930

Limited to designated roads and vehicle routes and closed to over-the-
snow vehicles

12,700

Seasonally closed to OHV use

14,060

Closed to OHV use

46,370

Rawlins RMP

ES-9

Executive Summary

Final EIS

Motorized vehicle use in the Dune Ponds Cooperative Management Area (3,730 acres) would be limited
to existing roads and vehicle routes on vegetated portions of the area and open to vehicle use on non
vegetated sand areas of active dunes. The Encampment River Canyon Area (about 4,500 acres) would be
closed to motorized vehicle use, including over-the-snow vehicles, December 1 to April 30, to reduce
stress on wildlife wintering in the canyon area. The Encampment River Trail would be closed to all types
of motorized vehicle use year-round. The Pennock Mountain (7,770 acres) and Wick Beumee (280 acres)
wildlife habitat management areas would be closed to motorized vehicle use and human presence between
November 15 and April 30, to reduce stress on wildlife wintering in the area. The Prospect Mountain,
Encampment River Canyon, Bennett Mountains, and Adobe Town WSAs (44,240 acres total) would be
closed to all types of motorized vehicle use. The Ferris Mountains WSA (21,880 acres) would be open to
all types of motorized vehicles on designated roads and vehicle routes.

OHV use to retrieve big game kills and access camping sites would be allowed within 300 feet of existing
roads and vehicle routes, except where roads and vehicle routes are closed and in WSAs and specific
SD/MAs.

Paleontology

■ * -

Paleontological resources would be managed to protect their
important scientific values. Area closures, restrictions, or
other mitigation requirements for the protection of
paleontological values would be determined on a case-by-
case basis. Collecting of scientifically significant vertebrate
fossils by qualified paleontologists would be allowed by permit only. The paleontological and historical
values for which the Como Bluff area was designated a National Natural Landmark would be protected.
Collection of fossils from public lands is allowed with some restrictions, depending on the significance of
the fossils. Hobby collection of common invertebrate or plant fossils by the public would be allowed in
reasonable quantities using hand tools. On-the-ground surveys would be conducted on a case-by-case
basis prior to approval of surface disturbing activities or land disposal actions for Class 4 and 5
formations to avoid resource bearing strata. Surface disturbing activities would be surveyed on a case-by-
case basis in potential resource bearing strata. Following discovery of Class 3 formations, the area would
be surveyed and monitored on a case-by-case basis.

Recreation and Visitor Services

Existing recreation sites would be maintained or improved to assure continued availability and use to the

recreating public. Additional recreation sites would be considered
for development based on demand, site suitability, and legal public
access. Developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres)
and the surrounding 'A-mile area (an additional 7,930 acres) would
be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation. Within the
% mile surrounding these sites (7,930 acres), the area would be
closed to locatable mineral entry, mineral material disposals, and
operation of the public land laws, including sale. Withdrawals
would be pursued.

The entire RMPPA would be open to dispersed recreation with the
exception of specific areas that must be excluded to protect public
health and safety or special resource values.

ES-10

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Executive Summary

Eight areas would be managed as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) (82,160 acres):
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA (600 acres), North Platte River SRMA (5,060 acres),
OHV SRMA (area to be detennined), Jelm Mountain SRMA (18,100 acres), Pedro Mountains SRMA
(18,650 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA (1,600), Rawlins Lishing SRMA (330 acres), and Shirley
Mountain SRMA (37,820 acres).

Special Designations and Management Areas

Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) (Encampment River
Canyon, Prospect Mountain, Bennett Mountains, Adobe
Town, and Perris Mountains) are closed to all mineral
development. Existing mining claims must meet the “non-
impairment mandate” for WSAs. WSAs are managed
according to the Interim Management Policy for Lands
Under Wilderness Review until Congress makes decisions
on WSAs. OHV use within the Ferris Mountains WSA

roads and vehicle routes. All
other WSAs would be
closed to OHVs or all types
of motor vehicle use.

ACECs (Sand Hills/JO Ranch, Blowout Penstemon, and Cave Creek
Cave) would be managed to protect their intrinsic values which include
historic and cultural values; unique, stabilized sand dune vegetation
communities; wildlife habitat; habitat for an endangered plant; and a cave
system utilized by a variety of bat species. Management actions have been
tailored to the specific needs of the above-mentioned areas and the
resources present.

Special Designations and Management Areas

would be limited to designated

SD/MA

Acres

Purpose

WSAs

66,120

To protect wilderness characteristics, WSAs are managed to meet the non-
impairment mandates of FLPMA, to manage lands in a manner so as to not impair
the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.

ACECs

29,970

To protect a unique vegetation complex and wildlife habitat and maintain balanced
recreational opportunities.

To protect habitat for the endangered Blowout Penstemon.

To protect a cave system utilized as habitat by a variety of bat species.

WHMAs

193,350

To maintain the cooperative management of a variety of wildlife habitats while
providing for other compatible multiple uses.

NNLs

2,650

To protect the geologic and paleontologic values for which the areas were
designated or proposed.

Surface-disturbing activities in Wildlife Habitat Management Areas (WHMAs) (Jep Canyon ACEC/Jep
Canyon WHMA, Chain Lakes Potential ACEC, Laramie Peak Potential ACEC, Red Rim-Daley Potential
ACEC, Pennock Mountain WHMA, Wick-Beumee WHMA, Laramie Plains Lakes Potential ACEC,
Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly Potential ACEC, Cow Butte/Wild Cow Potential WHMA) would
be intensively managed to protect their intrinsic wildlife values. The majority of the WHMAs contain

Rawlins RMP

ES-11

Executive Summary

Final EIS

private land purchased by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) as well as federal lands and
are managed jointly by the WGFD and the BLM. In some cases, seasonal closures to OHV use and
human activity would protect unique habitats and big game crucial winter ranges.

Lands totaling 800 acres in the Big Hollow National Natural Landmark (NNL) and 1 60 acres in the Sand
Creek NNL would be considered for disposal to individuals, organizations, agencies, or institutions that
would manage these areas in accordance with their NNL status. Como Bluff NNL (1,690 acres) would be
managed to protect the paleontological and historic values. The Encampment River Potential Wild and
Scenic River (WSR) would be managed to maintain or enhance its outstandingly remarkable values, with
a tentative classification of Wild. The Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area Potential ACEC (5,530
acres) would be managed for the historic and scientific values in the study area.

Transportation and Access

The public land transportation system would be maintained or modified to provide for public health and
safety and adequate access to public lands. Road density would be considered during the analysis process
and authorization of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities.

Vegetation

The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Standards) apply
to all resources and resource uses on BLM-administered public
lands. These Standards are the minimum acceptable conditions for
the health, productivity, and sustainability of the rangeland. The
Standards direct the management of public lands and focus
implementation toward the maintenance or attainment of healthy
rangelands. Rangeland areas also would be managed to achieve
desired plant community.

Populations of special status species would be fenced to protect
them from grazing, trailing, or other disturbance. Known
populations of special status plant species would be closed to
locatable mineral entry and operation of the public land laws, including sale. Intensive management
actions would be taken to protect BLM Wyoming State Sensitive plant species within areas open to oil
and gas leasing. Unique plant communities would be closed to mineral material disposals.

The fenced Gibben’s beardtongue ( Penstemon gibbensii ) site (approximately 15 acres) would be
maintained to protect the population from disturbance. Special management actions would be taken for
occupied habitat for Colorado butterfly plant, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies’ tresses.

Informal conferencing and consultation, and formal consultation, if necessary, with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) would occur for authorized activities that would potentially affect the habitat
for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate plant species within the RFO.

ES-12

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Executive Summary

Visual Resources

Visual Resource Management would maintain scenic value by managing impacts and intrusions through
mitigation.

Visual Resource Management Classes (Acres)

Class 1

Class II

Class III

Class IV

66,120

346,670

2,467,780

670,910

Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils Management

Water quality and quantity would be maintained or improved by managing surface land use and
groundwater resources within BLM’s jurisdiction and according to state standards. Nonpoint source
pollution from federal lands to all receiving waters would be minimized where possible. Surface
discharge of produced water that meets Wyoming surface water standards would be allowed in the
Colorado River Basin.

Watershed, wetland, aquifer, riparian, and stream functions would be maintained or re-established to
support natural or desired surface flow regimes. The hydrologic and water quality conditions needed to
support riparian/wetland areas would be maintained within BLM’s jurisdiction to minimize flood and
sediment damage and provide for wetland function. Reservoirs that are functionally compromised on
BLM lands would be rehabilitated or reclaimed. Water impoundments in the Upper Muddy Creek/Grizzly
SD/MA that would result in an annual water loss and/or storage of greater than 1 acre foot per project in
Muddy Creek would not be allowed.

Surface-disturbing activities would be avoided on unstable areas, such as landslides, slopes over 25
percent, slumps, and areas exhibiting soil creep. Surface-disturbing activities would be avoided in the
following areas: (1) identified 100-year flood plains, (2) areas within 500 feet of perennial waters,
springs, wells, and wetland and riparian areas, and (3) areas within 100 feet of the inner gorge of
ephemeral channels. Surface-disturbing activities would be intensively managed within those portions of
watersheds that contribute to degradation of reaches listed on the 303(d) list in consultation and
cooperation with affected interests.

Elevated levels of salt contribution from federal lands to the Colorado River system would be minimized
consistent with Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) water quality regulations.
Proposed projects above Class 1 waters and impaired bodies on the State’s 303(d) list would receive
special consideration during the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process to ensure that
project actions would not degrade these water bodies beyond the uses specified. Encampment River
Watershed (USGS HUC 1018000205) would be protected for municipal drinking water sources, WSR
values, and recreation. Surface-disturbing activities, grazing management, and forest management actions
would be intensively managed to meet watershed objectives.

Wild Horses

Periodic gathers would be the primary tool for population management in the Adobe Town, Lost Creek,
and Stewart Creek HMAs. Appendix 12 contains a detailed description of the development, application,
and interpretation of AMLs for the Rawlins HMAs. AMLs in the HMAs would remain at: 700 adults in

Rawlins RMP

ES-13

Executive Summary

Final EIS

Adobe Town; 70 adults in Lost Creek; and 150 adults in
Stewart Creek. These AML levels were established in
1994 by extensive monitoring and evaluation (Map 2-21
and Appendix 12).

Through genetic testing and analysis, the total extent of the
“New World Iberian” (Spanish) genotype within the meta-
population that includes the Lost Creek HMA would be
documented. The BLM would then implement the
necessary management practices (including adjustment of
the AML) to achieve the goal of maintaining the “New
World Iberian” traits.

Wildlife and Fisheries

BLM would cooperate with the WGFD, USFWS, and other agencies in considering and planning for the
introduction, transplant, re-establishment, augmentation, and/or stocking of all wildlife and fish species
including species of threatened or endangered status.

BMPs would be applied to surface disturbing and disruptive
activities to maintain or enhance waterfowl, neotropical
birds, upland game birds, and other migratory bird species
and their habitats.

BMPs would be applied to surface-disturbing and
disruptive activities to maintain or enhance wildlife and fish
populations and their habitats. Impoundments and instream
structures would be designed to minimize impacts on
special status fish species and their habitats. Road crossings would be designed to simulate natural stream
processes.

To protect amphibian species and their habitats, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be
avoided in the following areas: (1) identified 100-year flood plains, (2) areas within 500 feet of perennial
waters, springs, wells, and wetlands, and (3) areas 100 feet from the inner gorge of ephemeral channels.

Informal conferencing and consultation, and formal consultation, if necessary, with the USFWS would
occur for authorized activities that potentially affect the habitat for endangered, threatened, proposed, and
candidate species within the RMPPA. Habitat and species conservation measures for threatened,
endangered, proposed, and candidate species are identified in the biological assessment and the biological
opinion. Both documents would be adhered to for compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the
BLM Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species List (BLM Manual 6840). The Statewide
Programmatic Biological Assessments and Biological Opinions authorized for each species, including all
the reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions would be implemented for the RMPPA.
For example:

• All white-tailed prairie dog towns/complexes greater than 200 acres in size and black-tailed
prairie dog towns/complexes greater than 80 acres in size would be avoided, unless appropriate
mitigation occurs.

• Where applicable, key linkage riparian travel corridors that may be used by Canada lynx would
be enhanced or maintained.

ES-14

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Executive Summary

• Fire suppression and forest conversion practices in areas adjacent to Canada lynx habitat would
consider the habitat requirements for the lynx.

• Surface-disturbing and other activities located in potential mountain plover habitat are prohibited
during the reproductive period of April 10 to July 10 for the protection of breeding and nesting
mountain plover.

The RFO would implement recent BLM management direction regarding greater sage-grouse habitat and
is consistent with the recent “Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan” which was developed
by the WGFD and a broad range of stakeholders. The plan proposes to maintain and enhance sage-grouse
habitat through an implementation, monitoring, and evaluation approach. BMPs would be considered to
reduce both the direct loss of habitat and disturbance to sage-grouse during the critical breeding and
nesting period.

Surface disturbing and other activities potentially disruptive to nesting raptors would be prohibited within
distances and time periods necessary to allow raptors to complete breeding and nesting activities. These
distances and time periods are between % and 1 mile and between February 1 and August 31,
respectively, for different raptor species. Facilities requiring a repeated human presence would not be
allowed with 825 feet (ferruginous hawks, 1,200 feet) of active raptor nests.

Surface-disturbing and other activities potentially disruptive to big game crucial winter range would not
be allowed during the period of November 15 to April 30. Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities
within big game crucial winter range would require the use of BMPs designed to reduce the amount of
human presence and activity during the winter months.

Cooperating Agency Summary

The RFO extended cooperating agency status to the State of Wyoming, other federal agencies, County
governments, and various Conservation Districts for the Rawlins RMP planning effort. These agencies
were invited to participate because they have jurisdiction by law or could offer special expertise. A list of
actively participating cooperators is included below.

• Carbon County

• Albany County

• Sweetwater County

• State of Wyoming and State Agencies

• Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District

• Medicine Bow Conservation District

• Little Snake River Conservation District

• Sweetwater County Conservation District

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Coordination with Native Americans

As part of the scoping process, letters were sent to the Arapaho, Comanche, Crow, Eastern Shoshone,
Shoshone-Bannock, and Ute tribes. The letters requested information to be considered in the planning
process. As a result of these letters, the BLM received comments from the Ute tribe requesting that the
BLM consider and protect cultural resources and sites sensitive to Native Americans in the planning
document. Following the scoping process, a second letter was sent to all of the tribes listed above and
additionally to the Northern Cheyenne. This letter more specifically requested information regarding any

Rawlins RMP

ES-15

Executive Summary

Final EIS

concerns the tribes might have within the RMPPA and presented the opportunity for meetings or field
trips with representatives from the tribes. These letters were followed up with telephone calls. The need
for the tribes to review and comment on the Draft EIS (DEIS) was also stressed in the letters and during
the follow-up telephone calls. The Eastern Shoshone Tribe expressed concerns that the BLM consider
cultural resources in the planning process and requested that the BLM continue to contact the tribes on a
project specific level so that the tribes could provide input to sacred sites that might be impacted at that
time. In December 2004, copies of the DEIS for the RMP were mailed to Shoshone, Arapaho, Ute,
Northern Cheyenne, Oglala Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, Cheyenne River Sioux, Shoshone-Bannock, and Crow
Tribes. This was followed by letters and telephone calls to remind the tribes that the DEIS was available
for review and to renew the invitation for meetings, tours and additional contacts.

In addition to the formal consultation process described above, the tribes were also invited to participate
in the planning process as cooperating agencies. Letters inviting the tribes to become cooperating
agencies were sent to the Shoshone, Arapaho, Ute, Northern Cheyenne, Oglala Sioux, Rosebud Sioux,
Cheyenne River Sioux, Shoshone-Bannock, Crow, Hunkpapa-Santee Sioux, and Fort Peck Assiniboine
and Sioux Tribes. None of the tribes contacted requested to be considered cooperating agencies.

Public Involvement

Publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) on February 25, 2002 announced BLM’s intention to revise the
Great Divide RMP. A formal 60-day scoping period began on January 31, 2003 with the release of the
scoping notice. The notice announced the availability of the Management Situation Analysis (MSA) and
invited input on issues, alternatives, and resource data. Public scoping meetings were held in Rock
Springs, Rawlins, Baggs, and Laramie, Wyoming, on March 3, 4, 5, and 6, 2003, respectively. During the
four scoping meetings, more than 80 people attended. Comments from the public were collected during
the scoping meetings and throughout the scoping period through a variety of methods - mail, fax, email,
and through the project website. Approximately 26,740 comments were received through these various
methods. Comments were categorized by topic for analysis purposes. The category receiving the most
comments was “Mining and Oil and Gas Development”. A large number of comments expressed a desire
for preservation over continued development. A major concern identified in the comments was disruption
of big game migration corridors and the degradation of environmentally sensitive areas. The category
receiving the second-most comments was “Wildlife and Fisheries.” A summary of all comments was then
compiled and made available as the “Rawlins RMP Scoping Report, May 2003,” which can be viewed at:
http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/rawlins

BLM published the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Rawlins RMP DEIS for public review and
comment in the Federal Register on December 17, 2004. This notice initiated the 90-day public comment
period which concluded on March 18, 2005. Four public meetings were held in February 2005 to provide
an opportunity to comment on the Rawlins RMP DEIS. During the four meetings, again, more than 80
people registered their attendance. During the RMP DEIS public comment period, approximately 62,233
comment letters were received. Of the total letters received, 62,256 of them were identified as form letters
while 977 were considered to be unique letters.

The Rawlins RMP EIS project website can be found at http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy/rawlins. The site
serves as a virtual repository for documents related to RMP development, including announcements,
bulletins, and draft and final documents. These documents are maintained in .pdf format to ensure that
they are available to the widest range of users.

ES-16

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I —PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT 1-1

1.1 Introduction 1-1

1.1.1 Changes Between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS 1-1

1.1.2 Reader’s Guide 1-1

Reader’s Guide to This Document 1-3

Reader’s Guide to the RMP Process 1-3

1.1.3 Agency Roles and Relationships 1-4

BLM 1-5

Cooperating Agencies 1 -5

1 .2 Purpose and Need 1-6

1.2.1 Background 1-6

1.2.2 Purpose 1-6

1.2.3 Need 1-6

1 .3 Overview of the BLM Planning Process 1-8

1.3.1 Planning Issues 1-8

Issue 1: Development of Energy Resources and Minerals-Related Issues 1-8

Issue 2: Special Management Designations 1-9

Issue 3: Public Access and Transportation Systems 1-9

Issue 4: Wildland-Urban Interface 1-9

Issue 5: Management of Special Status Species 1-10

Issue 6: Water Quality 1-10

Issue 7: Vegetation Management 1-10

Issue 8: Recreation and Cultural Resources 1-10

1.3.2 Planning Criteria 1-11

1 .4 Relevant Statutes, Limitations, and Guidelines 1-13

1.5 Other Related Plans 1-13

1.5.1 Other Plans 1-13

1 .6 Relationship Between BLM and Cooperating Agencies 1-14

1.7 Scoping and Public Involvement 1-15

1.7.1 Scoping 1-15

1 .7.2 Public Involvement 1-15

1.7.3 Public Involvement Opportunities and Activities 1-15

Chapter 2 — DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ALTERNATIVES 2-1

2.1 Introduction 2-1

2.2 Changes Between the RMP/Draft EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 2-1

2.2.1 Changes Specific to Table 2-1 — Detailed Comparison of Alternatives 2-2

General 2-2

2.2.2 Resource or Program-Specific Management Action Changes 2-2

Cultural Resources 2-2

Forest Management 2-2

Lands and Realty 2-3

Livestock Grazing 2-3

Minerals 2-3

Off-Highway Vehicle Management 2-3

Paleontology 2-3

Recreation and Visitor Services 2-3

Special Designations and Management Areas 2-4

Vegetation 2-5

Rawlins RMP i

Table of Contents

Final EIS

Visual Resources 2-6

Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils Management 2-6

Wild Horses 2-6

Wildlife and Fisheries 2-6

2 . 3 Development of Alternatives 2-6

2.3.1 Alternatives Development Process 2-6

2.3.2 Management Goals and Objectives 2-7

2.3.3 Alternatives and Management Options Considered But Eliminated From Detailed

Analysis 2-7

Wild Horses and Burros 2-7

Reintroduction of a Wild Bison Population 2-8

Elimination of Livestock Grazing 2-8

Western Heritage Alternative 2-8

Oil and Gas Development Allowable to Limits of Existing RMP Only 2-10

Expanded Wilderness Study Area Alternative 2-10

Consideration of Additional Areas as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 2-11

2.4 Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 2-11

2.5 Alternatives Considered In Detail 2-11

2.5.1 Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) 2-12

Overview of the Alternative 2-12

Special Designations and Management Areas 2-12

2.5.2 Alternative 2 2-12

Overview of the Alternative 2-12

Special Designations and Management Areas 2-12

2.5.3 Alternative 3 2-13

Overview of the Alternative 2-13

Special Designations and Management Areas 2-13

2.5.4 Alternative 4 (Agency Proposed Plan) 2-13

Overview of the Alternative 2-13

Physical, Biological, and Heritage Resources 2-14

Resource Uses 2-15

Special Designations and Management Areas 2-15

2.6 Comparative Summary of Impacts 2-16

2.7 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Activity Plan Working Groups 2-16

2.7.1 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 2-16

2.7.2 Activity Plan Working Groups 2-16

CHAPTER 3— AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1

3.1 Introduction 3-1

Changes Between the RMP Draft EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 3-1

3.2 Air Resources 3-2

3.2.1 Climate 3-2

3.2.2 T emperature 3-2

3.2.3 Precipitation 3-2

3.2.4 Dispersion 3-3

3.2.5 Wind Velocity 3-3

3.2.6 Air Quality 3-3

Ambient Air Quality Concentrations 3-3

Carbon Monoxide 3-4

Nitrogen Dioxide and Other Nitrogen Compounds 3-5

Sulfur Dioxide and Other Sulfur Compounds 3-5

ii

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Table of Contents

Ozone 3-6

Particulate Matter 3-6

Hazardous Air Pollutants 3-6

Visibility 3-7

Atmospheric Deposition 3-7

Wet Deposition 3-8

Dry Deposition 3-8

Total Deposition 3-8

Summary of Existing Air Quality 3-9

3.3 Cultural Resources 3-10

3.3.1 Introduction 3-10

3.3.2 Prehistoric Sites 3-11

Paleoindian Period 3-12

Archaic Period 3-12

Late Prehistoric Period 3-13

Protohistoric Period 3-13

Historic Period 3-14

3.3.3 Native American Cultural Resources 3-17

3.3.4 Cultural Resource Management Use Allocations 3-17

3.4 Wildland Fire and Fuels 3-18

3.4.1 Wildland Fire Occurrence and Ignition Sources 3-18

3.4.2 Fuels Management 3-19

3.4.3 Use of Wildland Fire 3-19

3 .4.4 Wildland Urban Interface 3-19

3.4.5 Community Assistance 3-19

3.4.6 The Role of Wildland Fire in Plant Communities of the RMPPA 3-19

3.4.7 Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 3-20

3.5 Forest Management 3-21

3.5.1 Shirley Mountain Forest 3-21

Lodgepole Pine Forest 3-21

Spruce-Fir Forest 3-21

Aspen Forest 3-22

Woodland Forest 3-22

3.5.2 Elk Mountain Forest 3-22

Lodgepole Pine Forest 3-22

Spruce-Fir Forest 3-23

Aspen Forest 3-23

Woodland Forest 3-23

3 . 6 Lands and Realty 3-24

3.6. 1 Land Ownership Adjustment 3-24

3.6.2 Withdrawals/Classifications 3-25

3.6.3 Utility /Transportation System 3-26

3.6.4 Transportation and Utility Right-of-Way Corridors 3-26

3.6.5 Land Consolidations 3-26

3 . 7 Livestock Grazing 3-27

3.7.1 Historic Use 3-27

3.7.2 Current Use 3-27

3.7.3 Results of Rangeland Best Management Practice Application 3-30

Pine Grove-Bolten Allotment 3-30

Riner Allotment 3-31

Beaver Hills Allotment 3-3 1

Rawlins RMP

Hi

Table of Contents

Final EIS

Doty Mountain Allotment 3-31

Grizzly Allotment 3-32

Monument Draw Allotment 3-32

Powder Rim Allotment 3-32

Bar Eleven Allotment 3-33

3 . 8 Minerals, Geology, and Topography 3-34

3.8.1 Geologic Units 3-34

3.8.2 Structural Geology and Tectonics 3-35

3.8.3 Topography 3-36

3.8.4 Mineral Resources 3-37

Leasable Minerals 3-37

Locatable Minerals 3-40

Common Variety Minerals ....3-44

3.8.5 Site Reclamation 3-44

3.9 Off-Highway Vehicles 3-45

3.9.1 Designated Off-Highway Vehicle Use Areas 3-45

3.9.2 Off-Highway Vehicle Use and Trends 3-45

3.10 Paleontology 3-48

3.10.1 Description of Resources 3-48

3.10.2 Potential Fossil Yield Classification 3-49

3.11 Recreation and Visitor Services 3-51

3.11.1 Recreation Resources 3-51

Recreation Sites and Areas 3-51

3. 1 1 .2 Special Recreation Management Areas 3-53

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA 3-55

North Platte River SRMA 3-55

Shirley Mountain SRMA 3-55

3.11.3 Wildlife Resources 3-55

3.11.4 Other Resources 3-56

3.11.5 Recreational Use 3-56

3.11.6 Recreation Trends 3-58

3.12 Socioeconomics 3-59

3.12.1 County Characteristics 3-59

3.12.2 Demographic Characteristics 3-60

Population 3-60

Personal Income Trends 3-62

3.12.3 Economic Characteristics 3-63

Labor Force and Unemployment 3-63

Employment and Earnings by Industry 3-64

Economic Base 3-65

Property Valuation and Taxation 3-66

County Ad Valorem Taxes 3-68

State Mineral Severance Taxes 3-70

Federal Royalties 3-73

RMPPA Mineral Tax Revenues 3-73

Other Tax Revenue Sources 3-74

Payment in Lieu of Taxes 3-75

Summary 3-75

3.12.4 Economic Activities Attributable to BLM Lands Within the RMPPA 3-75

Oil and Gas Operations 3-75

Livestock Grazing 3-76

IV

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Table of Contents

Recreation 3-76

3.12.5 Environmental Justice 3-77

Population by Race 3-77

Population in Poverty 3-77

3.12.6 Social Development, Culture, and History of Communities 3-78

Carbon County Communities 3-78

Albany County Communities 3-83

Laramie County Communities 3-84

Sweetwater County Communities 3-85

3.13 Special Designations and Management Areas 3-86

3.13.1 Wilderness Study Areas 3-86

Adobe Town WSA 3-86

Ferris Mountains WSA 3-86

Encampment River Canyon WSA 3-87

Prospect Mountain WSA 3-87

Bennett Mountains WSA 3-87

3.13.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 3-88

Existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 3-88

Potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 3-89

Other Management Areas 3-95

3.13.3 National Natural Landmarks Management 3-96

3.13.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers 3-96

3.13.5 Other Management Areas 3-98

Rawlins-to-Baggs Geographical Area 3-98

3.14 Transportation and Access 3-100

3.14.1 Roadway Network 3-100

Access 3-100

Transportation Trends 3-100

3.15 Vegetation 3-101

3.15.1 Ecological Provinces 3-101

Intermountain Semi-Desert Province (342) 3-101

Great Plains Dry Steppe Province (331) 3-102

Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe — Open Woodland — Coniferous Forest Province (M331). 3-102

3.15.2 General V egetation Map Zones 3-103

Agriculture/Town (9 Percent) 3-103

Barren (2 Percent) 3-103

Forest and Woodland Communities 3-103

Conifer Communities 3-104

Grassland (23 Percent) 3-105

Shrub Communities 3-106

Sand(l Percent) 3-110

Wetland/Riparian Communities (1 Percent) 3-1 10

3.15.3 Riparian Proper Functioning Condition 3-1 13

3.15.4 Noxious and Invasive Weed Management 3-113

3.15.5 Poisonous Plants 3-115

3.15.6 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Plant Species 3-1 16

Blowout Penstemon Plant 3-1 17

Ute Ladies’-Tresses Plant 3-1 17

Colorado Butterfly Plant 3-1 17

3.15.7 BLM Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species List for Plants 3-1 17

3.15.8 Unique Plant Communities 3-118

Rawlins RMP

v

Table of Contents

Final EIS

Chain Lakes Alkaline Wetlands 3-118

Sandhills (Dunes) Shrubland Community 3-118

Cushion Plant Communities 3-119

Muddy Gap Cushion Plant Community 3-1 19

Laramie False Sagebrush ( Sphaeromeria Simplex) Cushion Plant Communities 3-1 19

3.16 Visual Resources 3-120

3.16.1 Natural Settings and Scenic Views 3-120

Visibility 3-120

Visual Resource Management System 3-120

Visual Resource Trends and Issues 3-122

3.17 Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils 3-123

3.17.1 Water Quality and Watershed 3-123

Surface Water Characteristics 3-124

Surface Water Quality 3-129

3.17.2 Water Management and Monitoring 3-132

Water Management 3-133

Water Monitoring 3-134

3.17.3 Soils 3-135

Soil Conditions and Characteristics 3-135

Soil Productivity 3-136

Soil Permeability 3-136

Soil Strength and Stability 3-137

Soil Erosion 3-137

Soil Salinity 3-137

3.18 Wild Horses 3-139

3.18.1 Herd Management Areas 3-139

Adobe Town HMA 3-139

Stewart Creek HMA 3-140

Lost Creek HMA 3-141

3.18.2 Other Areas Affected by Wild Horses 3-141

3.18.3 Wild and Free-Roaming Nature (of Wild Horses) 3-142

3.19 Wildlife and Fish 3-143

3.19.1 General Wildlife 3-143

Raptor Habitat 3-144

Waterfowl and Other Shorebird Habitat 3-145

Neotropical Migratory Bird Habitat 3-146

Upland Game Bird Habitat 3-146

Big Game Species Habitat 3-147

Amphibians Habitat 3-151

Reptiles Habitat 3-151

Fish Habitat 3-152

3.19.2 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Wildlife Species 3-152

Bald Eagle (Threatened) Habitat 3-153

Black-Footed Ferret (Endangered) Habitat 3-153

Canada Lynx (Threatened) Habitat 3-153

Platte River System Species (Endangered and Threatened) 3-153

Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Threatened) Habitat and Critical Habitat 3-154

Wyoming Toad (Endangered) Habitat 3-154

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Candidate) Habitat 3-154

Colorado River System Species 3-154

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Plant Species 3-155

vi Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Table of Contents

3.19.3 BLM Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species List Habitat Management 3-155

Habitats Supporting Species of Special Concern 3-155

Mountain Plover Habitat 3-156

White-Tailed Prairie Dog Habitat 3-156

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Habitat 3-156

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 3-156

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat 3-158

Western Boreal Toad Habitat 3-158

Other BLM Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species Habitat 3-158

CHAPTER 4— ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1

4.1 Introduction 4-1

Types of Impacts 4-1

Determination of Significance 4-2

Regions of Influence 4-2

Methods and Assumptions 4-2

4.2 Air Quality 4-5

Significance Criteria 4-5

Methods of Analysis 4-5

4.2. 1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-7

4.2.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-10

4.2.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-10

4.2.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-10

4.2.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-1 1

4.3 Cultural Resources 4-12

Significance Criteria 4-12

Methods of Analysis 4-12

4.3.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-13

4.3.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-17

Summary 4-21

4.3.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-22

Summary 4-23

4.3.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-24

Summary 4-28

4.3.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-28

Summary 4-3 1

4.4 Wildland Fire and Fuels 4-33

Significance Criteria 4-33

Methods of Analysis 4-33

4.4. 1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-33

4.4.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-36

Summary 4-38

4.4.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-38

Summary 4-39

4.4.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-39

Summary 4-41

4.4.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-41

Summary 4-42

4.5 Forest Management 4-43

Significance Criteria 4-43

Methods of Analysis 4-43

Rawlins RMP vii

Table of Contents

Final EIS

4.5.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-43

4.5.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-46

Summary 4-50

4.5.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-50

Summary 4-52

4.5.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-52

Summary 4-54

4.5.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-54

Summary 4-54

4.6 Lands and Realty 4-56

Significance Criteria 4-56

Methods of Analysis 4-56

4.6. 1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-57

4.6.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-59

Summary 4-62

4.6.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-62

Summary 4-63

4.6.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-63

Summary 4-66

4.6.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-66

Summary 4-68

4.7 Livestock Grazing 4-69

Significance Criteria 4-69

Methods of Analysis 4-69

4.7. 1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-69

4.7.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-74

Summary 4-76

4.7.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-76

Summary 4-77

4.7.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-78

Summary 4-80

4.7.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-80

Summary 4-82

4.8 Minerals 4-83

Significance Criteria 4-83

Methods of Analysis 4-83

4.8. 1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-85

Leaseable Minerals — Oil and Gas 4-85

Leaseable Minerals — Coal 4-88

Locatable Minerals 4-88

Salable Minerals 4-90

4.8.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-92

Leaseable Minerals — Oil and Gas 4-93

Locatable Minerals 4-95

Salable Minerals 4-96

Summary 4-97

4.8.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-98

Leaseable Minerals — Oil and Gas 4-98

Locatable Minerals 4-99

Salable Minerals 4-99

Summary 4-100

viii

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Table of Contents

4.8.4 Impacts under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-100

Leaseable Minerals — Oil and Gas 4-101

Locatable Minerals 4-103

Salable Minerals 4-104

Summary 4-106

4.8.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-106

Leaseable Minerals — Oil and Gas 4-107

Locatable Minerals 4-109

Salable Minerals 4-1 10

Summary 4-1 1 1

4.9 Off-Highway Vehicle Management 4-1 1 3

Significance Criteria 4-113

Methods of Analysis 4-113

4.9.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-1 13

4.9.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-116

Summary 4-1 19

4.9.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-119

Summary 4-120

4.9.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-121

Summary 4-123

4.9.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-123

Summary 4-125

4. 1 0 Paleontology 4-126

Significance Criteria 4-126

Methods of Analysis 4-126

4.10.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-126

4.10.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-129

Summary 4-132

4.10.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-133

Summary 4-134

4.10.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-135

Summary 4-138

4.10.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-138

Summary 4-140

4. 1 1 Recreation and Visitor Services 4-141

Significance Criteria 4-141

Methods of Analysis 4-141

4.11.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-142

4. 1 1 .2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-145

Summary 4-149

4. 1 1 .3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-149

Summary 4-151

4. 1 1 .4 Impacts Under Alternative 3 : Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-151

Summary 4-154

4.11.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4- 155

Summary 4-157

4.11.6 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA 4- 1 57

4.1 1.6.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-157

4. 1 1 .6.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-158

4.1 1.6.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-159

4. 1 1 .6.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3 : Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-159

Rawlins RMP

IX

Table of Contents

Final EIS

4. 11.6.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-159

4.11.7 North Platte River SRMA 4-160

4. 11.7.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4- 1 60

4. 1 1 .7.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4- 1 6 1

4. 11.7.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4- 1 63

4.1 1.7.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-163

4. 1 1 .7.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-165

4.11.8 OHVSRMA 4-165

4.1 1.8.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-165

4.1 1.8.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-165

4.1 1.8.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-166

4.11.8.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3 : Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-166

4.1 1.8.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-166

4.11.9 Jelm Mountain SRMA 4-167

4. 11.9.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4- 1 67

4.1 1.9.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-167

4.1 1.9.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-168

4.1 1.9.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-168

4.1 1.9.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-169

4.11.10 Pedro Mountains SRMA 4-170

4.11.10.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4- 1 70

4.11.10.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-171

4.11.10.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-172

4.1 1.10.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-172

4.1 1.10.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-173

4.11.11 Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA 4- 1 74

4.1 1.1 1.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-174

4.11.11.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-175

4.11.11.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-176

4.1 1.1 1.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-177

4.1 1 .1 1.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-178

4.11.12 Rawlins Fishing SRMA 4-179

4.1 1.12.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-179

4.11.12.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-181

4.1 1.12.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-182

4.1 1.12.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-182

4.1 1.12.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-183

4.11.13 Shirley Mountain SRMA 4-184

4.11.13.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-184

4.11.13.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-185

4.1 1.13.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-186

4.1 1.13.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-187

4.1 1.13.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-188

4.12 Socioeconomics 4-189

Significance Criteria 4-189

Methods of Analysis 4-189

Environmental Justice 4-193

4.12.1 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-194

Impacts on Regional Employment 4-194

Impacts on Regional Income 4-195

Impacts on Tax Revenues 4-195

X

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Table of Contents

Impacts on Population 4-196

Impacts on Community Services 4-196

Impacts on Custom, Culture, and Social Trends 4-197

Environmental Justice 4-197

Summary 4-197

4.12.2 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-198

Impacts on Regional Employment 4-198

Impacts on Regional Income 4-198

Impacts on Tax Revenues 4-198

Impacts on Population 4-199

Impacts on Community Services 4-199

Impacts on Custom, Culture, and Social Trends 4-199

Environmental Justice 4-200

Summary 4-200

4.12.3 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-200

Impacts on Regional Employment 4-200

Impacts on Regional Income 4-201

Impacts on Tax Revenues 4-201

Impacts on Population 4-201

Impacts on Community Services 4-201

Impacts on Custom, Culture, and Social Trends 4-202

Environmental Justice 4-202

Summary 4-202

4. 1 2.4 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-202

Impacts on Regional Employment 4-202

Impacts on Regional Income 4-202

Impacts on Tax Revenues 4-203

Impacts on Population 4-203

Impacts on Community Services 4-203

Impacts on Custom, Culture, and Social Trends 4-203

Environmental Justice 4-203

Summary 4-203

4. 1 3 Special Designations/Management Areas 4-204

Significance Criteria 4-204

Methods of Analysis 4-204

4.13.1 Wilderness Study Areas 4-204

4.13.1.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-204

4.13.1.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-205

4.13.1.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-206

4.13.1.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3 : Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-206

4.13.1.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-207

4.13.2 Como Bluff ACEC/NNL 4-208

4.13.2.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-208

4.13.2.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-210

4.13.2.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-212

4.13.2.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-212

4.13.2.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-213

4.13.3 Sand Hills ACEC and Potential JO Ranch Expansion 4-214

4.13.3.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-214

4.13.3.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-216

4.13.3.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-220

Rawlins RMP

XI

Table of Contents

Final EIS

4.13.3.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-222

4.13.3.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-225

4.13.4 Jep Canyon ACEC/WHMA 4-226

4.13.4.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-226

4. 1 3.4.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-228

4.13.4.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-231

4.13.4.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-234

4.13.4.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-236

4.13.5 Shamrock Hills ACEC/WHMA 4-237

4.13.5.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-237

4.13.5.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-239

4.13.5.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-240

4.13.5.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-241

4.13.5.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-242

4. 13.6 Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area Potential ACEC 4-243

4.13.6.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-243

4.13.6.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-245

4.13.6.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-246

4.13.6.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-247

4.13.6.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-247

4.13.7 Chain Lakes Potential ACEC/WHMA 4-248

4.13.7.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-248

4. 1 3.7.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-250

4.13.7.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-251

4.13.7.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-252

4.13.7.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-254

4.13.8 Laramie Peak Potential ACEC/WHMA .....4-254

4.13.8.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-254

4.13.8.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-255

4.13.8.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-256

4.13.8.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-257

4.13.8.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-258

4. 1 3.9 Red Rim-Daley Potential ACEC/WHMA 4-259

4.13.9.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-259

4.13.9.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-261

4.13.9.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-263

4.13.9.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-265

4.13.9.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-267

4.13.10 Pennock Mountain WHMA 4-268

4.13.10.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ..4-268

4.13.10.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-269

4.13.10.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-270

4.13.10.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-270

4.13.10.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-272

4.13.11 Wick-Beumee WHMA 4-272

4. 1 3. 1 1 . 1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-272

4. 1 3. 1 1 .2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-273

4.13.1 1.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-273

4.13.1 1.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-273

4.13.1 1.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-273

4.13.12 Cave Creek Cave Potential ACEC 4-274

xii Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Table of Contents

4.13.12.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-274

4.13.12.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-276

4.13.12.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-278

4.13.12.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-279

4.13.12.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-280

4.13.13 Laramie Plains Lakes Potential ACEC/WHMA 4-282

4.13.13.1 Impacts Common to All 4-282

4.13.13.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-283

4.13.13.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-285

4.13.13.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-286

4.13.13.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-288

4.13.14 Historic Trails Potential ACEC 4-288

4.13.14.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-288

4.13.14.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-292

4.13.14.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-296

4.13.14.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-298

4.13.14.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-302

4.13.15 Blowout Penstemon Potential ACEC 4-305

4.13.15.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-305

4.13.15.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-307

4.13.15.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-310

4.13.15.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-311

4.13.15.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-312

4.13.16 Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly Potential ACEC/WHMA 4-313

4.13.16.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-313

4.13.16.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-318

4.13.16.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-323

4. 13.16.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-325

4.13.16.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-329

4.13.17 Cow Butte/Wild Cow Potential WHMA 4-331

4.13.17.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-331

4.13.17.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-333

4. 13.17.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-335

4.13.17.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-336

4.13.17.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-339

4.13.18 White-Tailed Prairie Dog Potential ACEC 4-340

4.13.18.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-340

4.13.18.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-342

4.13.18.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-344

4.13.18.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-344

4.13.18.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-345

4.13.19 High Savery Dam Potential ACEC 4-346

4.13.19.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-346

4.13.19.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: High Savery Dam Potential WHMA (Continuation of

Existing Management) 4-348

4.13.19.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: High Savery Dam Potential WHMA (Emphasis on

Development of Resources) 4-348

4.13.19.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: High Savery Dam Potential Area of Critical

Environment Concern (Emphasis on Protection of Resources) 4-349

4.13.19.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: High Savery Dam Potential WHMA

(Proposed Plan) 4-350

xiii

Rawlins RMP

Table of Contents

Final EIS

4.13.20 National Natural Landmarks 4-351

4.13.20.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-351

4.13.21 Wild and Scenic Rivers 4-351

4.13.21.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-351

4.13.21.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-352

4.13.21.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-355

4.13.21.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-355

4.13.21.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-356

4. 14 Transportation and Access 4-358

Significance Criteria 4-358

Methods of Analysis 4-358

4.14.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-358

4.14.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-360

Summary 4-362

4.14.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-363

Summary 4-363

4.14.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-364

Summary 4-366

4.14.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-366

Summary 4-367

4.15 Vegetation 4-369

Significance Criteria 4-369

Methods of Analysis 4-369

Management of Special Status Plants and Unique Plant Communities 4-370

Noxious and Invasive Weeds 4-370

4.15.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-371

4. 1 5.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-378

Summary 4-381

4.15.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-382

Summary 4-383

4.15.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-384

Summary 4-387

4.15.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-388

Summary 4-389

4. 1 6 Visual Resources 4-39 1

Significance Criteria 4-391

Methods of Analysis 4-391

4.16.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-39 1

4. 1 6.2 Impact Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-394

Summary 4-398

4.16.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-398

Summary 4-400

4.16.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-400

Summary 4-403

4.16.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-404

Summary 4-406

4.17 Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils 4-408

Significance Criteria 4-408

Methods of Analysis 4-408

4.17.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-410

4.17.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing Management 4-416

XIV

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Table of Contents

Summary 4-428

4. 1 7.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-428

Summary 4-430

4. 1 7.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-43 1

Summary 4-435

4.17.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-435

Summary 4-438

4.18 WildEIorses 4-439

Significance Criteria 4-439

Methods of Analysis 4-439

4.18.1 Impacts Common to all Alternatives 4-439

4.18.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-443

Summary 4-445

4.18.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-446

Summary 4-446

4. 18.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-447

Summary 4-448

4.18.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-448

Summary 4-449

4.19 Wildlife and Fish 4-450

Significance Criteria 4-450

Methods of Analysis 4-450

4.19.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-45 1

4.19.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing Management 4-464

4.19.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of Resources 4-472

4.19.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of Resources 4-475

4.19.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan 4-482

4.20 Cumulative Impacts 4-486

4.20. 1 Impact Assessment Methodology 4-486

4.20.2 Projects and Activities Considered 4-487

4.20.3 Impacts by Resource 4-493

Air Resources 4-493

Cultural 4-497

Wildland Fire and Fuels Management 4-497

Forest Management 4-498

Lands and Realty 4-499

Livestock Grazing 4-499

Minerals Management 4-501

OHV Management 4-502

Paleontology 4-504

Recreation Resources 4-505

Socioeconomics 4-508

Special Designations/Management Areas 4-512

Transportation and Access 4-522

Vegetation Management 4-522

Visual Resources 4-524

Water Quality, Watersheds, and Soils 4-525

Wild Horses 4-528

Wildlife and Fish 4-529

4.2 1 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 4-532

4.22 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4-534

Rawlins RMP

xv

Table of Contents

Final EIS

4.23 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ..4-536

CHAPTER 5— CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 5-1

5 . 1 Consultation and Coordination 5-2

5.1.1 Cooperating Agencies 5-2

5.1.2 Coordination and Consistency 5-3

5.1.3 Native American Interests 5-5

5.2 Public Participation 5-6

5.2.1 Scoping Period 5-6

Scoping Notice 5-6

Scoping Meetings 5-6

5.2.2 Mailing List 5-7

5.2.3 Newsletters 5-7

5.2.4 Website 5-7

5.2.5 Notice of Availability and Public Comment 5-8

5.3 Distribution List 5-8

Tribal Governments 5-8

Local Governments (Counties, Cities, Towns) 5-9

State of Wyoming 5-10

Wyoming State Agencies 5-1 1

Wyoming State Boards/Commissions 5-11

Associations/Councils 5-1 1

Clubs/Alliances/Societies/Groups 5-12

Congressional Delegation 5-13

Department of the Interior Agencies 5-13

Other Federal Agencies 5-14

Other Governmental Agencies 5-14

Media 5-14

Libraries 5-15

Educational Institutes 5-15

CHAPTER 6— LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 6-1

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER I— PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT

Table 1-1. Land and Minerals Ownership and Administrative Jurisdiction Within the

Rawlins RMPPA 1-2

Table 1-2. The NEPA Process for RMP Approval 1-4

Table 1-3. Plans Related to the Management of Lands and Resources that Apply to the Rawlins RMP

Revision 1-13

Table 1-4. Public Involvement, Coordination, and Consultation Events 1-15

CHAPTER 2— DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Table 2-1. Detailed Comparison of Alternatives 2-20

Table 2-2. Continued and Proposed Withdrawals 2-1 13

Table 2-3. Current Right-of-Way Corridors 2-1 15

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Impacts 2-116

Table 2-5. Utility /Transportation Systems, Communication Sites, and Wind Energy3 Exclusion and

Avoidance Areas 2-143

XVI

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Table of Contents

Table 2-6. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements by Hydrocarbon Potential

(Approximate Federal Subsurface Acres)1 2-146

Table 2-7. Summary of Proposed Special Designations and Management Areas by Alternative 2-152

Table 2-8. Areas of Priority Access for Easement Acquisition 2-156

Table 2-9. Visual Resource Management Classifications and Acreage 2-157

Table 2-10. Seasonal Wildlife Stipulations 2-158

Table 2-11. Benefits of Recreation Experiences in SRMAs 2-163

CHAPTER 3— AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3-1. Concentrations of Criteria Air Pollutants — West-Central Wyoming, Rawlins 3-4

Table 3-2. Summary of Air Quality in the Vicinity of the RMPPA 3-9

Table 3-3. Summary of Cultural Subregions 3-10

Table 3-4. Withdrawal Summary 3-25

Table 3-5. Livestock Actual Use in Animal Unit Months (AUM) for the RMPPA from 1991 to 2000 .3-27

Table 3-6. Known Locatable Mineral Deposits in the RMPPA 3-41

Table 3-7. Participants and Visitor Days Associated with OHV Use in the RMPPA 3-46

Table 3-8. Paleontological Classification Descriptions 3-49

Table 3-9. Recreational Management System Information for Special Recreation Management Areas

Within the RMPPA 3-54

Table 3-10. Recreational Management System Information on Recreation Participants and Visitor Days in

the RMPPA 3-57

Table 3-11. Recreation Visits by Location in the RMPPA 3-58

Table 3-12. Geographic Characteristics of the Study Area 3-59

Table 3-13. Population Centers 3-59

Table 3-14. Components of Population Change for the RMPPA 3-61

Table 3-15. Estimated Poverty Rates for Counties Within the RMPPA 3-62

Table 3-16. Changes in the Civilian Labor Force, 1991-2000 3-64

Table 3-17. Location Quotients for the RMPPA, 2000 3-65

Table 3-18. Assessed Property Values by County for 2001 3-67

Table 3-19. Assessed Value of Oil and Gas Production and Property in the RMPPA, FY2001 3-68

Table 3-20. Estimated Mineral Ad Valorem Tax Revenues, FY2001 3-69

Table 3-21. Estimated Ad Valorem Tax Revenues on Oil, Gas, and Coal Property, FY2001 3-70

Table 3-22. Oil and Gas Tax Revenues as a Percentage of Total County Property Taxes,

FY2001 3-70

Table 3-23. Total Severance Tax Distributions for Government Entities in the RMPPA,

FY2001 3-71

Table 3-24. Severance Taxes Generated in the Study Area by Product, FY2001 3-72

Table 3-25. Estimated Ad Valorem Tax on Production for the RMPPA (Federal Lands) 3-73

Table 3-26. Estimated Severance Tax on Production for the RMPPA (Federal Lands) 3-74

Table 3-27. Estimated Federal Royalties on Production for the RMPPA (Federal Lands) 3-74

Table 3-28. Lodging Tax Distribution for the RMPPA 3-74

Table 3-29. Sales and Use Tax Distribution for the RMPPA 3-75

Table 3-30. Estimated Value of Grazing Activities on BLM Lands Within the RMPPA

for 1997 3-76

Table 3-31. Percentage of Agricultural Sales in the Study Area Attributed to Grazing on BLM Lands in

the RMPPA 3-76

Table 3-32. Population Distribution (Percentage) by Race by County, 2000 3-77

Table 3-33. Poisonous Plants in the RMPPA 3-1 16

Table 3-34. Visual Resource Management Classifications and Acreages in the RMPPA1 3-121

Table 3-35. Watersheds and Acreage Values Within the RMPPA 3-125

Table 3-36. Discharge from Selected USGS Streamflow Stations in the RMPPA 3-126

Rawlins RMP xvii

Table of Contents

Final EIS

Table 3-37. Classification of Wyoming Surface Waters 3-127

Table 3-38. Classification of Selected Streams in the RMPPA 3-128

Table 3-39. Summary Data from USGS Surface Water Quality Stations Within

the RMPPA 3-131

Table 3-40. RMPPA Wild Horse Appropriate Management Levels and Populations 3-139

Table 3-41. Wild Horse Regional Meta-Populations Associated with the RMPPA 3-142

CHAPTER 4— ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-1. Increase in Annual Air Emissions from 2003 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands Within

the RMPPAa 4-7

Table 4-2. Primary Inputs for Socioeconomic Analysis 4-190

Table 4-3. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Development Within the RMPPA 4-191

Table 4-4. Total Estimated Mineral Tax Royalties and Taxes from RMPPA (2001$) 4-195

Table 4-5. Potential Displacement for Big Game Species 4-451

Table 4-6. Summary of Oil and Gas Development Projects Previously or Currently Subject to NEPA

Analysis in Southwestern Wyoming 4-488

Table 4-7. Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 4-489

Table 4-8. Summary of Emission Increases as Estimated by the Wyoming Statewide Emission

Inventory and BLM Emission Inventory 4-493

Table 4-9. Summary of Far-Field Air Quality Impacts from the Desolation Flats EIS 4-494

Table 4-10. Summary of Far-Field Air Quality Impacts from the Atlantic Rim EIS 4-495

Table 4-11. Producing Wells and Remaining Wells that Can Still Be Drilled/Produced, by Project... 4-5 09

CHAPTER 5— CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Table 5-1. Public Involvement, Coordination, and Consultation Events 5-1

Table 5-2. Key Coordination Actions 5-3

CHAPTER 6— LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Table 6-1. List of Preparers and Contributors 6-1

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 3 — AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Figure 3-1 Mean Monthly Temperatures in the Rawlins RMPPA F-l

Figure 3-2 Rate of Long-term Trend Temperature Change F-l

Figure 3-3 Mean Monthly Maximum Temperatures near Rawlins, Wyoming F-2

Figure 3-4 Mean Monthly Maximum Temperatures near Centennial, Wyoming F-2

Figure 3-5 Mean Monthly Precipitation in the Rawlins RMPPA F-3

Figure 3-6 Mean Monthly Snowfall in the Rawlins RMPPA F-3

Figure 3-7 Rate of Long-term Trend Precipitation Change F-4

Figure 3-8 Mean Monthly Precipitation Trend near Rawlins, Wyoming F-5

Figure 3-9 Mean Monthly Precipitation Trend near Centennial, Wyoming F-5

Figure 3-10 Mean Annual Precipitation Trend in the Rawlins RMPPA F-6

Figure 3-1 1 Capacity to Disperse Air Pollutants in Rock Springs, Wyoming F-6

Figure 3-12 Wind Rose for Centennial, Wyoming F-7

Figure 3-13 Wind Rose for Rawlins, Wyoming Airport F-8

Figure 3-14 Mean Annual Concentrations of Nitrogen Compounds near Centennial, Wyoming F-9

Figure 3-15 Mean Annual Concentrations of Nitrogen Compounds in Rocky Mountain

National Park, Colorado F-9

Figure 3-16 Weekly Total Nitrate Concentrations near Centennial, Wyoming F-10

Figure 3-17 Weekly Ammonium Concentrations near Centennial, Wyoming F-10

xviii

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Table of Contents

Figure 3- 1 8 Mean Annual Concentrations of Sulfur Compounds near Centennial, Wyoming F-l 1

Figure 3-19 Mean Annual Concentrations of Sulfur Compounds in Rocky Mountain

National Park, Colorado F-l 1

Figure 3-20 Weekly Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations near Centennial, Wyoming F-l 2

Figure 3-21 Weekly Sulfate Concentrations near Centennial, Wyoming F-l 2

Figure 3-22 Mean Annual Ozone Concentrations in the Rawlins RMPPA F-l 3

Figure 3-23 Visibility in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado F-14

Figure 3-24 Visibility in Bridger Wilderness, Wyoming F-14

Figure 3-25 Annual Visibility in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado F-15

Figure 3-26 Mean Annual Precipitation pH in and near the Rawlins RMPPA F-15

Figure 3-27 Hydrogen Ion Concentration as pH from Measurements Made at the

Field Laboratories, 2005 F-l 6

Figure 3-28 Mean Annual Wet Deposition near Centennial, Wyoming F-l 7

Figure 3-29 Mean Annual Wet Deposition near Brooklyn Lakes, Wyoming F-l 7

Figure 3-30 Mean Annual Dry Deposition of Sulfur and Nitrogen Compounds

near Centennial, Wyoming F-18

Figure 3-3 1 Mean Annual Dry Deposition of Sulfur and Nitrogen Compounds

in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado F-18

Figure 3-32 Annual Total Nitrogen Deposition in the Rawlins RMPPA F-19

Figure 3-33 Annual Total Sulfur Deposition in the Rawlins RMPPA F-19

Figure 3-34 Sheep and Cattle Numbers in Wyoming F-20

Figure 3-35 Land Ownership in the Four County Socioeconomic Study Area F-20

Figure 3-36 Land Ownership — Rawlins RMPPA F-21

Figure 3-37 Population Estimates for Counties in the RMPPA, 1990-2005 F-21

Figure 3-38 Population by Ethnicity for 2000 F-22

Figure 3-39 Personal Income Trends 1990-2000 (2001$) F-22

Figure 3-40 Per Capita Personal Income (2004$) — by County F-23

Figure 3-41 Per Capita Personal Income (2004$) — Statewide F-23

Figure 3-42 HUD Median Family Income (2004$) — by County F-24

Figure 3-43 HUD Median Family Income (2004$) — Statewide F-24

Figure 3-44 Annual Unemployment Rate for Counties in the Socioeconomic Study Area F-25

Figure 3-45 Employment Trends by Industry, 1990-2000 F-25

Figure 3-46 Total Earnings Trends by Industry, 1990-2000 (2001$) F-26

Figure 3-47 Average Real Earnings by Industry 1990-2000 (2001$) F-26

Figure 3-48 Percentage of Locally Assessed Property by Category, 2000 F-27

Figure 3-49 Percentage of State Assessed Property by Category Values for Counties

in the RMPPA, 2000 F-27

Figure 3-50 Annual PILT Payments, 1991-2000 F-28

Figure 3-51 Historic Gas Production in the RMPPA Socioeconomic Study Area F-28

Figure 3-52 Historic Oil Production in the RMPPA F-29

Figure 3-53 Streamflow 2005 (April - Oct.) and Statistics (1940 - 2006), Encampment River at

Mouth, near Encampment, Wy ...F-30

Figure 3-54 Streamflow 2005 (April - Oct.) and Statistics (1939 - 2006), Medicine Bow

River, Above Seminoe Reservoir near Hanna, Wy F-30

Figure 3-55 Streamflow 2005 (April - Oct.) and Statistics (1915 - 2002), Laramie River

near Fort Laramie, Wy F-31

Figure 3-56 Streamflow 2005 (April - Oct.) and Statistics (1939 - 2006), North Platte River, Above

Seminoe Reservoir near Sinclair, Wy F-31

Figure 3-57 Streamflow 2005 (April - Oct.) and Statistics (1943 - 2006), Little Snake River near

Slater, Co F-32

Rawlins RMP

XIX

Table of Contents

Final EIS

Figure 3-58 Mean Streamflow (Apr - Oct.) for Encampment, Medicine Bow, Laramie,

North Platte and Little Snake Rivers F-32

CHAPTER 4 — ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Figure 4-1 Potential Number of BLM Wells - Alternative 1 F-33

Figure 4-2 Potential Number of BLM Wells - Alternative 2 F-33

Figure 4-3 Potential Number of BLM Wells - Alternative 3 F-34

Figure 4-4 Potential Number of BLM Wells - Alternative 4 F-34

Figure 4-5 Potential Emissions from BLM Sources - Alternative 1 F-35

Figure 4-6 Potential Emissions from BLM Sources - Alternative 2 F-35

Figure 4-7 Potential Emissions from BLM Sources - Alternative 3 F-36

Figure 4-8 Potential Emissions from BLM Sources - Alternative 4 F-36

Figure 4-9 Potential Emissions from BLM Coal Bed Natural Gas - Alternative 1 F-37

Figure 4-10 Potential Emissions from BLM Coal Bed Natural Gas - Alternative 2 F-37

Figure 4-1 1 Potential Emissions from BLM Coal Bed Natural Gas - Alternative 3 F-38

Figure 4-12 Potential Emissions from BLM Coal Bed Natural Gas - Alternative 4 F-38

Figure 4-13 Potential Emissions from BLM Conventional Oil and Gas - Alternative 1 F-39

Figure 4-14 Potential Emissions from BLM Conventional Oil and Gas - Alternative 2 F-39

Figure 4-15 Potential Emissions from BLM Conventional Oil and Gas - Alternative 3 F-40

Figure 4-16 Potential Emissions from BLM Conventional Oil and Gas - Alternative 4 F-40

Figure 4-17 Potential Emissions from BLM Non-Oil and Gas Activities - Alternative 1 F-41

Figure 4-18 Potential Emissions from BLM Non-Oil and Gas Activities - Alternative 2 F-41

Figure 4-19 Potential Emissions from BLM Non-Oil and Gas Activities - Alternative 3 F-42

Figure 4-20 Potential Emissions from BLM Non-Oil and Gas Activities - Alternative 4 F-42

Figure 4-21 Increase in Annual Air Emissions from Current Conditions - Alternative 1 F-43

Figure 4-22 Increase in Annual Air Emissions from Current Conditions - Alternative 2 F-43

Figure 4-23 Increase in Annual Air Emissions from Current Conditions - Alternative 3 F-44

Figure 4-24 Increase in Annual Air Emissions from Current Conditions - Alternative 4 F-44

Figure 4-25 Summary of Total Emissions F-45

Figure 4-26 Average Annual Employment by Alternative F-45

Figure 4-27 Total Discounted (7%) Labor Earnings by Alternative F-46

Figure 4-28 Estimated Ad Valorem Tax Revenues by Alternative F-46

LIST OF MAPS

CHAPTER 1 — PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT

Map 1-1 Overview

Map 1-2 Surface Administration

Map 1-3 Sub-Surface Administration

Map 1-4 Rawlins RMPPA

CHAPTER 2 — DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES

Map 2-1 Fire Management

Map 2-2 Designated Right-of-Way Corridors

Map 2-3 Domestic Sheep Avoidance Area

Map 2-4 Existing and Proposed Withdrawals — Alternative 1

Map 2-5 OHV Designations — Alternative 1

Map 2-6 Wilderness Study Areas

Map 2-7 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern — Alternative 1

Map 2-8 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern — Alternative 3

Map 2-9 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern — Alternative 4

Map 2-10 Other Management Areas — Alternative 1

XX

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Table of Contents

Map

2-11

Map

2-12

Map

2-13

Map

2-14

Map

2-15

Map

2-16

Map

2-17

Map

2-18

Map

2-19

Map

2-20

Map

2-21

Map

2-22

Map

2-23

Map

2-24

Map

2-25

Map

2-26

Map

2-27

Map

2-28

Map

2-29

Map

2-30

Map

2-31

Map

2-32

Map

2-33

Map

2-34

Map

2-35

Map

2-36

Map

2-37

Map

2-38

Map

2-39

Map

2-40

Map

2-41

Map

2-42

Map

2-43

Map

2-44

Map

2-45

Map

2-46

Map

2-47

Map

2-48

Map

2-49

Map

2-50

Map

2-51

Map

2-52

Map

2-53

Map

2-54

Map

2-55

Map

2-56

Map

2-57

Other Management Areas — Alternative 2
Other Management Areas — Alternative 3
Other Management Areas — Alternative 4
Recreation Management Areas — Alternative 1
Recreation Management Areas — Alternative 2
Recreation Management Areas — Alternative 3
Recreation Management Areas — Alternative 4
National Natural Landmarks

Segments Eligible for Inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System
Watersheds with Management Actions
Wild Horse Herd Management Areas
Potential Disposals — Carbon County — Alternative 1
Potential Disposals — Sweetwater County — Alternative 1
Potential Disposals — Laramie County — Alternative 1
Potential Disposals — Albany County — Alternative 1
Potential Disposals — Carbon County — Alternatives 2 & 4
Potential Disposals — Sweetwater County — Alternatives 2 & 4
Potential Disposals — Laramie County — Alternatives 2 & 4
Potential Disposals — Albany County — Alternatives 2 & 4
Utility /Transportation Systems and Wind Energy Exclusion and Avoidance
Areas — Alternative 1

Utility /Transportation Systems and Wind Energy Exclusion and Avoidance
Areas — Alternative 2

Utility/Transportation Systems and Wind Energy Closure and Exclusion
Areas — Alternative 3

Utility /Transportation Systems and Wind Energy Exclusion and Avoidance
Areas — Alternative 4
Bison Exclusion Areas
Oil and Gas Classifications — Alternative 1
Oil and Gas Classifications — Alternative 2
Oil and Gas Classifications — Alternative 3
Oil and Gas Classifications — Alternative 4
Existing and Proposed Withdrawals — Alternative 2
Existing and Proposed Withdrawals — Alternative 3
Existing and Proposed Withdrawals — Alternative 4
OHV Designations — Alternative 2
OHV Designations — Alternative 3
OHV Designations — Alternative 4

This map from the Draft EIS has been removed in the Final EIS

Historic Trails — Alternatives 1 & 2

Historic Trails — Alternative 3 & 4

This map has been combined with Map 2-47

Visual Resource Management — Alternative 3

Visual Resource Management — Alternative 4

Visual Resource Management — Alternative 1

Visual Resource Management — Alternative 2

Pronghorn Habitat

Mule Deer Habitat

Bighorn Sheep Habitat and Lambing Areas
Elk Habitat and Parturition Areas

Greater Sage-grouse Nesting Limitation Area for Oil and Gas Development

Rawlins RMP

xxi

Table of Contents

Final EIS

Map 2-58 Adobe Town Dispersed Use Area Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Map 2-59 Adobe Town Dispersed Use Area Recreation Opportunity Spectrum— Desired Future

Condition

CHAPTER 3 — AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Map 3-1 Forest Management

Map 3-2 Wind Energy Potential

Map 3-3 Grazing Allotments

Map 3-4 Major Structural Elements

Map 3-5 Oil and Gas Fields

Map 3-6 Permitted Mining Activities

Map 3-7 Recreation Sites and Areas

Map 3-8 Percent of Minority Population by County

Map 3-9 Median Household Income

Map 3-10 Vegetation Communities

Map 3-11 Major Surface Water Basins

Map 3-12 Soil/Precipitation Zones

Map 3-13 Greater Sage-Grouse and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks

CHAPTER 4 — ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Map 4-1 Water Quality and Watersheds — Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

Map 4-2 Wild Horses — Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

Map 4-3 Bighorn Sheep — Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

Map 4-4 Elk — Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

Map 4-5 Mule Deer — Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

Map 4-6 Pronghorn — Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

Map 4-7 Oil and Gas Project Locations with Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas Potential
APPENDIX MAPS

Map A2-1 Coal Development Potential

Map A2-2 Unsuitable Lands within Coal Development Potential
Map A2-3 Unsuitable Lands within Coal Development Potential
Map A2-4 Unsuitable Lands within Coal Development Potential
Map A8-1 Standards and Guidelines Assessment by Year
Map A23-1 High Savery Dam MOU

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 . Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Mitigation Guidelines for Surface Disturbing and

Disruptive Activities A 1 - 1

Appendix 2. 2003 Coal Screening Process Summary A2-1

Appendix 3. Wild and Scenic River Designation Process A3-1

Appendix 4. Air Quality Impact Technical Support Document A4-1

Appendix 5. Cultural Resources Management A5-1

Appendix 6. Land Exchange, Acquisition and Disposal Criteria A6-1

Appendix 7. Lands Considered for Disposal, Withdrawal and Acquisition A7-1

Appendix 8. Monitoring Methods to Assess Wyoming Standards and Guidelines for Healthy

Rangelands .- A8-1

Appendix 9. Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria A9-1

Appendix 10. Special Status Species List A 10-1

Appendix 11. Water Quality and Watershed Management Within the RMPPA A 1 1 - 1

Appendix 12. Managing Wild Horse Populations in the Rawlins RMPPA A 12-1

xx ii Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Table of Contents

Appendix 13. Reducing Nonpoint Source Pollution with Best Management Practices A 13-1

Appendix 14. Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Wyoming Bureau of Land Management

Rawlins Resource Management Plan A 14-1

Appendix 1 5. Best Management Practices for Reducing Surface Disturbance and

Disruptive Activities A 15-1

Appendix 16. Mountain Plover Management Guidelines: Occupied Habitat Protection Measures . A 16-1

Appendix 17. Monitoring and Evaluation A17-1

Appendix 18. Compensation (Offsite) Mitigation A 18-1

Appendix 19. Vegetation Treatments, Forest Practices, and Range Improvements A 19-1

Appendix 20. Oil and Gas Operations A20-1

Appendix 2 1 . Clarification of OHV Designations and Travel Management in the BLM Land Use

Planning Process A21-1

Appendix 22. ACEC Designation Process A22-1

Appendix 23. Memorandum of Understanding between Bureau of Land Management and Wyoming
Water Development Commission Concerning High Savery Dam and

Reservoir Project A23-1

Appendix 24. Mitigation Guidelines for Special Status Plants A24-1

Appendix 25. Visual Resource Management A25-1

Appendix 26. Road Management and Closures in Sensitive Habitat Areas A26-1

Appendix 27. Procedures For Processing Applications For Permit To Drill A27-1

Appendix 28. Plant Common and Scientific Names A28-1

Appendix 29. Range Allotment Information A29-1

Appendix 30. Probable Fossil Yield Classifications, By Formation, State of Wyoming A30-1

Appendix 3 1 . Rawlins F ield Office Noxious Weed Prevention Plan A3 1 - 1

Appendix 32. Hazard Management and Resource Restoration Program A32-1

Appendix 33. Reasonably Foreseeable Developments and Reasonably Foreseeable

Actions Tables A33-1

Appendix 34. Designated Right-Of-Way Corridor Criteria A34-1

Appendix 35. Socioeconomic Impact Analysis and Significance Criteria A3 5-1

Appendix 36. Reclamation Plan A36-1

Appendix 37. Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area A37-1

Appendix 38. Response to Public Comments A3 8-1

Appendix 39 Relevant Statutes, Limitations, and Guidelines A39-1

Rawlins RMP xxiii

-

Final EIS

Chapter 1

CHAPTER 1— PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE

PLANNING EFFORT

1.1 Introduction

This Resource Management Plan (RMP) and final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) document the
comprehensive analysis of alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources
administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rawlins Field Office (RFO) in Wyoming. The
BLM RFO administrative area is located in south-central and southeastern Wyoming (Map 1-1). The
RFO includes approximately 11.2 million acres of land in Albany, Carbon, Laramie, and Sweetwater
Counties. Within that area, the RFO administers approximately 3.4 million acres of public land surface
and mineral estate, 0. 1 million acres of public land surface where the mineral estate is state and private,
and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate where the surface is privately owned or state-owned (Maps
1-2 and 1-3, and Table 1-1). Map 1-4 shows the location and names of communities and other major
geographic features within the RFO.

The public lands and federal mineral estate within the Rawlins RMP Planning Area (RMPPA) are the
subject of the planning effort and the associated EIS document. Neither this document nor the current
land use plan applies to lands or minerals within the RMPPA that are administered by federal agencies
other than BLM, such as the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and the U.S.
Air Force.

This RMP FEIS provides analysis of potential management direction for important resource values and
resource uses within the RMPPA. It also allocates the use of public lands for multiple uses. The RMP
FEIS also provides management direction for the protection of certain resources, while allowing for
leasing and development of mineral resources, livestock grazing, and other activities at appropriate levels.

1.1.1 Changes Between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS

Chapter 1 has been reformatted to meet current BLM direction (BLM-H-1601-1, 2005). The changes in
document format are most easily noted by comparing the draft EIS (DEIS) Table of Contents with the
FEIS Table of Contents. Much of the detailed information included in the DEIS Chapter 1 has been
summarized. Some of the original text has been reformatted, either by creating a new section or moving
the information to a more appropriate location in the FEIS. The location of more detailed information is
usually referenced at the end of the section.

Chapter 1 includes two new sections: 1.6 Relationship Between BLM and Cooperating Agencies, and 1.7
Scoping and Public Involvement.

1.1.2 Reader’s Guide

This document has been prepared consistent with federal regulations for both the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). NEPA regulations are
found at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508, and FLPMA regulations pertaining to land
use planning are found at 43 CFR 1610. This section outlines how the EIS and its information are laid
out, and how the NEPA process and documents are integrated into BLM’s planning process.

See Table 1-1 below for information on land/minerals ownership and administrative jurisdiction.

Rawlins RMP

1-1

Chapter 1

Final EIS

Table 1-1. Land and Minerals Ownership and Administrative Jurisdiction

Within the Rawlins RMPPA

Jurisdiction

Areas the Rawlins RMP decision will cover:

A. Federal land/federal minerals2

B. Federal land/nonfederal minerals3

C. Nonfederal land/federal minerals4

3,425,270

126,220

1,247,130

Total BLM-administered federal land surface to be covered by RMP decisions

3,551,480

Total BLM-administered federal mineral estate to be covered by RMP decisions

4,672,160

Areas the Rawlins RMP decisions WILL NOT cover:

D. USFS land/federal minerals5

E. BOR land/federal minerals5

F. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) land/federal minerals5

971,990

32,830

6,410

Total BLM-administered federal mineral estate that WILL NOT be covered by RMP
decisions

1,011,230

Other lands that WILL NOT be covered by RMP decisions:

G. Department of Defense land

H. Private land/private minerals and state lands/state minerals6

6,030

5,309,520

Total land surface area in the Rawlins RMPPA (all ownerships)1

11,211,490

Because of land surface and mineral ownership overlaps and administrative responsibility overlaps, acreage figures for
different jurisdictions do not add up to the total acreage. For the purpose of the Rawlins RMP, where one or more of the
mineral resource categories are federally owned, the acres are listed as if all minerals in the area were federally owned.
Where mixed minerals ownership occurs (for example, privately owned oil and gas, overlapping with federally owned coal
in the same area), minerals planning and management decisions in the RMP will pertain only to the federally owned
minerals.

2

In areas where the federal land surface and federal mineral estate are both administered by the BLM, the RMP will include
planning and management decisions for both the land surface and the mineral estate.

3

In areas where the federal land surface is administered by the BLM, and the minerals are privately owned or owned by the
State of Wyoming or local governments, the RMP will include planning and management decisions for only the BLM-
administered federal land surface. Although these surface management decisions may have some effect on the ability to
manage and develop the non-federally owned minerals, the RMP planning and management decisions will not pertain to
the nonfederal mineral estate. At the same time, surface and minerals management actions and development activities
anticipated in these areas will be taken into account for the purpose of cumulative impact analysis in the Rawlins RMP
EIS.

4

In areas where the land surface is privately owned or owned by the State of Wyoming or local governments, and the
minerals are federally owned, the RMP will include planning and management decisions for only the BLM-administered
federal mineral estate. While the land and resource uses and values on the nonfederal surface will be taken into account
and will affect development of the federal mineral planning and management decisions, these decisions will not pertain to
the state and privately owned land surface. At the same time, surface and minerals management actions and
development activities anticipated in these areas will be taken into account for the purpose of cumulative impact analysis
in the Rawlins RMP EIS.

5

In areas where the federal land surface is administered by the USFS, BOR, or USFWS, and the federal mineral estate is
administered by BLM, the land surface planning and management decisions are the responsibility of these “other” federal
or state surface management agencies. Any BLM administrative responsibilities within these areas (e.g., actions
concerning the federal mineral estate) are handled case by case and are guided by the other surface management
agencies’ policies, procedures, and plans. At the same time, surface and minerals management actions and development
activities anticipated in these areas will be taken into account for the purpose of cumulative impact analysis in the Rawlins
RMP EIS.

It is also important to note that, while other BLM responsibilities include surface management of certain federal lands
withdrawn for purposes of the BOR, they are carried out in accordance with an interagency agreement between the two
agencies. Administrative jurisdiction (including land use planning) for these lands lies with the BOR.

6 The Rawlins RMP will not include any planning and management decisions for areas where the land surface and minerals
are both privately owned or owned by the State of Wyoming or local governments.

1-2

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 1

Reader’s Guide to This Document

This document’s format is consistent with the format for an EIS as recommended in the NEPA
regulations (40 CFR 1502.10).

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need — Presents an introduction to the FEIS; the purpose and need to which
BLM is responding; an overview of the BLM planning process; statutes (laws), regulations, and
guidelines BLM must adhere to in preparing an RMP; describes the relationship of this FEIS to other
plans; describes the relationship between BLM and our Cooperating Agencies; and summarizes the
overall scoping process and public involvement.

Chapter 2, Description of the Alternatives— Describes how the alternatives were developed,
management guidance common to all alternatives, and alternatives considered but eliminated from further
consideration. It also presents specific management actions proposed under the alternatives, and a
comparative summary of the impacts of the alternatives that have been analyzed in detail.

Chapter 3, Affected Environment — Describes the RMPPA and the existing environmental conditions
that would be affected by the alternatives.

Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences — Describes the impacts of the alternatives. This section forms
the scientific and analytic basis for the summary comparison of impacts presented in Chapter 2. This
section also describes cumulative impacts, any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources, and
the relationship between local, short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement
of long-term productivity.

Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination — Describes the overall EIS scoping process and other past
and planned agency consultation and public involvement activities. A list of agencies, organizations, and
individuals who were sent the FEIS is also presented.

Chapter 6, List of Preparers — Presents the names and qualifications of the persons responsible for
preparing this FEIS.

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms — Provides an alphabetized list of abbreviations and acronyms used
in this FEIS.

Glossary — Provides an alphabetized list of definitions of terms used in this FEIS.

References — Provides full citation information for all references cited in the document. Most cited
documents are readily available from other public sources such as libraries or the Internet, and many of
the cited documents are available for public review at the BLM RFO.

Appendices — Include additional supporting documents that substantiate analysis or provide other
information directly relevant to the EIS.

Reader’s Guide to the RMP Process

The 43 CFR 1610 regulations establish procedural requirements for BLM’s land use planning process.
These regulations include the requirement that land use plans (RMPs) are developed, proposed, and
approved using NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) for preparing an EIS. The following NEPA
processes and environmental documents were used to prepare the proposed RMP:

Rawlins RMP

1-3

Chapter 1

Final EIS

Notice of Intent (NOI) — BLM published an NOI in the Federal Register on February 25, 2002. This was
to announce its intent to revise the Great Divide RMP (GDRMP) and prepare an EIS. The NOI explained
that the GDRMP would be renamed the Rawlins RMP to be consistent with current organizational
structure and the BLM naming scheme for land use plans.

Scoping — A 60-day scoping period began on February 3, 2003. It made scoping information, including a
scoping notice and the Management Situation Analysis (MSA) as required by BLM planning regulations,
available to the public.

DEIS — A DEIS was prepared and released to the public by Notice of Availability (NOA), published in
the Federal Register on December 17, 2004. Publication of the NOA began a 90-day public review and
comment period. The DEIS described four possible plan alternatives for the RMP, and included an
analysis and potential environmental consequences of implementing each of the possible plan
alternatives. BLM indicated its preferred plan would be Alternative 4.

Proposed RMP and FEIS (RMP/FEIS) — This document describes BLM’s proposed RMP for the RFO,
additional information and analysis, and public comments made to the DEIS plan alternatives, as well as
BLM’s response to those comments.

Protest Period and Resolution — A 30-day protest period will commence with BLM’s publication of an
NOA in the Federal Register of this Proposed RMP/FEIS. During the 30-day period, protests of the State
Director’s proposed RMP may be submitted to the BLM Director.

Record of Decision (ROD) — Following resolution of protests to the RMP, the State Director may
approve the RMP. This approval is documented as an ROD as described under NEPA regulations (Table
1-2).

Table 1-2. The NEPA Process for RMP Approval
PROCESS FOR RMPs

Notice of Intent

▼

Scoping Period and Public Involvement

▼

DEIS — 90-day public review and comment period

T

Proposed RMP/FEIS — 30-day protest period*

T

Protest Resolution

▼

Record of Decision

*This document is the proposed RMP/FEIS for the Rawlins RMP; the 30-day protest period started on the date its NOA was
published in the Federal Register.

1.1.3 Agency Roles and Relationships

NEPA regulations provide for a lead agency’s inclusion of federal, state, and local governments in the
development of the EIS and in BLM’s planning process. This section identifies roles and responsibilities
of both the BLM lead agency and cooperating government agencies.

1-4

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 1

BLM

The BLM is the lead agency for the EIS process. The lead agency takes primary responsibility for
preparing the EIS as well as requesting the participation of each cooperating agency. According to federal
regulations, the lead agency is to request the participation of each cooperating agency in the EIS process
at the earliest possible time. Furthermore, the lead agency must use the environmental analysis and
proposals of cooperating agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise, to the maximum extent
possible consistent with its responsibility as lead agency.

Cooperating Agencies

Upon request of the lead agency, any other federal agency that has jurisdiction by law will be a
cooperating agency (also called a cooperator). In addition, any other federal agency that has special
expertise with respect to any environmental issue that should be addressed in the EIS may be a
cooperating agency upon request of the lead agency. An agency may also request the lead agency to
designate it a cooperating agency.

The concept of cooperators has been extended in recent years from federal agencies to include state and
local government agencies. This inclusion of state and local government agencies as cooperating agencies
is consistent with BLM’s planning approach and policies. Any designated federal, state, or local
government agency that becomes a cooperator is required to sign a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) on its specific roles and responsibilities.

The primary role of the cooperating agencies is to provide input during the EIS process on issues for
which they have special expertise or jurisdiction. Cooperating agencies may participate in the process in a
role similar to that of any BLM interdisciplinary team member (e.g., BLM rangeland management
specialists, wildlife biologists). They also serve as reviewers of draft information and give overall advice
on the EIS process. Cooperators meet with the lead agency periodically throughout the EIS process to
discuss EIS issues as a group.

Cooperating agencies are expected to participate in the EIS process at the earliest possible time, including
participation in the scoping process. Staffs from cooperating agencies are available to enhance the
interdisciplinary capability of the lead agency by providing needed information throughout the NEPA
process.

The following agencies with jurisdiction, special expertise, or interest in the Rawlins RMP development
process have agreed to participate in the EIS process as cooperating agencies:

• Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District

• Medicine Bow Conservation District

• Little Snake River Conservation District

• Sweetwater County Conservation District

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• State of Wyoming and its agencies

• Carbon County

• Sweetwater County

• Albany County.

Rawlins RMP

1-5

Chapter 1

Final EIS

1.2 Purpose and Need

1.2.1 Background

An RMP guides management actions for public lands and resources identified and addressed by the plan.
Land use plan decisions establish goals and objectives for resource management, the measures needed to
achieve goals and objectives, and parameters for using BLM lands or resources. Land use plan decisions
identify lands that are open to, or available for, certain uses, including any applicable restrictions, and
lands that are closed to certain uses. Land use plan decisions ordinarily are made on a broad scale and
customarily guide subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. When there are competing resource
uses and values in the same area, the FLPMA requires that BLM manage the public lands and their
various resources so that they are used in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs
of the American people. Land use plan decisions are made according to the procedures of BLM’s
planning regulations in 43 CFR 1600.

BLM prepares an EIS in conjunction with an RMP to plan actions and make decisions affecting public
lands in the RMPPA. (See Reader’s Guide.)

The Rawlins RMP will consider the same public lands and resources as addressed by the GDRMP,
approved by the Wyoming BLM State Director by ROD on November 8, 1990. Until the Rawlins RMP is
completed, the GDRMP provides current guidance and direction for management of BLM-administered
public land surface and federal mineral estate.

1.2.2 Purpose

Section 102 of FLPMA sets forth the policy for periodically projecting the present and future use of
public lands and their resources through the use of a planning process. FLPMA Sections 201 and 202 are
the statutory authorities for the land use plans prepared by BLM. The purpose or goal of the land use plan
is to ensure BLM-administered lands and resources are managed in accordance with the FLPMA and the
principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

The purpose of revising the GDRMP (USDI 1990a) is to address the growing needs of the RMPPA. The
Rawlins RMP would update information and revise management goals and objectives to reflect changed
conditions and needs. The Rawlins RMP also would revise and replace the GDRMP and its associated
NEPA documents.

1.2.3 Need

In 2001, the BLM evaluated the GDRMP and concluded that much of the information used to prepare that
plan had changed. Further, associated estimates of environmental consequences were either
underestimated or overestimated for some resources.

The GDRMP does not provide BLM with current information, or lacks enough information or analysis,
on which the decisionmakers could depend when evaluating a site-specific proposed use. For example,
the GDRMP did not forecast the pace or intensity of oil and gas development that has occurred to meet
market demands or domestic energy needs. The reasonably foreseeable development and actions used to
evaluate the effects of implementing the GDRMP did not anticipate the actual level of oil and gas
development that has occurred. The conditions and known potential consequences used then are either
approaching or have reached the assumptions and numbers used in estimating or predicting environmental
consequences.

1-6

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 1

Therefore, to have a relevant and contemporary plan, the BLM needs to update the goals, objectives, and
information in the plan, and make new estimates of environmental consequences of implementing
activities to meet the goals and objectives. This plan is expected to have an effective life of about 20
years. It is assumed that it will be amended or maintained as appropriate, and as needed, to stay relevant
and useful.

Based on the 2001 evaluation, the BLM identified the following topics or resource information, and use
allocations and direction as those needing reconsideration or revision or both:

• Although air quality decisions are adequate (i.e., comply with state law and standards and
guidelines), there is a need for a region-wide analysis.

• Environmental justice (Executive Order 12898) has not been addressed.

• Existing Classification and Multiple Use Act classifications and withdrawals continue to provide
protection to various resource values.

• Management direction for utility and transportation systems and communication sites may be
inadequate.

• Management direction for land tenure adjustment may be inadequate.

• Standards for Healthy Rangelands (USDI, BLM 1997) must be incorporated into all programs.

• The vegetation resource is treated as a subset of livestock grazing.

• Invasive plant decisions are not included in the RMP.

• Fluid mineral development levels are approaching Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD)
scenarios established for analysis purposes in the existing RMP.

• Protection standards for paleontological resources are lacking.

• Recreation uses and demands are increasing.

• New Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) designations may be needed, and existing
ones may be outdated.

• Visual Resource Management (VRM) classifications are outdated. There are inconsistencies
between the Rock Springs Field Office and the Rawlins Field Office. The designation for the
Adobe Town Wilderness Study Area (WSA) is inconsistent between the Rock Springs Field
Office and the RFO.

• Federal and state requirements for water quality warrant additional attention as the RMP is
implemented and updated.

• Wild and Scenic River evaluations have not been conducted in the RMPPA.

• New information on cultural resources has been prepared.

The evaluation also noted that many of the decisions of the GDRMP had already been implemented. In
some cases, implementation of previous decisions resulted in the establishment of valid existing rights or
other obligations that will be an important consideration in the preparation of the Rawlins RMP. For
example, many of the oil and gas resources in the RMPPA have been leased. The presence of these valid
existing rights will affect the management choices available to BLM for consideration in developing the

Rawlins RMP

1-7

Chapter 1

Final EIS

Rawlins RMP. Alternatives described in the RMPPA will address potential stipulations attached to new
leases following issuance of the Approved Plan; consider the availability of lands for future oil and gas
leasing; and describe mitigation measures to be considered in approving Applications for Permits to Drill
(APDs).

1 .3 Overview of the BLM Planning Process

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA) and its regulations found at 43 CFR 1600-1610
dictate BLM’s planning process. A summary of the process is provided in the above section, Reader’s
Guide. BLM has developed further policy and direction for preparing an RMP in the BLM Planning
Handbook, H- 1 60 1 - 1 (2005).

BLM documents planning decisions in two types of plans: RMPs and activity plans. This document is an
RMP.

Furthermore, BLM makes land use plan decisions through the RMP. Land use plan decisions include
those that determine and guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific
implementation decisions. RMPs document two types of planning decisions: desired outcomes (goals and
objectives), and allowable uses and management actions anticipated to achieve the desired outcomes:

1. Goals and objectives. RMPs identify BLM’s desired outcomes for public lands and resources by
establishing goals and objectives for a specific geographic area. Goals are broad statements of
desired outcomes. Objectives identify specific desired outcomes for resources in a quantifiable and
measurable manner, often within a specified timeframe for achievement.

2. Allowable uses and management actions. RMPs identify uses, or allocations of uses, that are
allowable, restricted, or prohibited on public lands and federal mineral estate. In addition, RMPs
identify actions anticipated to achieve desired outcomes, including those actions to maintain,
restore, or improve land health. Management action decisions establish administrative designations
such as ACECs, and recommend or make findings of suitability for congressional designations,
such as possible additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System.

1.3.1 Planning Issues

In its planning process, BLM uses, from the NEPA regulations, the concept of issues and unresolved
conflicts. Planning issues are those identified through internal evaluations, such as the one BLM
conducted for GDRMP in 2001; scoping; and comment and information solicited from the public or
gathered internally. Planning issues may include demands for resources, as well as concerns and conflicts,
associated with balancing a mix of multiple uses or unresolved conflicts associated with past, present, and
future management of public lands or resources. NEPA regulations require BLM to review the issues and
determine which issues are significant and will narrow the discussion of issues in the EIS prepared for the
RMP.

The BLM has identified the following as key issues to be analyzed in depth.

Issue 1: Development of Energy Resources and Minerals-Related Issues

Special attention is needed to address energy resource development (i.e., oil and gas, coal, solar, and wind
energy) and related transportation network conflicts with other land and resource uses and values.
Principal considerations include disruptive activities and human presence in big game habitat (i.e., elk,

1-8

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 1

deer, antelope, moose, and bighorn sheep), big game crucial habitat (crucial winter range and birthing
areas), and other important wildlife species habitats (i.e., greater sage-grouse, plovers, raptors, and fish).
Principal considerations also include the effects of disruptive activities on cultural resources, recreation
values, forage uses, air quality, sensitive vegetation types, and sensitive watersheds. Areas need to be
identified where surface disturbing and disruptive activities (e.g., mineral exploration and development,
rights-of-way construction) are suitable or should be restricted or avoided.

Issue 2: Special Management Designations

FLPMA and the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act provide for designation of special
designations and management areas or resource values. The BLM must review the actions for
management areas established in the GDRMP, and determine if those actions are to be brought forward in
the Rawlins RMP or, if needed, revised to meet current conditions.

The following established areas meet the criteria for protection and management of areas and resource
values.

• WSAs: Encampment River Canyon, Prospect Mountain, Bennett Mountains, Adobe Town, and
Ferris Mountains

• ACECs: Como Bluff, Sand Hills, Jep Canyon, and Shamrock Hills

• Wild Horse Herd Management Areas (HMA): Adobe Town, Stewart Creek, and Lost Creek.

BLM must also review the existing lands and resources and may consider and propose additional ACECs
in the Rawlins RMP.

The GDRMP includes three National Natural Landmarks (NNL) identified by the National Park Service
(NPS) in the 1970s (Big Hollow, Sand Creek, and Como Bluff). In developing the Rawlins RMP, the
BLM must decide between the following:

• Should BLM continue management goals and objectives and management actions as described?

• Or, should BLM identify new goals and objectives and management actions for the three NNLs?

BLM may also consider whether an existing NNL meets ACEC criteria and, if so, propose establishment
of a new ACEC.

Issue 3: Public Access and Transportation Systems

Resource accessibility relates to the idea that the value or usability of some resources is enhanced by
improved public accessibility. To be used, resources must be accessible legally and physically. They must
also be manageable (i.e., the ability to apply constraints or requirements on them). Some areas in the
RMPPA, however, are isolated and difficult to access legally and physically and are difficult to manage.
Land disposals and acquisitions (i.e., fee and easements) could provide improved access and
manageability of public lands.

Issue 4: Wildland-Urban Interface

New demands are being placed on public lands because of growth in and around some cities, towns, rural
developments, and subdivisions in the RMPPA. Growth has changed the way communities relate to
surrounding public lands and has changed the communities’ expectations. The basic problem is providing

Rawlins RMP

1-9

Chapter 1

Final EIS

for public land management along with increased demands for public land and resources. Principal
considerations include providing for air and water quality, preventing the depletion of water resources,
reducing accelerated erosion in critical watersheds, and preventing fragmentation of critical wildlife
habitat. Considerations also include providing for development patterns and transportation and utility
corridor planning, and dealing with demands for open space and recreational uses, land tenure adjustment,
and wildland fire and fuels management.

Issue 5: Management of Special Status Species

Attention is needed to address management of special status species (threatened and endangered, and
proposed, candidate, and sensitive plant and animal species) and the interrelationships of these species
with other resource uses and activities. Principal considerations include management of species habitat to
ensure continued use of the habitat by these species. Areas need to be identified where other resource
activities may conflict with special status species and their habitat requirements.

Issue 6: Water Quality

Federal and state requirements for addressing water quality of water bodies located within the RMPPA
will warrant additional attention as the RMP is implemented and updated. Land management decisions
made by the RFO during the planning effort, regarding contributing watersheds, can impact water bodies
listed on the State of Wyoming’s list of threatened or impaired water bodies, watersheds used for
municipal water supplies, and watersheds that contribute to sources of water used for agricultural,
industrial, and other purposes.

Increased interest in the production of natural gas in the RMPPA, particularly from coal formations,
requires BLM to consider methods to dispose of the water produced during oil and gas exploration and
development. Legal changes to the status of depletions in the Colorado and Platte drainages must be
addressed in addition to rule changes for salt loading in the Colorado River Basin.

Issue 7: Vegetation Management

Maintaining vegetation resource values, while allowing and managing consumptive uses, is a primary
conflict for which BLM must determine a balance and mix of those values and uses. Resource values
include watershed and riparian area protection, soil stabilization, maintenance and enhancement of
wildlife habitat (particularly big game crucial winter range and habitat for candidate, sensitive, proposed,
or threatened and endangered wildlife and vegetation species). Vegetative consumptive uses include
livestock, wildlife, and wild horse grazing; forest management; off-road vehicle use; vegetation removal
by mineral development; rights-of-way construction; and other surface disturbing activities.

Issue 8: Recreation and CulturaS Resources

Recreation Use and Management

These issues are problems, opportunities, or conflicts with resource use and management that may be
resolved through the planning process. Issues on recreation management are expressed in the form of
questions that the RMP will address. Planning decisions are the answers or solutions to the questions
posed below:

• What management actions, if any, should be employed to protect existing recreational settings on
public lands?

1-10

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 1

• Should the visual character of natural landscapes surrounding historic and scenic trails be
protected?

• Should off-highway vehicle (OHV) access to the public lands be limited to protect recreational
settings and wildlife habitat?

• Is large-scale industrial development of public lands adversely affecting recreational settings, and
displacing recreational activities, experiences, and benefits?

• Are there high-value recreation areas in the RRMPA that merit intensive management similar to
that for three established Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA)? And if so, where? The
SRMAs that focus on intensive recreation management are: Continental Divide National Scenic
Trail; North Platte River; and Shirley Mountain Caves.

• Are the needs of the off-road vehicle enthusiasts being met with present OHV designations, or are
additional “open” or unlimited OHV areas needed?

• Are dispersed recreation activities, such as hunting, being adversely affected by competing
resources management decisions and subsequent resource development?

Cultural Resources Management

Development along historic transportation routes such as the Overland Trail, the Cherokee Trail, and
Westward Expansion-era roads would prove detrimental to the viewshed of these historic resources. In
addition, development as well as recreational uses could affect Native American sacred sites. This would
be an issue to address.

1.3.2 Planning Criteria

Planning criteria define the scope of the planning effort based on applicable laws, BLM policy, and
Director and State Director guidance. The criteria are used to guide the development of the proposed plan
and ensure that the planning effort is focused on the issues, and that decisions are made within the context
of regulations and policies. The planning criteria may be used to evaluate the responsiveness and
effectiveness of the alternatives considered in the FEIS, including the proposed plan.

The planning criteria are also used to guide the selection of the proposed plan and its elements. The
criteria are provided below. The reader may use them in evaluating the responsiveness and effectiveness
of the proposed planning decisions goals and objectives, as well as the allowable uses, management
actions, and proposed overall plan.

Planning criteria used in this RMP revision are —

• The revised RMP will recognize valid existing rights.

• Planning decisions will cover BLM-administered public lands, including split-estate lands where
the subsurface minerals are severed from the surface right, and the BLM has legal jurisdiction
over one or the other.

• The RMP planning effort will be collaborative and multi-jurisdictional in nature. The BLM
strives to ensure that its management decisions are complementary to its planning jurisdictions
and adjoining properties, within the boundaries described by law and regulation.

Rawlins RMP

1-11

Chapter 1

Final EIS

• The environmental analysis will consider a reasonable range of alternatives that focus on the
relative values or resources and that respond to the issues. Management prescriptions will reflect
the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

• The BLM will consider current scientific information, research, new technologies, and the results
of resource assessments, monitoring, and coordination to determine appropriate local and regional
management strategies that will enhance or restore impaired ecosystems.

• The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands will apply to all activities and uses (USDI BLM
1997).

• The RMP will address socioeconomics and environmental justice.

• The BLM will provide for public safety and welfare relative to fire, hazardous materials, and
abandoned mine lands (AML).

• Visual resource management class designations will be analyzed and modified to reflect present
conditions and future needs.

• The BLM will consider current and potential future uses of the public lands, through the
development of reasonably foreseeable future development and activity scenarios based on
historical, existing, and projected levels of use.

• Planning decisions will include the preservation, conservation, and enhancement of cultural,
historical, paleontological, and natural components of public land resources, while considering
energy development and other surface disturbing activities.

• The BLM will coordinate with tribes to identify sites, areas, and objects important to their
cultural and religious heritages.

• Planning decisions will comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and BLM interagency
agreements with the USFWS.

• Areas potentially suitable for ACEC or other special designations will be identified and, where
appropriate, brought forward for analysis in the EIS.

• Waterway segments are classified, and determinations of eligibility and suitability will be made
in accordance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Appropriate management prescriptions for
maintaining or enhancing the outstandingly remarkable values and classifications of waterway
segments meeting suitability criteria will be part of the RMP process.

• OHV use management decisions in the revised RMP will be consistent with BLM’s National
OHV Strategy (USDI, BLM 2001) and with any interagency agreements in effect.

• Decisions in the revised RMP will comply as appropriate with all applicable laws, regulations,
policy, and guidance.

• The coal screening/planning process has been conducted on areas containing federal coal within
Carbon Basin consistent with regulations found at 43 CFR Subparts 3420 and 3460. Only the first
two steps of the coal screening/planning process have been conducted on areas containing federal
coal outside of Carbon Basin. Unless public submissions of coal resource information or surface
resource issues indicate a need to update these determinations, no additional coal screening
determinations or coal planning decisions are anticipated for the Rawlins RMP until such time as
a lease-by-application is received.

1-12

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 1

• BLM and the State of Wyoming entered into a consent decree on August 28, 2003, in United
States District Court in Civil Action No. 03-CV-169-D. This consent decree directs that
Wyoming BLM will use its best efforts to achieve and maintain previously established AMLs in
all HMAs in Wyoming. Planning decisions on wild horse management will be consistent with the
consent decree as long as it is in effect.

1 .4 Relevant Statutes, Limitations, and Guidelines

Numerous federal and state laws and applicable regulations, policies, and actions could affect the
alternatives analyzed in this EIS. The FLPMA is the primary authority for BLM’s management of public
lands. This law provides the overarching policy by which public lands are managed. It establishes
provisions for land use planning, land acquisition, land withdrawals, administration, range management,
rights-of-way, designated management areas, and the repeal of certain laws and statutes. The FLPMA
also requires BLM to provide food and habitat management for fish, wildlife, and domestic species. In
addition, BLM is integrating the results into all RMPs of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)
Reauthorization of 2000, Public Law (PL 106-469), and the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

NEPA provides for public input on issue identification and consideration of the environmental impacts of
major federal actions that impact the quality of the human environment. Additional laws, regulations, and
policies guiding management of public lands are identified in Appendix 39.

1.5 Other Related Plans

BLM planning policies require that the BLM review approved or adopted resources plans of other federal,
state, local, and tribal governments and, where practicable, be consistent with those plans. Table 1-3
identifies plans related to the management of land and resources that apply to this RMP revision.

Table 1-3. Plans Related to the Management of Lands and Resources
that Apply to the Rawlins RMP Revision

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, Revised Land and
Resource Management Plan (USFS 2003)

Albany County Land Use Plan (1997)

Green River Resource Management Plan (USDI BLM
1997)

Carbon County Land Use Plan (1998)

Lander Resource Management Plan (USDI BLM 1987)

Land and Natural Resource Management Plan for the Little
Snake River Conservation District (2004)

Platte River Resource Management Plan (USDI BLM
1985)

Sweetwater County Conservation District, Land and Resource
Use Plan (2005)

Little Snake Resource Management Plan (USDI BLM
1989)

Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District, Long
Range and Natural Resource Management Plan (2007)

Sweetwater County Land Use Plan (2002)

1.5.1 Other Plans

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58), Section 368, refers to the designation of West-wide
energy corridors. The Act is being implemented through current development of an interagency
programmatic EIS. The final programmatic EIS will provide plan amendment decisions that will address
numerous energy corridor-related issues, including the use of existing corridors (enhancements and

Rawlins RMP

1-13

Chapter 1

Final EIS

upgrades), identification of new corridors, supply and demand considerations, and compatibility with
other corridor and project planning efforts. It is likely that identification of corridors in the programmatic
EIS will affect the RMPPA and that the approved programmatic EIS would subsequently amend the
Rawlins RMP.

In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58), Section 369 (oil shale and tar sands
commercial leasing) is being implemented through the development of a BLM programmatic EIS. The
identification of areas that are suitable for oil shale development will be included in the Oil and Tar Sands
Leasing programmatic EIS. On its completion and ROD, the approved programmatic EIS would
subsequently amend the Rawlins RMP. (Additional information regarding oil shale and tar sands is in
Chapter 3.)

1 .6 Relationship Between BLM and Cooperating

Agencies

The NEPA regulations provide for a lead federal agency to invite other federal, state or local governments
to participate in the preparation of an environmental document such as an EIS. Upon request of the lead
agency, any other federal agency that has jurisdiction by law will be a cooperating agency (also called a
cooperator). In addition, any other federal agency that has special expertise with respect to any
environmental issue that should be addressed in the EIS may be a cooperating agency upon request of the
lead agency. An agency may also request the lead agency to designate it a cooperating agency.

The concept of cooperators has been extended from federal agencies to include state and local
government agencies in recent years. This inclusion of state and local government agencies as
cooperating agencies is consistent with BLM’s planning approach and policies. Any designated federal,
state, or local government agency that becomes a cooperator is required to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) as to its specific roles and responsibilities.

The primary role of the cooperating agencies is to provide input during the EIS process on issues for
which they have special expertise or jurisdiction. They also serve as reviewers of draft information and
give overall advice on the EIS process. Cooperators meet with the lead agency periodically throughout the
EIS process to discuss EIS issues as a group. Cooperating agencies are expected to participate in the EIS
process at the earliest possible time, including participation in the scoping process. Staffs from
cooperating agencies are available to enhance the interdisciplinary capability of the lead agency by
providing needed information throughout the NEPA process.

The following agencies with jurisdiction, special expertise, or interest in the Rawlins RMP development
process have agreed to participate in the EIS process as cooperating agencies:

• Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District

• Medicine Bow Conservation District

• Little Snake River Conservation District

• Sweetwater County Conservation District

• U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• State of Wyoming and its agencies

• Carbon County

• Sweetwater County

• Albany County.

1-14

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 1

1 .7 Scoping and Public Involvement

1.7.1 Scoping

NEPA regulations require that the BLM determine the scope of issues to address when assessing a
proposed action. The intent of the scoping process is to provide opportunities for the public, tribes, other
government agencies, and interest groups to “scope” the planning process and identify planning issues
and concerns. During scoping, the BLM solicits new information relevant to the RMPPA that might be
used to develop RMPs. Public involvement is an integral part of scoping.

1.7.2 Public Involvement

Consistent with NEPA Sections 101 and 102, and with federal regulations, BLM is required to ensure that
the public is involved in the EIS process. BLM planning regulations also require the BLM to provide
opportunities for the public to participate in the RMP development process.

1.7.3 Public Involvement Opportunities and Activities

The BLM published a NOI in the Federal Register on February 25, 2002 announcing its intent to revise
the GDRMP and prepare an EIS. The NOI explained that the GDRMP would be renamed the Rawlins
RMP, to be consistent with the current organizational structure and the BLM naming scheme for land use
plans. Table 1-4 outlines the public involvement, coordination, and consultation events.

A 60-day scoping period began on February 3, 2003. It made scoping information, including a scoping
notice and the Management Situation Analysis (MSA), as required by the BLM planning regulations,
available to the public. In January 2003, scoping notices were mailed to approximately 6,000 federal,
state, and local agencies, interest groups, and members of the general public.

The BLM hosted four scoping meetings in Rock Springs, Rawlins, Baggs, and Laramie, Wyoming from
March 3-6, 2003. The scoping notice served as a reminder to the public of the availability of the MSA,
project schedule, and other information on the planning process and effort. These meetings were
conducted in an open-house format. They were staffed with BLM personnel, including the Field Manager,
who were on hand to answer questions and provide information to meeting participants.

A DEIS was prepared and released to the public by NOA. It was published in the Federal Register on
December 17, 2004. It initiated a 90-day public review and comment period. The DEIS described four
possible plan alternatives for the RMP. It also included an analysis of potential environmental
consequences of implementing each of the possible plan alternatives.

Table 1-4. Public Involvement, Coordination, and Consultation Events

Date

Location

Type

March 3, 2003

Rock Springs, Wyoming

Joint Public Scoping Meeting for Rawlins
RMP/Pinedale RMP

March 4, 2003

Rawlins, Wyoming

Public Scoping Meeting

March 5, 2003

Baggs, Wyoming

Public Scoping Meeting

March 6, 2003

Laramie, Wyoming

Public Scoping Meeting

Rawlins RMP

1-15

Chapter 1

Final EIS

Date

Location

Type

December 17, 2004

NOA — Start of 90-day public comment
period on the Rawlins RMP/DEIS

February 7, 2005

Rock Springs, Wyoming

Public Hearing Meeting — RMP/DEIS

February 8, 2005

Baggs, Wyoming

Public Hearing Meeting — RMP/DEIS

February 9, 2005

Rawlins, Wyoming

Public Hearing Meeting — RMP/DEIS

February 10, 2005

Laramie, Wyoming

Public Hearing Meeting — RMP/DEIS

June 5, 2007

NOA — Correction, Availability of
Summary of Potential ACECs

1-16

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2

CHAPTER 2— DESCRIPTIONS OF THE

ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Introduction

Chapter 2 describes four alternative Resource Management Plans (RMP) for managing the public lands
and federal minerals within the Resource Management Plan Planning Area (RMPPA). These alternatives
are divided into one no action alternative and three action alternatives as follows: Alternative 1 (No
Action — Continuation of Existing Management Direction), Alternative 2 (Emphasis on the Development
of Resources), Alternative 3 (Emphasis on Protection of Resources), and Alternative 4 (Proposed Plan).
Alternative 1 includes direction provided by the Great Divide RMP (USDI, BLM 1990a) and any new
direction and policy that have been subsequently developed and documented through plan maintenance or
amendment actions. The three action alternatives were developed to present a range of management
options to guide decision-making for managing uses and activities within the RMPPA. Each alternative
management plan is intended to minimize adverse impacts on cultural and natural resources while
providing for compatible resource use and development opportunities, consistent with current laws,
regulations, and policies.

Alternatives were developed to establish a framework for measuring the impacts on the RMPPA that
might occur as a result of future management. The alternatives themselves do not constitute management
decisions, but instead represent reasonable approaches to managing public land and activities consistent
with laws, regulations, and policies. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) exercised its discretion to
combine aspects of the various alternatives presented in the Rawlins RMP draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) (USDI, BLM 2004) to develop the proposed RMP and final EIS (FEIS). The National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the development and analysis of several alternatives,
including a no action alternative, to measure the impacts that a set of actions could have on the RMPPA.
According to NEPA, BLM must consider these impacts in developing the RMP for the RMPPA, as
described in Chapter 1 .

Section 2.3 presents an overview of the alternatives development process, including alternatives and
management options considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. Section 2.4 presents introductory
text for management guidance and actions that are applicable or common to all alternatives, including
Alternative 1, that are found under each resource or program heading in Table 2-1, Detailed Comparison
of Alternatives. Management alternatives considered in the FEIS are summarized in Section 2.5.1 through
Section 2.5.4. Section 2.6 presents a summary comparison of impacts from management actions proposed
for the four management alternatives addressed in Chapter 4 of the FEIS. Section 2.7 describes the
monitoring strategy to be applied to the management of all land and resource management programs. The
formation of Activity Plan Working Groups (APWG) is also described in Section 2.7.

2.2 Changes Between the RM P/Draft EIS and the

Proposed RMP/Final EIS

Chapter 2 has been reformatted to meet current BLM direction (BLM-H-1601-1, 2005). The changes in
document format are most easily noted by comparing the DEIS Table of Contents with the FEIS Table of
Contents. Some of the original text has been reformatted either by creating a new section or moving the
information to a more appropriate location in the FEIS. The location of where more detailed information
may be found is usually referenced within the section.

Rawlins RMP

2-1

Chapter 2

Final EIS

In Chapter 2, narrative descriptions of the alternatives considered have been expanded (Section 2.5.1 -
Section 2.5.3) and a narrative description of the Proposed Plan (Section 2.5.4) provided.

The justification for not analyzing the Western Heritage Alternative (WHA) in detail has been expanded.

Additional text has been added to Section 2.7.2, Activity Plan Working Groups, to expand the purpose,
intent and opportunities for APWGs to assist in BLM activity level planning.

2.2.1 Changes Specific to Table 2-1— Detailed Comparison of
Alternatives

General

Management actions common to all alternatives were moved from Section 2.4 into Table 2-1, Detailed
Comparison of Alternatives.

Management goals for many resources and programs were modified and new objective statements were
developed for each resource or program.

Management actions under various resources or programs were modified to remove reference to BLM
compliance with law, regulation, and policy. This requirement is well established in Chapter 1 .

A management action has been added to all resources and programs that states that the Standards for
Healthy Rangelands, as identified in Appendix 8, apply.

2.2.2 Resource or Program-Specific Management Action Changes

The following sections include the major resource or program-specific changes that have occurred
between the draft RMP/EIS and the final RMP/EIS. This is not an exhaustive list of all management
action changes, but does include those changes that either modified the Proposed Plan or influenced the
impact analysis in Chapter 4.

Cultural Resources

Management action added to protect threatened sites identified through Section 110 inventory and
monitoring.

Management action added to protect sacred sites identified through consultation with Native American
tribes.

Management action added that would require cultural monitoring during surface disturbing activities in
sensitive areas.

Forest Management

Forested acres, including acres of commercial forest available for commercial timber harvest, were
revised.

2-2

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2

Lands and Realty

The management action for wind energy development has been modified to be consistent with the
management action for Utility /Transportation Systems, thereby increasing management flexibility.
Existing major transportation and utility right-of-way (ROW) routes designated as corridors have been
revised (Map 2-2).

Livestock Grazing

A management objective to mitigate, where opportunities exist, impacts to livestock operational
capabilities, was included.

Management actions related to vacant grazing allotments have been removed from consideration.

Management actions related to herding to control domestic sheep where BLM fence standards are not
sufficient to control domestic sheep have been removed from consideration.

Minerals

Management action under General Protection Requirements has been modified to include reclamation to
more clearly outline the role of reclamation.

Management actions regarding vehicular use for necessary tasks were modified to remove the compliance
with off-highway vehicle (OHV) designations.

Oil and gas classification acreage was adjusted as a result of changes to surface use restrictions,
mitigation measures, and special designations/management areas in other programs.

A management action common to all alternatives for oil shale was added.

Off-Highway Vehicle Management

Management actions related to consideration of road densities during activity planning were moved to the
Transportation and Access Section.

Paleontology

Management actions for the development of interpretive facilities and hobby collection areas for common
invertebrate and plant fossils were added. Management actions for avoidance of resource-bearing strata
were added.

Recreation and Visitor Services

All management actions related to management of the West Ferris Mountains and Adobe Town
Wilderness Study Area (WSA) fringe areas were removed. An Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use
Area action was added.

Lands within 14 mile of developed and undeveloped recreation sites in the Proposed Plan were closed to
locatable mineral entry, mineral material disposal, and operation of the public land laws, including sale.

Rawlins RMP

2-3

Chapter 2

Final EIS

Special Recreation Management Areas

The Shirley Mountain Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) was retained and expanded in the
Proposed Plan.

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA corridor was expanded, and the oil and gas leasing
was changed from intensive management to no surface occupancy (NSO). The management action that
closed the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA to locatable mineral entry was removed from
the Proposed Plan. A management action was added to close the SRMA to mineral material disposal in
Alternative 3 and the Proposed Plan.

A management action was added to manage OHV use in the North Platte SRMA, limiting it to designated
roads and vehicle routes in Alternative 3 and the Proposed Plan. The management action that closed the
North Platte River SRMA to locatable mineral entry was removed from the Proposed Plan.

The Rawlins OHV Area SRMA was dropped from consideration and a more generalized OHV SRMA
was added to provide for future consideration of specific OHV use areas.

Four new SRMAs were added: Jelm Mountain, Pedro Mountains, Laramie Plains Lakes, and Rawlins
Fishing SRMAs.

Special Designations and Management Areas

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/Wildlife Habitat Management Areas

Management actions were changed slightly throughout the document to clarify actions and make them
consistent with other resources and resource uses.

The Sand Hills Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and potential JO Ranch expansion in the
Proposed Plan would be closed to mineral material sales. All existing fences would be modified to current
standards in the Proposed Plan. Management actions were added regarding the JO Ranch setting in
accordance with the State of Wyoming cultural program protocol and best management practices (BMP).

Surface disturbing and disruptive activities in aspen communities within the Jep Canyon ACEC/Wildlife
Habitat Management Area (WHMA) would be avoided in the Proposed Plan.

A management action common to all alternatives was added to the Laramie Peak Potential ACEC that
addresses consideration of recommendations of the Wyoming Bighom/Domestic Sheep Interaction
Working Group.

A management action common to all alternatives was added to the Red Rim-Daley Potential ACEC to
intensively manage surface disturbing activities to maintain raptor nesting habitat.

Management actions for the Laramie Plains Lakes potential ACEC were changed in the Proposed Plan to
make them consistent with the newly formed Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA in the same area. These
changes mostly involved mineral actions (NSO for oil and gas, closed to locatable mineral entry and
mineral material disposal). Public lands would be open to land tenure adjustments to meet the objectives
of the management area.

The Shirley Mountain Bat Cave potential ACEC name was changed to the Cave Creek Cave potential
ACEC.

2-4

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2

The acreage within the Blowout Penstemon potential ACEC has been expanded. The management action
that closed the Blowout Penstemon ACEC to locatable mineral entry was removed from the Proposed
Plan.

The management action that closed the Wick-Beumee WHMA to land tenure adjustments was removed
from the Proposed Plan.

The size of the Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly potential ACEC was reduced to encompass only
lands within the watershed. A change was made to Alternative 3 and the Proposed Plan that closes the
area to new oil and gas leasing and provides for intensive management of existing leases. The Proposed
Plan closes the area to mineral material disposal. A management action was added to manage for no net
gain of roads and vehicle routes in the area in Alternative 3. The management action for aspen was
modified to avoid surface disturbing and disruptive activities in aspen communities.

The Cow Butte/Wild Cow potential WHMA was added to address crucial elk winter range and mountain
shrub and aspen community management opportunities.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Wild and Scenic River (WSR) section was revised. The entire table has been revised as per BLM IM-
2004-196 to reflect consideration of suitability and associated management actions for all eligible river
segments in one alternative (in this case Alternative 3) and finding none of the segments suitable in one
alternative (in this case Alternative 2) in the following manner:

• Alternative 1 — Suitability determination not made; continue protective management for all nine
eligible river segments.

• Alternative 2 — No river segments recommended suitable for designation.

• Alternative 3 — All nine river segments recommended suitable for designation.

• Proposed Plan — Encampment River segment managed as suitable and recommended to
Congress for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS).

The Proposed Plan carries forward the finding that only the Encampment River is suitable for WSR
recommendation.

Vegetation

A management action was added for the application of conservation measures identified in the 2007
Rawlins Resource Management Plan Biological Assessment and the Programmatic Biological Opinion
for the Wyoming Bureau of Land Management’s Rawlins Resource Management Plan. In addition,
conservation measures and reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions identified in any
Biological Assessment or Biological Opinion would be applied. These actions are common to all
alternatives.

The consideration of different priorities for control of noxious and invasive species was added. Also, the
consideration of certain activities, such as oil and gas leasing and lands and realty actions, was modified
to target occupied habitat for certain Special Status Species, rather than known or identified habitat.

Rawlins RMP

2-5

Chapter 2

Final EIS

Visual Resources

The acreage in each visual resource management (VRM) class has been updated based on management
action changes for other resources and programs.

Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils Management

A new management action common to all alternatives was added that provides BLM opportunities to
rehabilitate or reclaim reservoirs that are functionally compromised and to provide new water sources to
support the goals for livestock grazing and wildlife habitat management.

The management action that addressed surface discharge of produced water in the Colorado River System
was changed to provide for surface discharge that meets state standards.

Wild Horses

A management action was added for the identification of metapopulations and the selective removal of
horses during gathers to increase the occurrence of New World Iberian genotypes and phenotypes above
current levels.

Wildlife and Fisheries

A management action common to all related to application of BMPs was removed to reduce redundancy
with specific management actions by alternative.

A management action was added for the management of projects through consideration of facility
placement and minimization of construction disturbance to maintain block size and connectivity between
large contiguous blocks of federal land.

A management action that would allow consideration of year-long surface disturbing and disruptive
activities to occur in big game crucial winter range, greater sage-grouse seasonal use areas, and other
seasonally sensitive habitats and areas was removed in the Proposed Plan.

2.3 Development of Alternatives

The following sections describe the alternative development process, including management goals and
objectives.

2.3.1 Alternatives Development Process

BLM complied with NEPA requirements in the development of alternatives for this RMP FEIS, including
seeking public input and analyzing an adequate range of reasonable alternatives, including a No Action
Alternative (Alternative 1). Alternative formulation took into consideration existing decisions in the Great
Divide RMP, the 2001 Great Divide RMP evaluation (the results of which were presented in Chapter 1),
and issues and concerns developed internally and solicited from the public during scoping and review of
the Rawlins RMP DEIS.

The existing Great Divide RMP (1990 Great Divide Resource Area Record of Decision [ROD] and
Approved RMP [BLM 1990a]) served as the point of departure for Alternative 1. Many of the
management actions occurring in the 1990 RMP were found to be acceptable and reasonable; thus, there

2-6

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2

was limited need to develop alternative management prescriptions under the three action alternatives. In
many cases, management prescriptions are the same across all alternatives or in some cases reflect only a
decision to implement or not implement an action. Actions that are the same across all four alternatives
are presented under each resource or program heading in Table 2-1.

Public input received during the scoping process and during public review of the Rawlins RMP DEIS was
considered to ensure that all issues and concerns were addressed, as appropriate, in developing the
Proposed Plan and alternatives. The scoping process, RMP DEIS review and comment, cooperating
agency involvement, and the results are summarized in Section 5.2.

Where necessary to meet the planning criteria for the RMPPA, to address comments from cooperating
agencies, and to provide a reasonable range of alternatives, the alternatives include management options
for the RMPPA that would modify or amend decisions in the Great Divide RMP. Finally, all alternatives
meet the management goals for each BLM resource and land management program.

Development of alternatives began with the identification of management actions and the analysis of the
environmental effects of Alternative 1 . Other alternatives were then developed to address resource issues
and concerns identified through the analysis of Alternative 1 .

Review of the alternatives included cooperating agency involvement to ensure consistency with other
agency goals and objectives prior to the development of the Proposed Plan (Alternative 4). In addition,
the Proposed Plan was developed following a review of the management actions and environmental
effects of the other three alternatives.

An adequate range of alternatives was developed for a comparative analysis. Management alternatives
considered in the FEIS are summarized in Section 2.5.1 through Section 2.5.4 and are presented in detail
in Table 2-1.

2.3.2 Management Goals and Objectives

Management goals and objectives were defined for each resource management category and land use
program that BLM must address in the planning process. The management goals and objectives for each
resource management category and land use program are presented in Table 2-1.

2.3.3 Alternatives and Management Options Considered But
Eliminated From Detailed Analysis

The alternatives and management options that follow were considered as possible ways of resolving
resource management issues and conflicts but were eliminated from detailed analysis because they were
unreasonable or not practical for technical, legal, or policy reasons.

Wild Horses and Burros

In developing the wild horse management alternatives that were considered in detail, the following two
alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis:

Establish Herd Management Areas in Herd Areas Not Supporting Wild Horses

The three herd areas (HA) within the Rawlins RMPPA (Checkerboard South, Doty Mountain/Cherokee,
and Bolton Ranch) that do not contain established herd management areas (HMA) were reviewed to
determine if the conditions precluding HMA designation were still valid. Previous planning efforts

Rawlins RMP

2-7

Chapter 2

Final EIS

determined these HAs failed to meet criteria for suitably maintaining a healthy population of wild horses
in accordance with the intent of the Act. Those criteria failures included the following:

• The area was composed of more than 50 percent privately controlled land and the private
landowners did not express an interest in having their lands included in an HMA.

• The area contained numerous barriers that prevented wild horse access to adequate year-long
habitat.

• Most of the horses in these areas were privately owned and had been removed.

It was determined that the conditions within these HAs have not changed significantly since the HAs were
originally evaluated. In addition, establishing HMAs within these HAs would require allocation of
sufficient forage to sustain a population of wild horses on public lands, thereby removing some or all of
the permitted livestock from the HAs. Therefore, an alternative to establish wild horse HMAs in any of
these three HAs will not be considered further.

Elimination of All Wild Horses from the Rawlins RMPPA

This alternative would be viable only if the management of wild horses were not possible in any HAs
located in the RMPPA. Because this is not the case, this alternative would contravene the intent and letter
of the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971, which states “... they [wild horses] are considered in the area
where presently found as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands” and should be
“protected and managed as components of the public lands.” This alternative was not considered further.

Reintroduction of a Wild Bison Population

Public comment received during scoping suggested that a wild, free-roaming population of bison should
be returned to the Red Desert Basin within the RMPPA. The alternative was not considered in detail
because of the following issues identified during alternative formulation: (1) Wyoming law does not
currently provide for the presence of free-ranging bison outside the Yellowstone ecosystem; (2) big game
(antelope, deer, and elk) would be adversely affected by the construction and maintenance of fences that
would be required to confine a bison population to any area equaling or approximating the Great Divide
Basin; and (3) BLM lacks the statutory authority to manage any species of animal on the public lands
except wild horses, which already exist in significant numbers in the Great Divide Basin and areas
adjacent to it.

Elimination of Livestock Grazing

The elimination of livestock grazing from all public lands in the RMPPA was considered as one
management option to resolve range and watershed management issues in the current Great Divide RMP.
However, after reviewing vegetation data, the rangeland health assessment, and public scoping comments,
BLM concluded that eliminating livestock grazing from all public lands continues not to be a viable or
necessary management option.

Western Heritage Alternative

The WHA was developed or endorsed by a number of state and national conservation organizations and
was provided to BLM during public scoping. The WHA, as presented, incorporated issues and concerns
that would be required of any balanced approach to managing the public lands. Much of the information
provided was a description of past and present condition of resources similar to the existing environment
discussion provided in Chapter 3 of the RMP FEIS. In addition, the WHA included frequent literature

2-8

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2

citations in support of the positions of the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (BCA) and others. The
WHA was updated and amended by comments provided by BCA and others during the public comment
period on the Rawlins RMP DEIS.

The WHA listed the following sensitive areas that would be leased under NSO stipulations and that
would be withdrawn year round from surface disturbing activities, with no waiver available :

• Lands with overlap of three or more types of wildlife crucial winter ranges, crucial winter relief
areas, and elk calving areas as defined by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD).
(Note: the comments of the BCA and others on the RMP DEIS modify the WHA to include all
big game crucial winter range in this category)

• Areas of critical environmental concern as outlined in the WHA

• Areas within 1 mile of active raptor nests

• Areas within 3 miles of active sage-grouse or 1 mile of sharp-tailed grouse leks

• Large prairie dog colonies and complexes, or those associated with BLM Sensitive Species such
as the black-footed ferret, burrowing owl, mountain plover, or swift fox, plus a Vi-mile buffer
zone around these colonies

• Critical habitats of endangered and threatened species

• Areas within the 100-year floodplain of permanent or intermittent streams or within 500 feet of
natural water sources or riparian vegetation

• Lands within 5 miles of the Overland Trail and Cherokee historic trails, the Continental Divide
National Scenic Trail, Native American trails, a site eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) — the WHA allows for waiver for surface disturbances and developments if they
are completely invisible by line-of-sight from the site eligible for the NRHP — or lands within
Native American religious or cultural sites as identified by the tribes. (BLM completed a
viewshed analysis out to 5 miles for all properties eligible or yet unevaluated for the NRHP.)

To its credit, the WHA did provide or develop issues and concerns regarding management
recommendations for many of the resource issues it presented that assisted BLM in alternative
formulation for many of the resources in the RMP/FEIS. Ultimately, however, the WHA proposed that
NSO be considered for surface disturbing and disruptive activities on more than 90 percent of the
RMPPA.

Calculations conducted by BCA and others and supported with Geographic Information System (GIS)
mapping show the acreage of federal surface under NSO that BCA contends could be reached by
directional drilling 1 mile or less from either federal surface (without an NSO requirement) or nonfederal
surface (primarily private or State of Wyoming surface ownership) (individual comment letters, in their
entirety, are available for review at the Rawlins Field Office). The WHA protects and preserves the public
land surface acreage from surface disturbing and disruptive activities by forcing the development onto
private and state surfaces. BCA points out that a 1-mile horizontal displacement for directional drilling
would be considered routine and would pose no undue challenges or expenses to industry. BCA
concludes that only 8.9 percent of the minerals managed under the new RMP would be under NSO
stipulations and farther than 1 mile from an area where surface disturbance and the siting of a well would
be permissible. The BCA analysis shows that more than 90 percent of federal minerals would be accessed
from private surface.

Rawlins RMP

2-9

Chapter 2

Final EIS

BLM’s own GIS mapping analysis of the WHA-proposed NSO areas resulted in 3,1 17,000 acres of public
land surface estate out of a total 3,425,030 acres of public land surface estate (91 percent of the public
land surface) identified for NSO under the WHA.

For an organization, group, or individual to prepare the amount and detail of information presented is
admirable. It must be pointed out, however, that BLM multiple use mandate is supported by numerous
environmental laws, policy statements, regulations, and procedures that govern the day-to-day
management of the public lands. All of the laws, regulations, and policies must be considered for an
alternative to be considered reasonable (i.e., Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended). BLM believes
that the developers of the WHA have failed in that regard when considering the effect of WHA
management actions on mineral development.

Oil and Gas Development Allowable to Limits of Existing RMP Only

An alternative was considered that would have limited oil and gas exploration and development activity
to levels analyzed in the existing Great Divide RMP. However, following further analysis and discussion,
this alternative was considered to be unrealistic and unreasonable. Reasonably foreseeable exploration
levels established in 1986 in the Great Divide RMP have almost been achieved. The Rawlins Field Office
(RFO) evaluation of the Great Divide RMP in 2001 identified the fluid mineral reasonable foreseeable
development (RFD) at an analysis level that would be exceeded in the near future. This alternative would
have effectively limited oil and gas exploration and development to that which has already been approved
on existing leases and, in many cases, would preclude the maximum recovery of fluid mineral resources
from existing leases. In addition, public comments received during scoping and issue identification
indicated a general acceptance of continued mineral development, provided it is properly managed.

Expanded Wilderness Study Area Alternative

Several citizens’ proposals for WSA designation were received and reviewed by the RFO. These included
proposals in the Adobe Town, Kinney Rim, Wild Cow, and Ferris Mountains areas, including
approximately 316,000 acres of public land. In response to these proposals, the RFO reviewed the current
policy and guidance on wilderness inventory, identification, management, and protection of lands with
wilderness characteristics. A WSA expansion alternative will not be analyzed in detail for the following
reasons:

• The authority set forth in Section 603(a) of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA)
to complete the three-part wilderness review process (inventory, study, and report to Congress)
expired on October 21, 1993; Section 202 of FLPMA does not apply to new WSA proposals; and
consideration of new WSA proposals on BLM-administered public lands is no longer valid.

• An April 2003 settlement of a lawsuit concerning establishment of new WSAs on BLM-
administered public lands in Utah (State of Utah vs. Department of the Interior - 2003) resulted
in a change of policy. The settlement resulted in the issuance of BLM Washington Office
Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-195 (Rescission of National Level Guidance on Wilderness
Review and Land Use Planning) which rescinded the BLM Wilderness Inventory and Study
Procedures Handbook (H-6310-1).

• From time to time in the past few years citizens groups have brought proposals to the BLM to
provide protective management for lands in addition to the existing WSAs. These lands were
located around the fringes of the Adobe Town WSA, the Ferris Mountains WSA and elsewhere in
the RMPPA.

2-10

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2

• BLM responded to these initiatives by conducting inventories of the subject lands to determine
whether they did indeed possess the wilderness characteristics of size, naturalness, or outstanding
opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation or solitude. Our inventories determined that
some of the lands did indeed possess one or more of the above wilderness characteristics. We
then evaluated the lands to determine whether they were manageable as wilderness. We found
that the majority of the areas under consideration were leased for oil and gas development, in
which case we do not have the means to prevent impairment of any wilderness character that may
be present.

• Because we found the lands to be unmanageable as wilderness because of preexisting oil and gas
leases, we elected to drop them from further consideration. Accordingly, measures to provide
protection for any wilderness characteristics of lands in addition to the previously established
WSAs will not be considered in the alternatives of this RMP.

Consideration of Additional Areas as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Public comment received during scoping suggested that a number of areas be considered for designation
as ACECs. Designation of Shirley Mountains, Chain Lakes, Ferris Dunes, and white-tailed prairie dog
complexes as ACECs has been considered in the alternatives analyzed. However, the designations of
plover concentration areas, the Bates Hole/Chalk Mountain cushion plant community, grouse winter
habitat, and Powder Rim juniper woodland have not been considered in any of the alternatives analyzed.
BLM is required to determine if areas proposed for ACEC designation meet the relevance and importance
criteria (as defined in BLM Manual Section 1613) prior to inclusion in the RMP process. Areas that did
not meet the relevance and importance criteria were dropped from further consideration for ACEC
designation (USDI, BLM 2004a). Areas that met the relevance and importance criteria are discussed in
Chapter 3, and management of these areas is presented in Table 2-1.

2.4 Management Actions Common to All Alternatives

Management actions common to all alternatives can result because of specific limitations on management
of resources and land use programs that guided the development of the management alternatives. These
limitations are defined in various laws and regulations that govern BLM management decisions. They are
also set forth in the planning criteria to ensure that management actions within all alternatives are
compliant with nondiscretionary laws and regulations. In many cases, these limitations preclude the
development of alternatives to a given action. In some cases, these laws and regulations limit
management to either implementing or not implementing the action.

In other cases, management actions are consistent across all alternatives because actions have been
carried forward from the existing Great Divide RMP. Where management actions from the existing Great
Divide RMP were found to meet BLM’s current goals, alternatives to acceptable management actions or
direction were found to be unnecessary. In many cases, the decisions from the existing RMP are still
appropriate to meet the goals and objectives for management of the public lands.

Management actions common to all alternatives are found in Table 2-1.

2.5 Alternatives Considered In Detail

This section summarizes the four alternatives (1 through 4) considered in detail. A complete narrative
description of the alternatives considered would require (1) a description of the goals, objectives, and

Rawlins RMP

2-11

Chapter 2

Final EIS

management decisions in each alternative, and (2) maps to show where each decision would occur. This
would be a lengthy and potentially confusing discussion. To reduce the narrative length and avoid
confusion, the four alternatives analyzed in detail in Table 2-1, Detailed Comparison of Alternatives, are
summarized in this section.

The four alternatives were developed to offer a range of management options. Each alternative is intended
to be consistent with law, regulation, and policy while providing for varying levels of compatible resource
use and development opportunities.

2.5.1 Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative)

Overview of the Alternative

Resources on lands administered by the BLM within the RMPPA are currently managed under the
existing plan (USDI 1990a), as amended. Management under Alternative 1 continues that management
plan, and balances the use and development of resources.

Special Designations and Management Areas

Currently, special designations in the RMPPA include Como Bluffs ACEC (1,690 acres) for
paleontological resources; Sand Hills (7,960 acres), Jep Canyon (13,810 acres) and Shamrock Hills
ACEC (18,400 acres) for unique, sensitive vegetation complexes and/or wildlife habitat; and the Stratton
Sagebrush Steppe Research Management Area (5,530 acres) for long-term research history. These
designations continue and no additional special designations are established under Alternative 1 .

In addition to the ACECs listed above, there are seven WHMAs in this Alternative, including Chain
Lakes (30,560 acres), Laramie Peaks (18,940 acres), Red Rim-Daley (11,100 acres), Pennock Mountain
(7,770 acres), Wick-Beumee (280 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes (1,600 acres), and Upper Muddy Creek
(16,340 acres). Each of these areas are currently managed to emphasize wildlife habitat.

Existing management actions for Alternative 1 are presented in Table 2-1.

2.5.2 Alternative 2

Overview of the Alternative

Alternative 2 emphasizes resource uses (e.g., energy and mineral development, and other commodity
uses). Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 2 proposes the least restrictive management actions for
energy and commodity development and the least protective management actions for physical, biological,
and heritage resources while maintaining protections required by laws and regulations.

Special Designations and Management Areas

Alternative 2 designates the lowest number of ACECs (none), while changing the management
designation for the four ACECs in Alternative 1. Sand Hills (7,960 acres), Jep Canyon (13,810 acres),
Shamrock Hills (18,400 acres), designated as ACECs in Alternative 1, are designated Wildlife Habitat
Management Areas in Alternative 2. The Como Bluffs ACEC/National Natural Landmark (NNL) (1,690
acres) ACEC designation is terminated in Alternative 2 (the National Park Service (NPS) NNL
designation is unchanged).

2-12

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2

In addition to the three WHMAs described above, six additional WHMAs are either designated or
continued as WHMAs. These are the Chain Lakes (30,560 acres), Laramie Peak (18,940 acres), Red
Rim-Daley (11,100 acres), Wick-Beumee (280 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes (1,600 acres), and Upper
Muddy Creek (59,720 acres).

The Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Management Area (5,530 acres) designation is retained.
Management actions for Alternative 2 are presented in Table 2-1.

2.5.3 Alternative 3

Overview of the Alternative

Alternative 3 emphasizes conservation of physical, biological, and heritage resources with constraints on
resource uses. Relative to all alternatives, Alternative 3 conserves the most land area for physical,
biological, and heritage resources. The Alternative emphasizes the improvement and protection of habitat
for wildlife and sensitive plant and animal species, improvement of riparian areas, and implementation of
management actions that improve water quality and enhance protection of historic and cultural sites.

Development and use of resources within the RMPPA would occur with intensive management of surface
disturbing and disruptive activities.

Special Designations and Management Areas

Compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 3 designates additional areas as ACECs while changing the
Jep Canyon (13,810 acres) and Shamrock Hills areas (18,400 acres), which were designated as ACECs in
Alternative 1, to a WHMA and Raptor Concentration Area (RCA), respectively. Stratton Sagebrush
Steppe area (5,530 acres), designated as a Research Management Area in all other alternatives, is
designated as an ACEC for protection of historic and scientific values.

The designated ACECs in Alternative 3 include Como Bluffs (1,690 acres), Sand Hills/JO Ranch (12,680
acres), Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area (5,530 acres), Chain Lakes (30,560 acres), Laramie Peak
(18,940 acres), Red Rim-Daley (11,100 acres), Cave Creek (520 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes (1,600
acres), Historic Trails (66,370 acres), Blowout Penstemon (17,050 acres), Upper Muddy Creek
Watershed/Grizzly (59,720 acres), White-tailed Prairie Dog (109,650 acres) and High Savery Dam (530
acres). ACECs proposed in this Alternative represent areas of locally unique/sensitive habitats (Sand
Hills/JO Ranch and Blowout Penstemon), other sensitive environmental areas, unique paleontological
resources (Como Bluffs), or areas designated for protection because of a unique combination of natural
resources, limitations, and habitat (Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly and Red Rim-Daley).

Management actions for Alternative 3 are presented in Table 2-1.

2.5.4 Alternative 4 (Agency Proposed Plan)

Overview of the Alternative

Alternative 4 increases conservation of physical, biological, and heritage resources compared to current
management, including restrictions against habitat fragmentation and designation of five new Special
Designations and Management Areas (SD/MA). Alternative 4 also emphasizes moderate constraints on
leasing for oil and gas and other (leasable) solid minerals.

Rawlins RMP

2-13

Chapter 2

Final EIS

The Proposed Plan strives for a balance of opportunities to use and develop resources within the RMPPA
while promoting environmental conservation. This Proposed Plan best addresses the issues and concerns
raised during scoping, resolves planning issues within the RMPPA, and promotes balanced multiple use
goals and objectives.

This alternative is discussed in more detail below. A complete discussion of the goals, objectives, and
management actions for the Proposed Plan and all alternatives is presented in Table 2-1.

Physical, Biological, and Heritage Resources

Under the Proposed Plan, 24,251 acres of federal coal land (seven existing leases) are exempt from the
coal screening process (i.e., coal areas currently leased do not require further environmental review).
Approximately 4,990 acres are identified as unsuitable for further consideration for coal leasing and 6,693
acres are identified as acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing under the Proposed Plan. The
remaining acres in the RMPPA (51,250 acres with coal development potential) are unevaluated for coal
leasing, and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis pending receipt of a lease-by-application.

Areas open to leasing for oil and gas with major, moderate, or standard stipulations are 605,860 acres,
3,070,180 acres, and 803,070 acres, respectively, under this Alternative. In addition, 73,230 acres in the
RMPPA would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 999,200 acres would be closed to
locatable mineral entry because of existing or proposed withdrawals under the Proposed Plan. Also, plans
of operation would be required for locatable mineral activities that would cause surface disturbance
(except casual use) regardless of the size of the disturbance within the Sand Hills/JO Ranch ACEC and
the Blowout Penstemon ACEC.

Alternative 4 specifies the avoidance of surface disturbance on slopes greater than 25 percent and in areas
of highly erodible soils. Within those portions of the Muddy Creek and Sage Creek watersheds where
erosion contributes to the degradation of streams listed on the State of Wyoming 303d list, surface
disturbance, livestock grazing, and vegetation treatments would be intensively managed with the goal of
removing degraded stream reaches from the impaired category. The Encampment River watershed would
be managed for municipal drinking water sources, WSR values, and recreation. Surface disturbing
activities would be managed to meet these objectives.

Wildlife habitat in the RMPPA would be managed to protect, promote, and maintain quality habitat for all
Special Status, native, and desirable non-native fish and wildlife species in coordination with other state,
federal, and local agencies and landowners. The objective is to promote the restoration or enhancement of
sufficient habitat, consistent with resource capacity, to the extent that wildlife and Special Status Species
would be maintained and/or delisted if management actions were taken in all special habitats. Specific
limitations on surface disturbing activities for raptors and other Special Status Species are presented in
Table 2-1 and seasonal restrictions for surface disturbing and disruptive activities for wildlife in Table 2-
10.

The Proposed Plan manages vegetation to maintain proper ecosystem function and to maintain or enhance
vegetation health, composition, and diversity consistent with the site potential. Invasive and noxious
weeds are controlled. Aspen communities are managed for a healthy mix of successional stages within the
natural range of variation under Alternative 4. Specific management actions include the use of
mechanical, chemical, biological, and prescribed fire to meet the standards for rangeland health and
watershed function and to achieve the desired plant community (DPC) while considering wildlife habitat.

2-14

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2

Resource Uses

Livestock grazing is allowed on the majority of the RMPPA and is managed to maintain or increase
animal unit month (AUM) levels when consistent with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.
BLM would work closely with the livestock operators and others to determine the best way for achieving
DPC in addition to meeting the Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Range improvements would be
designed to achieve allotment objectives.

Wild horse populations would be managed to maintain and control healthy herds, retain their free roaming
nature, and provide adequate habitat. In the Lost Creek HMA, management practices would be
implemented to preserve the New World Iberian genotype.

Forests and woodlands in the RMPPA would be managed using natural processes; prescribed fire; and
chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments with the goal of achieving health, composition, and
diversity objectives for forest stands. Under the Proposed Plan, 21,813 acres of commercial forest would
be available for commercial timber harvest while also managing for multiple uses (i.e., watershed health
and stability, wildlife, recreation, livestock grazing). About 6,700 acres of commercial timber on steep
slopes and riparian areas would not be available for harvest.

Under the Proposed Plan, the BLM would maintain the four SRMAs described in Alternative 1, and add
four additional SRMAs— the Jelm Mountain SRMA, Pedro Mountains SRMA, Laramie Plains Lakes
SRMA, and Rawlins Fishing SRMA. The remainder of the RMPPA is managed as an extensive recreation
management area (ERMA). Finally, the Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area is established
(238,970 acres).

For BLM-administered surface land in the RMPPA, approximately 46,370 acres would be closed to OHV
use. On 1,283,930 acres within intermixed land ownership areas, OHV use is limited to existing roads and
vehicle routes. Another 2,190,690 acres within the RMPPA would be limited to designated or existing
roads and vehicle routes. One open OHV use area (3,730 acres) would be maintained. Additional open
OHV use areas (potential SRMAs) would be considered on a case-by-case basis as proposals are received
under this alternative.

Special Designations and Management Areas

Compared to Alternative 3, Alternative 4 designates fewer areas as ACECs. Jep Canyon (13,810 acres)
and Shamrock Hills (18,400 acres) — designated as ACECs under current management (Alternative 1) —
would be changed to a WHMA and RCA, respectively. Stratton Sagebrush Steppe area (5,530 acres) is
designated as a Research Management Area in Alternative 4. The Como Bluffs ACEC (1,690 acres)
under current management is terminated in Alternative 4 (the NPS NNL designation is unchanged).

Additional ACECs in Alternative 4 — Cave Creek Cave (240 acres) and Blowout Penstemon (17,050
acres) — are designated for the reasons stated in other alternatives.

Laramie Plains Lakes (1,600 acres), Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly (59,720 acres), Red Rim-
Daley (11,100 acres), and Cow Butte/Wild Cow (49,570 acres) are designated in this Alternative as
WHMAs and represent areas of locally unique and sensitive habitats, other sensitive environmental areas,
or areas designated for protection because of a unique combination of natural uses, limitations, and
habitat (Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly and Red Rim-Daley). Sand Hills (12,680 acres), Chain
Lakes (30,560 acres), and Laramie Peak (18,940 acres) are also designated in this Alternative as
WHMAs.

Rawlins RMP

2-15

Chapter 2

Final EIS

Historic Trails (66,370 acres), White-tailed Prairie Dog (109, 650 acres), and High Savery Dam (530
acres) are not designated for special management in this Alternative.

2.6 Comparative Summary of Impacts

Table 2-4 at the end of this chapter, provides a summary of the impacts of management actions proposed
under each alternative, organized by resource or resource management program. The environmental
consequences of the management actions proposed under each alternative are analyzed in Chapter 4.

2.7 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Activity Plan
Working Groups

2.7.1 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Management actions identified for the Rawlins RMPPA are based on studies and the best scientific and
commercial information available. However, conditions may change over time. Experience has shown
that implemented management actions can be improved as new technology and new information become
available. It is also possible that changes in land use will require a different management action to protect
the resources. To address the changing conditions and provide management flexibility using BMPs, the
RFO will monitor and evaluate the approved plan using a process that provides the optimum means of
checking the effectiveness of management actions. This process will measure the effectiveness of existing
actions by monitoring these actions and applying the results of new scientific research. To do this, the
process will analyze the current resource conditions resulting from implemented actions and identify and
recommend alternatives or modified actions, as necessary, to reach established objectives and goals.
Because capability to conduct the process at the optimum level can vary from year to year, the actions to
be monitored will be prioritized.

Appendix 17 presents a description of the monitoring and evaluation plan to be implemented.

2.7.2 Activity Plan Working Groups

RMP-level decisions establish goals, objectives, and management actions that provide the framework for
management of natural resources and land use activities under BLM authority. Land use allocations,
standard or typical management actions, mitigation measures, and BMPs are identified in land use plans.
Activity planning or implementation-level actions include activity plans and analyses such as allotment or
habitat management plans, oil and gas field development plans, recreation management plans, and
coordinated activity plans. These activity-level plans address management of specific programs or
resources and select or apply standard practices and BMPs from the land use plan. Activity plans analyze
the need to modify existing decisions and practices in light of proposed or projected resource use or
activity.

BLM supports the formation of APWGs when circumstances dictate. Potential cooperating agencies in
these working groups could assist BLM in preparing environmental analyses for activity-level actions or
modifications to current plans. BLM or potential cooperating agencies may identify the need for activity
planning and the associated APWG formation. This approach is similar to the process used by BLM and
its cooperating agencies to develop this RMP.

2-16

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2

Chapter 4 of the Rawlins RMP analyzes the impacts associated with each of the Alternatives considered.
This analysis includes an estimate of the social and economic impacts that are anticipated as a result of
the Alternatives considered. It may also provide a suitable starting point for local governments to use in
local planning efforts.

Further, BLM anticipates that site specific implementation or project analysis will occur in accordance
with governing law and regulations as the RMP allocation decisions are implemented. This analysis
process will provide an opportunity for the BLM, State of Wyoming and the affected counties and
communities to collaborate in disclosing the socio-economic impacts associated with the site specific
action being analyzed.

BLM, RFO acknowledges that state and local governments may collect or develop more refined social
and economic data and that local plans may be developed by the impacted counties, municipalities or
communities that attempt to address social and economic matters affecting them. This planning effort by
local governments may address some or all of the social and governmental services within its purview,
and may contain the detailed budgetary requirements necessary to carry the plan forward.

After issuing the Approved Plan and ROD, an implementation strategy will be developed. The
implementation strategy will include an annual coordination meeting between BLM and the Cooperating
Agencies in the RMP revision. The annual coordination meeting will include an update on
implementation of the plan, foreseeable activities for the upcoming year, and opportunities for continued
collaboration with the RMP cooperators. Additional coordination meetings could be held as needed.

APWG activities are subject to existing regulatory and policy mandates. The BLM exercises final
approval authority for any recommendations received through or as a result of APWG activities.

The objectives of APWGs are to —

• Minimize controversy by being proactive rather than reactive to public land use and resource
conflicts

• Provide effective and cost-efficient recommendations to BLM for consideration

• Improve resource conditions by recommending practices and mitigation measures appropriate to
special situations

• Streamline public land authorizations, increase implementation flexibility, and notify public land
users of required practices.

The recommendation to establish an APWG commits BLM to meet with potential cooperating agencies
prior to scoping for major activity plans or RMP amendments to establish the level and extent of the
involvement of APWGs. Recommendations from the APWG concerning changes in management
prescriptions needed to resolve resource conflicts will be considered for adoption. Any proposed changes
will be subject to existing legal and policy mandates, including the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA); BLM has final approval authority for implementing any proposed changes. Examples of issues
(Section 1.3.1, Planning Issues) potentially requiring formation of an APGW include —

• OHV use escalating to a significant issue

• Activity level approaching that contained in the impact analyses made from reasonable
foreseeable actions in an RMP or previous activity plan analysis

Rawlins RMP

2-17

Chapter 2

Final EIS

• Proposals for oil and gas surface location densities or acres disturbed above a certain amount per
unit area

• Where land ownership patterns create management difficulty (e.g., Union Pacific Railroad
[UPRR] checkerboard land pattern)

• Wildland urban interfaces

• Identification of the need to prepare a recreation management activity plan

• Significant change to assumptions used for impact analysis in an RMP.

Examples of resource locations or management in which activity or use may trigger working group

formation include the following:

• Where crucial or important wildlife habitats overlap with areas of high potential for surface
disturbance (e.g., where WGFD has identified crucial deer winter range or other important
habitats and high-intensity oil and gas development areas overlap)

• Where potential resource uses conflict with special management designations

• Where two or more resources of interest to cooperating agencies are in conflict (e.g., significant
surface disturbance in identified habitat for threatened and endangered or state sensitive species).

When an APWG is convened, objectives include the following:

• Establishing working group membership and organization in accordance with existing policy and
regulation

• Identifying issues, practices, and management actions the working group should address

• Establishing mechanisms and processes for communicating recommendations to BLM

• Identifying public notification needs associated with working group activities.

Other attributes and functions of APWGs include the following:

• APWGs will be specific to the activity plan.

• APWGs will provide suggestions and recommendations to BLM for evaluating mitigation,
reclamation, and habitat management practices (e.g., compensatory mitigation and mitigation
accounts, in addition to specific practices [Appendix 18]). Compensatory mitigation is entirely
voluntary on the part of the project proponent.

2-18

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2

Table 2-1 Table of Contents

AIR QUALITY 2-20

CULTURAL RESOURCES 2-22

FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT 2-24

FOREST MANAGEMENT 2-26

LANDS AND REALTY 2-28

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 2-32

MINERALS 2-34

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE USE 2-38

PALEONTOLOGY 2-40

RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 2-42

SOCIOECONOMICS 2-53

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS 2-54

TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT 2-91

VEGETATION 2-93

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2-97

WATER QUALITY, WATERSHED, AND SOILS MANAGEMENT 2-98

WILD HORSES 2-101

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 2-103

Rawlins RMP

2-19

Table 2-1. Detailed Comparison of Alternatives

CO

u3

"<5

c

£

<£

ro

o

0

■*->

c

0)

E

0)

O)

co

c

ro

<o

3

Or

«4

a

<\5

•c

o

0
3
c r

to

c

o

JD

o

>

CD

co

3

CD

O

c~

CD

v

X

O

CD

O

X

X

CD

>.

CD

E

DO

0

a.

o

o

co

o

x

c

x

tj

c

0

_co

0

>

0

>a >,

ll

O" 0
>

0 0

0 X

o ro

ro

CD

0

Ss

O yj

£ 'E

0 0

£ c
0 0
^ to

CD

c

'0

X

X

C

0

>>

tji)

to

0

X

C

0

-O

0

X

O

0

O

CL

0

CD

0

i_

X

c

0

0"

0

0
0
c r

L.

CD

0

X

0

O

"x

X

0

CD

C

V,

a.

E

o

o

>.

X

>a

"0

0

X

0

c

o

o

0

c

0

E

0

CD

0

C

0

a

0

Cl

0

x

0

N

'E

c

0

X

0

O

o

0

X

0

0

>.

"0

0

c y

0

>

o

i—

CL

E

0

c

g

a

0

c

0

E

0

CD

0

c

0

_0

CL

0)

0

>

o

0

O

•*-<

c

0

E

0

O)

0

c

0

0

X

L

CD

X

c

0

0

>>

"0

0

CT

C

0

X

E

0

0

■a

0

*4—

X

C

0

0

0

0

JD

_Q

0

g

"x

CL

0

0

c

o

a

0

c

0

E

0

CD

0

C

0

X

0

0

O

O

0

0

0

0

c

0

£

o

CL

0

c

0

E

0

1

o

c

0

X

0

g

"x

X

0

0

X

0

c

g

o

0

c

0

E

0

CD

0

C

0

X

0

0

O

O

0

0

0

0

C

0

o

CL

Q

CO

CL

4 —

o

0

c

o

0

c

g

CD

0

DC

0

~CD

C

E

o

>

o

0

0

CO

0

x

c

X

X

0

X

0

0

0

0

0

E

0

X

c

0

_0

0

o

CD

0

0

0

L_

CD

O

i—

CL

jD

X)

0

c

o

0

0

0

0

_c

0 —

c CO

1 ■=
= -2
O CL
c

CD O

c ■.£;

x is

0 c
Cl 0

£ E

■5. ®

■X CL

II

CO 0

> 03

8 CO

D 0
■O N
0 0
DC X

0

CD

c

0

X

o

0

XI
0
X
0
o
o
<
M —

o

0

0

o

c

o

o

*4—

o

_0

0

>

0

_J

X

0

X

0

o

o

0

>s

O

CL

c

o

'0

o

CL

0

X

O

X

0

o

£

0

0

o

3

x

0

DC

<

O

*->

c

o

E

E

o

o

0

c

o

+3

O

<

*->

c

a>

E

a)

a>

(0

£

flj

0 c
£ ro
0 >,

X .ti

£ o

o SZ
£ 0
x 0

3 0

o • -
5 o
9; 0
CO §-

CD O
C 0

E

o £

^ c

0 ^

0 -

£ S

w E

<

CL

LJJ

>,

o

c

0

CD

<

c

o

o

0

o

L_

CL

£

c

0

E

c

o

>

c

LLI

0

x;

^ o

I $

0 ^

0 ^

I s

=5 x;

0

0

*L_

CL

O

t_

CL

CL

0

0

X

to

> .

0 CL

0 co

TO P

■° E

O

0' ^
-g 4_
0 0
■o 0

0 £
0 co
>, 0

jC

F —

(T^ rr\

0
£ 0
cd ro

£ C

0 9?

_g>.>

!l

o

0

£

co

0

X

>

X

TD

0

C

£

c

'0

E

0

1 —

0

0

■0

A—

0

"D

C

£

0

>s

"0

3

CT

O 0

O

CD

^ E

£ '0
0 x
3 x
0
5

0

X

X
c
0
>4
• - 0

fs

2E

£ ro

0 £

-i 1

E I

0 X
£ x
0 't;
3 0

05 S

0 o

0 g;

O ro

0 £

.1 8
0 ^

I -

> 0

£ 0
0 0
E CD
0 O

o o

C cl
■— £
'0 £
Q. ^

■D 3

O X

X X

0

X

CD

O

E

0

o

X
X
0

^ 0
0 0
E S

0 0
£ £
0 p

•£ o cl

o

3 2

O s

$ X

CO -Q

F 3

E o

0 $

0

o

0

x

CO

g>

’0

0

>

o

<

o.

LLI

£ 0
> .1
O ro
O

< o

6 §

LLJ g

c X
g c

'0 £

> CD

a £

XT' 0

L= 0

0 O
3 O

o fc.

>* 0
— 0

0 x

1 0

O 0
_ 0

£ V

C >A
0 X

E 0

LJJ C

M— O

O -o

c 2
0 0

E ^

-t- CO

!§
0 0
Q 0

e£

e 8

^ £
o

0 0

X X

>,.i

x .t;
8 §
O O-

c ■—
0 0

0 £
0 £

"E =

0 0

E£

£ 0
0 c

>A 0

S E

0 0

3 .L:
X 3
i_ X
< 2

E? 0

d i_

•d 03

£ 0

§1

E 0

c 03

CO is

x£
x 13

®-5

x£

0 w
g £

-s; 0

ro „

1 Q
§ <

0

0

0
Z

0 I-

o S

II
_ 0
0

to

0 £

Z 0

0

CL 5
O g
<r

^ E

if

03 4,V

0 Si

£°e

1 8

■5 |
8.1
£ 0
Q 0
o x

0 Td
x g
9- x
o £

E 2

< §

"0 0

II*

0 c £

Z 0 O

0 £ &

CO

c 03

o I Q-

C 0 £
o 0 =3
= 0O
0 0 CO
0 X

8-0 8

? §

x CD

0

5= x
^ O CD
£0—i
o c
.. o Z'

— 0
0^0

0 _ E

x.E CD

§ ” &

11 §
8 5 K

0

0

0"

CD 0 C0

X

X

X

c

0

X

X

<

c

X

£

c

0

0

0

c

o

0

g

-Q.

X

0

0

X

0

o

c

0

X

'3

X

g

x

o

0

X

0

0

X

$

o

CQ

0

X

c

£

0

x

c

0

DC

0

0

c

0

X

'3

O

X

c

0

0

X

A

ra

x

c

£

co

X

c

E

o

>.

0

3

x

A—

'0

0
A —

3

3

C

0

E

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

x

A

’0

c

0

X

o

0

>

0

X

o

>

0

00

0

c

o

£

3

x

0

1—

X

c

0

0

0

c

0

E

0

X

0

c

0

E

0

x

o

E

0

a

0

<

1

0

LLI

a

>

X

E

o

o

o

0

c

A—

3

X

X

0

X

X

o
0
0
A

Q_

0

X

0

c

0

E

QQ

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Air Quality

Rawlins RMP 2-21

CO

uj

"S

c

ill

<0

Q

2

3

o

</>

0)

a:

2

3

-4m

"5

o

a

(0

•c

o

® 0.

■£ -O
ro o
c 55

5- O

<u a.
°

c

0

£

CD

CD

0

C

CD

E

■o

c

CD

CO

C

o

CD

C

•5?

CO

CD

T3

/D

O

CD

&

CD

-C

CD

JZ

"D

C

CD

CO

I

o

c

o

'4—'

co

£

ai

s — p

o

tfi

ro

o

O

+->

c

o

£

0

o>

eg

c

m

3

O

O

0

O

4__

CL

"CT

C

CD

0

£

0

0

0

c
0
o

Q.

0
J2
_0

0
>

CD

0 ! -3

(/>

0

>

"■S

o

®

1q

O

**

c

o

E

0

05

0

C

0

x

0

Q.

E

o

o

0

co

0
0

1

O

>

■a

■o

3

CT)

ai

0 -K

0 2
o 2

s- 4=
3 0

0 ^
£ |
5 -D
3 TO

— 4_

=5 O
O

1- _X
O 0
0

0 jz
0 CT)
CD J=

76 0
0 o
0 c

>- 0

o E

M- Q_

0 ©
_cd 0

CL 0

go

0 -X
CT) .VI
0 *-
C JZ
0 CT)

E jz

0°

£ 0
0 £
O 0

CT)

0.

0

O

O

■*— >
c
0
E
0

CD

0

C

0

£

"CT

0

0

>

O)

c

N

-3

3

>.

n

>>

0

0

■e

0

Q.

O

4

CL

O

0 — C
p 0

-O 0

>4— 4-4

O (/)

0 TQ

o 2
'■P ?5

0 8

0- 0

CD 0
C 0

3 ^

=g s

c 0 -
O (T
0 0-

0 ID

0

o >;

S CD

1— 5
O JZ
■*- CD

*3 c

0 O
0 O
c c
'0 ~ 1
c «
0

^ 0

O)

0

■O

0

■CT

1—

o

o

0

l—

c

3

■_

o

4 —
>4

0

-Q

O

C

o

•CT

0

0

0

-Q

>4

O

c

0

>

.c

-a

0

0

0

0

i_

0

0

JZ

Ql

0

CT)

O

0

CT)

>4

CT)

C

0

-O

>4

JD

<

CL

Q.

cc

0

3 w
o 0

>4 O
4— C—

■^3 3
C O
0 0
"O 0

CD

>4

_Q

■a

0

o

0

0

-Q

>4

0

E

-4— >

0

JZ

0

®

o

_0

CL

0
0
3
O
-

C

o

0

■c

o

CL

0

c

0

0

_3

0

>

0

-CT

C

0

>4

<

O

+4

c

o

E

E

o

o

05

C

o

‘■5

O

<

CT)

C

0

0

0

'>4

t

0

CL

0

1

CL

0

0
CT)

— 0

C c
4) 0

E E

§5 *

2 I

to ^

CT) CO

C X
|1
II

2 0

o 0-
® 2
C 03
0 -o

P C
0

O
O

o
o
Q_
0
0

C/D

0 g1

x E

a ^4

2 0
0 £
2^

L_

-P 0

E o

o C

O 0

CT) "P

0 o

33 o
0 o
0 0

t-

O ■-
>3
,-p 0

CT)

Cn 0

0

0

X

c

0

E

0

CT)

0

C

0

0

0

X

0

o

1—

3
o
0
0
X

"ro

4

3

3

a

0

o

c

CD £
"D C

■5 O

CD E
2 §)

0 0

0 0
■a 0

k CD
o L-
o 3

o o
0 0

2 a;

■O —

0 ro

O) 3
0 *-

m 3

5 o
o I

■CT ^

3 C

0
5” CL

0 9-
0 <

3 "CT
3 C
O 0
w 0
0 £
1— LZ

_ O
0 -J=

3 S

3 =
O <

to

c

1

to

o:

3

0

c

o

o

JZ

CT)

3

O

"CT

0

c

E

!_

0

0

■a

0

0

0

0

0

0

1—

3
0
0
0
E
c
o

o

0

o

4

CL

c

0

E

0

Q.

E

CM

CM

Final EIS Chapter 2-Cultural Resources

Rawlins RMP 2-23

FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT

CO

03

"co

uZ

a>

£

c

m

2

£

u

S

Q.

<0

■C

o

tn

TO

o

0

*=D

c

©

E

©

O)

ra

c

TO

3

c

03

C

0

£

0

03

TO

C

ro

E

_w

0

o

03

0

o

.Q

0

c

0 O
£ 0
0
0

CL

Q.

0

0

o
0
o

4—

CL

3 "R
C O
© 0
0 0
8 8
E£

c

0

3

0

O

0

0 ^

0 o

• — 4-_

- CL
0 0
E

E £

0

0

0

0

0

0

sz

0

>

0

03

TD

C

C

‘i—

0

0

3

c n

‘0

C

L.

O

fS

O

0
-4— »

X

’c

<

1

E

0

0

E

c

0

0

0

CL

0

>4

0

3

1—

0

CL

0

4

4— *

c

0

E

Cl

0

§

03

0

C

c

0

CD

E

E

0

13

_c

0

0

Q-

a>

0

O

4_

Q.

Q-

CL

0

ro

o

o

3

c

0

0
-*— »
0
0
3
o

CL

Q.

0

0

3

c

0

c

0

E

0

Q.

E

o

O

0

0

_0

0

>

0

0

0

i

_0

Q.

3

E

o

0

-1—’

0

1

CL

3

c

0

CL

O

0

0

0

o

E

o

•4—

0

0

0

0

O

0

o

0

3

0

tfj

©

>

‘■*3

O

©

S'

o

+*»

c

©

E

©

o>

re

C

CO

JD

0

CL

3

C

0

03

0

■g

>

0

1

Cl

0

4—

0

o

CD

03

X

3

c

0

Q.

CL

<

C

_0

CL

c

0

E

0

03

0

C

0

c

0

E

CL

O

0

>

0

3

c

o

0

0

o

c

0

03

0

0

c

3

0

CL

0

c

$

o

3

C

0

0

Cl

C

c

'0

s

o

c

0

E

0

>

o

L_

Cl

E

c

0

-t— >

o

CL

0

0
0
4

0

c

0

3

0

0 •
0 “
0

0 ™
03 O-

© 0

2 S

■S 2

CD

r -o
E ©

0 £

1 §
*r m—
0 O

03 c
0 ©

“ I

0 £

O 0
O >
— 0
-o 3

m 03

£ 0
0

£ -©

£ ©
0 =

CL O

. - o

c n

»—

sz

0

03

c

0

$

O

0

JZ

3

-1— >

c

C/)

_0

0

0

-t— »

'c

0

0

>

E

a. E

_c

0

0

$

c

03

0

c

0

1—

0

0

03

0

>

3

c

0

0

3

0

-Q

'i—

o

0

0

0

0

sz

o

0

0

0

c

0

E

-*— >

0

2 CO

*' c
0 .2

£ —
■> 3

-O E

.2 3
c 0

§ 8

co

0 jo
o ©
c 3
0

03 0

0 3

2^

© )=
~o ©
0 N
^ 0
V. f-
0

-£= .><

C g
0 c

0’ o

£ ©
0 o
=3
0 "o
o ©
o >-

3 £

»■§
0 c
0 ,g>

C 0

3 ©
0 “O
CL ^
• - 0

2 c

0 0

1 1

o ©

-O 03
C -i=

0 m
— 0

0 g
0 E
> 0

-C -o
•5 C
$ 0
0

0 O
0 'c
cl co
o

o o
o 0

03 E

c

© 0
o

If

o o
O E

0

3

C

0

03

0

Q.

C

o

0

0

O

0

c

o

'0

0

0

CL

CL

0

0

0

03

c

3

0

0

i__

0

0

0
c
0
03

1

13
4— •
0

3

0

N

£

'c

3

C

0

0

03

C

0

0

>

Q.

O

c

0

o

CD

3

0

0

0

0

0

o

0

t

0

0

o

03

c

03

C

0

c

0

03

03

C

_0

03

0

0

0

01
-*— »

03

C

3

_o

o

c

0

0

0

L.

0

^ 0
•C 0
o .t;
c 0

03 1-
0 3
L— —
•0= =3
C O

0 *4

03 C
— 0
C O

0 c
£ o)

L- CO

l "

_0 CO

iE

0 O

£ 03

Q. CL

8- E
£ CO
CO o

<

o

4->

E

O

E

E

©

o

m

c

©

o

<

+=»

e

©

E

©

05

re

E

re

03

C

0

£

0

0

CL

0

C

o

0

o

o

0

0

0

c

03

0

03

0

c

0

E

0

03

03

O

o

0

0 CO

0

0

g_ '>
3 o
co co

© c

1 -

O 0
03
c
0

0
i—

CL
CL
03 53
0 ©
X C

E 3

£ 0
c 0

Jr 03
o o
o 0

li

O 5
£ =»
0 §

0 a:

“1

0

£ c

c '£
3 ©
0=

^ 0
0 03
03 C
C CO
0 —
— >
g o

03 C13

£ 05

CL 0

c

©

E

©

03

0

C

0

E

0

o

©

CL

0

03

C

‘i—

o

O'

©

—

0

<

Q

CO

©

H—

o

0

©

_o

0

>

c

0

3

o

Q-

E

0:

c

0

c

0

>

©

o

©

o

4

CL

D

o

<:

0

<

Q

O)

0

o

L.

o
o
0
0
4 —

03

c

c

'0

c

o

o

0

0

0

03

c

0

0'

0

0

0

0

o

t

0

4— *

c

0

o

03

c

-X

0

o

o

0

0

03

0

03

C .C
0 03
> C
03

0 CL
JD <

1 <

o Q-

c n ^
0 Qtl

8 c
4-. x:

0 ^
05 £
0 .2
c g
0 ©-

II

li

C 0

o c
•c o

CL O

jr 0

03 ©

3 £
ro

< >

0

0

0

1

0

c- c

II

4-4

o 0
0

0 o
0 ©
E m

£ C
£ ©
© 03

s?

■■SE
£ £
0 £

0^

© ^-L

£ C
^ .2
£ C3

T3 ©
£ ©

© 0

O vu

9 >

0

03

0

0

0
0
0

0 O
0 0
3 ^

0 p
o c

03 3
O 0

£ 0
0 ©

© c
2 -
E £ d
000

2 £

.2 0 >-
c c to

0 0
o

0 3

t= >

0^4^

03 g

g =5

0
>
0

0 03 O

a.,2 £

a>E "o

= ■5 =
X3 p o

£ •- ^
2 0" -x
£00
- > c
co ’-g *-

c 8
0-^0
E o ~

o 0

0 ‘

_Q_

0

T3

C

0

>,
-♦— >
0
M—
0
0

T3

C

0

-Q

3
Q.

0'

E

0

0

>4

0

o

o

0

c

'0

0

o

0

-O

c

0

o

0

o

4

CL

o

4— '

c

0

-X

0

3

0

3

C

o

0

.Q

3

O

o

c

0

>

0

0
4

L —
0
O

g

o

0

CL

0

0

t

tt
0 ■

c

o

0

4

o

0

0

4

~a

c

0

c

o

o

0

o

L-

CL

0

0

0 0

0 o

4 4_

1 I

I? ©

0 ~
■H c
0
E
E

cv 0
(3 a

0

0

03

C

_0

0

03

C

0

q:

0

0

x

0

0

c

0

■g

3

CD

"O

c

0

0

3

4

0

03

C

0

CO

03

c

E

o

>4

0

03

0

C

0

a.

§

q:

V)

C

1

m

FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT

3

u.

T3

C

It!

8

C

■2

Q.

<o

-c

O

co

Si

fo

c

Rawlins RMP 2-25

CO

LU

TO

c

£

c

TO

S

TO

03

TO

C

CN

TO

■C

m

m

o

O

+>»

c

©

E

©

Ui

TO

C

TO

£ 2
TO .9-
0

- 3

TO E
c

TO O

« «
0 ©
©

TO >
© O

03 _<x>

*-r Z:
o $

1 1
O 3
C TO
TO O

° cL

8 ©

9

™ E

TO

© Jr

££

. c
>>.9

0 TO

0 "to

-Q 03
° 0
03 >
c _
TO TO
0 C
-g O
0 0
C 0

o a;
^8
*3
0 0
0 Tg

TO ©

l!

S|

« 'g
§. ro

§ s
8 £

£ 8

TO Cl
0 *-
to c

w ©

£ E

0

.9 TO
.t; c
c ro

I!

o 2

If

TO P

0 o

0TO

0

a z?

0 2

03 0

TO

TO

C

o

0

0

0

a

o

3

0

4—

O

X

E

>

to

TO

0

3:

w 0
0 CL

9- ^

li

TO iS
C 0
TO

- 0
0 0

■ - O
CL'*-
i_ TO
0 O
TO TO

E ®
— o

c .9
0 ._

0 .9
ro
0
TO
TO
(J
3
0

0
o

CL

E
o
o

TO
0 C
0 TO

:I 2
E I

E E

8

-o 8

C 1-

_ro 0
to ^
o

O o

S" -I—*

ro

0
p ^
ro B
£ o

ro o
^ 9

co

©

‘5

o

0

£i'

o

<*=»

c

0

£

0

o>

TO

c

TO

0 9
0 TO

O ©

r ©

TO ©

^ ro

TO TO
0 *->

^ .9

0 TO
£ TO
^£

TO

TO

0

£ —
0
0

£ 8.
o

0 o
-O o

ro i-
0 §
cn >

ro co
a: ]2

>* TO
3 3=

*; 0
ro 0

is

si
0 0

"5 TO
TO C
TO TO

TO B
TO
>
03 'jr

9

!|

Bra

£ TO

5 B

0 TO

8 £
ro 0
to TO

< / )

0

o

o _

£ ©
TO r-

! s

§°
r- *+-

E O

IS

c

0 O

© -4=

£ TO

TO ©
0
© IV
O ^

TO ©
TO <_

c o
0 u_
TO >.

c to
ro ~
- ro
0 ©
o I
to "o

© £
>- ro

9 0

TO . >

£ 9
ro 9;
3 c

0

©

ro ©
-© £
o c

© | £
£: t >>
ro o 0

to CL >
1_ CL -3
O O TO

0 ©
> CL

o o
|8

- -B
,, to o
£ 9 £

TO TO

© 'TO' ©
CL © "P

- TO 9
© TO .9
© — *->
c CL 0
TO 0 (D

_© TO JQ

-9^0
0 ©
ro cn £

0 TO c/)

;i?

s— •— i—

0 $ ro
■TO - CD
5 0 -S
^ 0 ro

■°g£

to 0 8:
TO ro P
■2

8 TO ;o
-O TO -a
O O TO

k-o ^

_0 O TO

D 9 0

.III

03 m—

| 0 £
0 £

<- ° >
£ ©•*>
0 "£ 0
® ro ®

-<— * C/J

'TO 0 TO

=3 0-0
E Q. TO
E TO TO
o 0 ©
8-0 0

- E £
0 v= ro
© t! >

ro 0
0 0

£ ro

ro

p ©

©

E •£“ £

o

0

o

TO

TO

-TO

TO

0

-o

c

ro

0'
!— _

o

'0

0

0
TO —

O o

1— i_
0 O

E M_
E

0 £

£ S

ro

to ©
'ro ©

.9 TO
ro o
^ o.

Q.

0

1c

0

o

3

-TO

2 0

Cl >

^75 ©
0 .©

.P o

o

0

©

■—

©

Q.

ro

o

0

TO

C

TO

C

©

©

0

£ ©
o 0

ss
5 a
a-n

© ro
£ 0

£8
C/3 Q_

8 2
0^
o.B

0 £

© £
1- ro

£|

CL £

o 0
3 _
0 ro

© ©
o o

c £
ro to

-TO 9
c TO
© 9

0
0
>

o
0
.9 TO
ro o

9 £
'ro ©

0

0

>

o

0

TO

O

0

CL

ro

o

0

TO

TO

ro

0

0

L_

£

>.

TO

0

CD

ro

TO

ro

E .

3 JT

I 0

8 E
TO (D

© 03

TO ro

< TO

§!
TO TO
TO ©

'1-
TO
TO
TO

0
TO
TO

ro 0

TO
TO

ro
0
TO

c
45 ro
« E
2 TO

£ %

03

<0

0)

>

03

C

&.

0

4=s

< §

<

O

E
O

E

Is

o o

0)
e
o

o
<

c 2
© ==

E

©

OJ

TO

E

TO

0

TO

£ TO ®
C O 3

Q. I ®

-o ■£
E

0

2 ©
© £
U- o

I as

0 .9 ■£
c £ ro

£ 5 TO

ro -a

2 c
O TO

0

8 2
o

0
TO

© _

CL *■' .

0 0

® | |
■® I o

TO TO *-

© o ©

ro „ 0
s 0' o
<00

^ 0 0

cn cl ©
8

© ro
ro © 9

c © ’©
^ TO §

1 I 8

ro 0 o

C1- 3 c
0 s_

TO © 0
ro to

0-90

< £ "o
W 0 c
^ - ro

C I 4,J

O © 0
c- =3 Q-

III

Q. CL — 1

ro -n
© 2
x 2

0 9

c

0

CL

0

ro

% E 0
^ o ro

0 *- 3
ro © cl
1- 0 •—
© > ro
ro 9 ro
<■ £ E

« _ ©
03 9 TO

CO O 3

E? 0 ©
E £
E o
o £
o ro

§£
c o

i

to ro
ro £ ©

*- o b

© £ ©
© © CD

o E ro
£ c ro

= o 8
< o E

0.

§

oc

V)

c

1

co

q:

cn

objectives.

Manage forest and woodlands to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Final EIS Chapter 2-Forest Management

0

CD (D
X) CO

52 (D
3 O
O O

5 &

TJ 2

8a

=5 <S
o c

O CD

$ .2

? “
CD T3

co ®
■Li 03
0 CD
2 <=
o ra
u. E

CD

g

E

CD

XT

o

CD

O 03
CD T_
O X
O -o
X) C

-D 2.

£ 8 £

8 45

X C
X CD
O X
CO O
CD 0

Q. E

CD

O

0 0
E -o
E 2

CD LJ-

0 ^
co 04

»- co
0 '
X CL

II

11
o ro
0 in
£ co
E c
8 -2
o

O 0

( f. )

CM ,E n

3 CO
O 0
X Jr
< £

0

-Ci co

_0 (D

0 x

0

x

0 o

0 °

CL C
O X
0 3

0 ® 1
.2 ~ 0
0x0

4- c c

o ro o
0 w N

SSI

roro^
o c
0 0-0
Is-. X 0
CD 0 0

?■= 8

<00

0

-O 0

0 0

CD ^
> 0
0 -C

<D

>

V£

0

£

k.

(1)

■<->

<

>%

n

</)

c

o

G

<

+->

£

0

£

0

O)

ro

£

0

0

X

X

O

o

5

0

-o

c

_0

"O

o

o

0

c

c

O ^
0 03
0

0 X

x ~

CL 73
c C
fc 0
0 Q.

i£

^ 0
X3 0

0 0

CD 0

0 0

C O

0 O

E Q.

_0

-Q

_0

'CD

>

0

0

-Q

X

3

O

5

0

-O

c

_0

0

0

0 o

0 £ in

0

^ 45

3?

0

. o
co"

0 CM
0

O

0 0

» 0 2
-> c i_ -i—

C O o C

0

0

0

3 C 0 o

.2 o

O 0

0

0 0

o E

C E

o

>— m —
2 03 °

E cd 0
c c 0

C- m 4-

o 2 o
o E 0

0 0
" E
0
-o

g
x
3
CL

2 0
> °>

M £

0 -Q

0 £

X CD

12 £
= 0
o 0
^ -C

E |

CO

c

o

o

0

cn

0

o

o

-O

o

1—

Q. ^

X '

0 CO

1 0

C -D

E 0

£ o

_0 x

_Q 0

co R

— CD

2 0

£ o

0 £

2.2 s

^ o -C

o 0

$ — 0
r- 0

0 E >-

c E ^
000

~ CD -5
0 0 2
0 c £

o 05 o

LL E CL

= I
0|

0 O
18 X

-O X
0 C O'
X 0 ^

8 ro' 5

0 .2 -D

^8 8

C - I
0 ® <
3 E 0
■° m" C

838 1

1 J= 8

E o i:

0
0
0
E
0
( f. )

0

0

0

E

0

<*)

0 0
0
0

0

O CD

o .2

XJ

o

3

o

5 O.E
0—0
-o 2 -n-
c 3 0
-2-^-0
-o 2 c
O C CD
O O)..

$ .2 E

-o 2 *»-
c 3 -O
0-0 0

12 S,fi
0 0 O
‘ c 0
0 0
E ql

0

0 — L

g 03

03

o X

.2 ~o

X3 3
0

■O CL
£ Q-
8<

8 42

0 8

5 E

0 ro

E 2

2

o

0 0
E -Q
E 12

O 3
O O

O J

0 CL

O ^

o 04

o 0

cq Jc

00 ^

CM .2

IrC 1
3 0
O 0
X3 Jr
< £

1- co
0 ^
-° m

C CD

o 0
0 0

£ CO

•c 0

O CD 2

O CL 2

O O • 2

CD -O

N —

i— —

0 ^ o F

4-0—3

c

o

o

0

CO

3 0 t ID

2 0 3
-Q 0 X3 2
£--0 -
0' — 0 0 £
2 w 0 '

o CL 0

™s 8

R 0 0

o3 <S
2-2 8
i—

m TO

.9>sS!

0

0

0 •= >- -■=

un 0

0
-2 0

0 0

0 x:

i-9
0 -o

"O ro
3 «

SI

„ x: .2
0 0 o i:
• - -jz 0

§

> T3

0 C

CL C
CL ~
0 0

0 O
X3

O

0

x: 0
0 0

S: o S?
O 0 0

0

0
0

1— 4-J

O 0
0 0
0 >

ll

Rawlins RMP 2-27

to

uj

"(?

c

£

<B

0)

ct

"O

c

<B

T3

C

<o

-j

Q.

(0

■c

O

V)

ro

o

0

c

©

E

©

O)

TO

e

TD

C

o

Cl

if)

0

0

E

o

oo

13

o ^
0

c <^>
0 "©

2 ro
TD I'-

0 <o
— 0
0 0
E .2

0 TD

.1 8
m— CL
O CL
c/5 <!

TD

0 ©
© 0
C 3
0 CD
£ >

0 8

F =
C O

o ^

is CD
CO ^
•© c
0 £
.52 a.

"i -

cl a)

° 0
0 0
CO CD
3 >r

C o
™-o

I g

CD C

li

> O'
0

0 ©
O TD
CL O

.2 E

^ §

§ §

~ o

S’©

© c
0 2

-C 0
*J c
0 CD
DO Q-
0 x
C 0
CD s_

■> o

TD

c

_0

TD

0

DO

C

>.

o

c

0

o

it

0

c

0

E

0

DO

CD

C

TO

(0

0

>

o

0

'n

Q

E

0

E

0

O)

0

c

0

0

0

o

CL

0

TD

C

o

0
'd
c r
o
0

CD

>>

c

0

TD

X3

3

CL

0

-£=

C

o

a

0

o

1—

CL

TD

C

0

c

0

E

0

DO

0

C

0

E

0

_Q

0

■g

>

o

■_

CL

TD

C

0

0

c

.2

g

'0

E

TD

0

0

CL

O

0

>

0

a

in

0

0

o

Q.

0

TD

0

0

0

0

TD

C

_0

if)

c

o

o

0

a

<

0

0

o

CL

i_

3

D.

g

x

3

CL

TD

C

0

c

o

0

0

■_

o

0

DC

DO

0

TD

C

o

CL

If)

0

DC

0

X3

O

Q.

0

_>

O

0

_CL

0

00

0

>

o

0

zr

o

TD

c

0

_0

0

o

DO

XO

3

CL

0

DO

0

C

0

if)

TD

0

O

0

if)

0

o

o

0

If)

0

_c

0

CL

TD

C

o

CL

if)

0

DC

<

O

c

o

E

E

o

o

CO

C

O

*3

O

<

c

©

E

©

a>

CD

C

CD

D)

C

0

X

0

if)

0

\

o

0

o

CO

LO

CD

00

<30

CL

0

O

X

0

CM

1^

CO

DO

c

0

c

E

0

xo

X3

3

CL

0

x:

*H —

o

c

o

0

i__

0

CL

O

o

I™

o tp

0 00

-a c

12 —

3 ©
o 0

S CO

O c

TD © c

0 o E

•t © td

© Cl ©
Q_ 0

E - E

o

0

c 0

E °

© n

<_> i- .2
3 £ ro
§ 3 2

* I E
£L < 5
Q. Q_ 0
— Q_ TD

TD
0
0
O
O
© ©

2 ©
0 If)

if) ©

I

^TD
L- 0
0
O
Cl
O

0 -d

D ©

x ©
o 0

TD

C

0

DO

C

DC _

0 ££

DC

h- <:

o

0 CO
— .c
c +- 0
™ c td
0-ro

e — E

0 | u)
§ 2§=
2 £ DC

S > »

^ .E 5

° •- (^
0 X U-
$ 0 0
0 0 £

Its

if)
CL 'X
O LU

§ : «

0 0

0 ©

c
o

>
c
0

0

TD

x:

- © =

0OO-^
t 0

0

3 .2
TD .2

g E

0^

x:

in

>

c

0

DO

C

- 0 c
0 0
$ 0 c

pi

—I 3 0

U-, CL £
0
C
0
CL

TD
O 0
< TD
C

C 0

E ~

0 .t
DO ©
0
C
0

i= >.
L
0
if)
if)
0
O
0
c

0 0
© TD
© 0
>03
a c c

o ©

DO © ©

.2 E -

E

± *3 O
- 0 •*-
0 O >-
C o o
o — c

CD i_ T-J

.2 © 0

E •= c

0 E ®
*-■ o E
0 "E -2
J o a
© if) E

TD 5 _
£ -2 C
%. TD ©
% © TD
£00

5" 3

.2 0

© 0

TD X! 3
0 3 CL
"m CL /!■>

C O ©

0 a>!

a 0 xo

2

0 © o

0

0 ©

0

0 0

in

0 0-©.©
^02

^ © 8
*-* 0 x:
'op

CO

CD

8 ^ ©

0 0 2

£ °x

>>

-li

O •> TD
CM > 0

c oo.2
o .2 E

O .0 0
© X m
W 0^

O TD
C ©

.2 o

0 o

II

0 ©

x 0

0 -o
= c
3 0

M—

c .2

$ CNJ
0 1
C 0M

- 0

0 -Q

0 ^

> c

© .© O

0?S

1 * l

q..2 o
E E if)

2 i - 0

8 © 0

^ 0 c

TD

0

0

0

X3

0

X3

if) £

3 X

o .-t;

5 5

E 0
81
8 ©
E ©

0 u)
£ 0
o $

o 2

0 TD

o £

Q->

0

o

o

0

T3

0

0

if)

3

0

O

0

X

0

if)

if)

0

o

0

c

i—

0

cr

c

o

o

c

0

i—

0

0

c

o

0

o

if)

if)

0

o

"0

o

o

0

if)

if)

0

o

0

c

1—

0

DO

c

o

o

c

0

1—

0

<

CL

CL

DC

0

if)

0

L.

o

0

OD

CD

h-

CD

c

o

if)

c

o

0

g

<4—

if)

if)

_0

o

"0

o

O

CM

Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 requires competitive leasing on all, not just known, deposits of federal coal; and (2) the Multiple Mineral Development Act of
1954 established procedures to regulate conflicts between coal leases and mining claims). Existing withdrawals would be reviewed and terminated, as
appropriate.

When practicable, develop and maintain a land ownership pattern that will provide better access for management and protection of the public lands (Appendix

Final EIS Chapter 2-Lands and Realty

"O C

•| E
c o

9 cd

£ > a)

>_ CD -Q
0 'DO TO

£ >) 3

O P O

L-o) 5

S S 0

£■0 3

CL .E 0
£ <? >
0 0
> o o
0 *-
-o O o

r°°

>)-J= 0
O) CD 0

4 — C i

8 £ 0

0 . >

2 ^ c/5

.x 0 c

"CD CD 5)
C 0 W
0 Q. O

\% 2 c
i_ Q. 0
o . -c

4 DO

W 0 Q.

5 l-i

8.1s

o C ->
com
° .9 g

i *_

0 <r

co

'0

CD

jd

0

0

m >*

, S E>
■9 S

CD 73
0 £

0

0

>

0

c

CD

<

Q.

LU

O 5

TO >4
C C

o o

0

~ o >

"CD

c

0 2

0 £
■V 0

0 O

§£

o • -

0 £

-Q 3

2 a
o a

§ a

— CP

O
0
Q_ 0
0 —

it

0 -Q

CD

>

O TO

0 8
0

0) 3

£

Q.

O a

0 CD
0 £
■o c

P 3
CD O
C o
0 o
0 o

•j= "D
TO 0

E s

Q) Q-

^ a

CD 1 '
C

O CD

0 2
CD CD
0 -

Q- |

£ O

CL Q.

0
o
c
“ CD
0 TO

>4

-9 °

0 C
0 O
CD "r/3
o 3

ro 75
C X
O LU

TO 73
2 0
0 "D

■g o

0 >

C CD

O 1-

o o

0 "D
JD 0

p
£ 0

C TO

ro ^ 3

! ° l

2 0 cm"

T_ 1

° o ™

0 CL CL

c E ro
0 — ^

o $ -o
3 0 0

111

1<2
_CD 0 Q.

Q.3 -q i5
'0

0

0

c

0 :=
X) 1_
*- 0

c o

TO O-

8 £

^ TO

0 a

E 0
— c
>, D)
c 'co
3 0
o do

O 0

>4-°

C -O

ro 3

a 8

0

0 0
o

CL CO
r- *—
0 2

ZZ CL
$ 0

c< I

>4 0

9 0
g 'o

o C

0
■g

'0 0" O
c 0 _
o ~ .E

0 3 "o
£ CD ,®

M— ^

0 35 'c
cl.E 0

0 0 a
0 x -
0> 0
DO O 3

0 ~
c 0 CD
^ 0

0 E
0

3 0

0

TO

c

0

£=

CD

E

0

c

CD

0

c

CD

>

c

0

CD

CO

0

*4—

0

CL

C)

CO

0

"O

Q_

(fi

CO

1 2

0

’(/)

0

0

0

L_

F

3

ct

0

0

0

TO

c

=5

E

0

0

TO

$

c n

3

0

O

c n

c

0

Q.

CO

0

0

CL TO

;o

!jE£
0^0
a -0 x

0 ~ -o
0-^0

IS?

82 o>

^-0 0
i_ ic CD
0 0-0
a <: =

O 0 <

C <= CL
0 C ^

00 rr

CD o

a 0 0
~ o ^

o

3

° Q.
CL
0

0

0

O c -
5.

o ^

LU _

0 0
E 1—
0 0

0 =

D

T3

C

0

c

o

01 ro
D) O

c o

p

CD_
^ 3 0

^ 1^
s§

e i'.a

o ~ 0

0 3^

"O "D q)
C C 3
0 0 —
0 c co

< S'-

o t
Ci= O
O O
0 >
Q. >

d) O
0^

II

“■g

^■■o

!_ o
0 x
0 0
.E >,

0 o

0 o

o ^
0 =
JD
O '^3
3 0

-§ 9-

o

T3 O
C C
0 —

0' o

■o >,

§ 0
O ,CD

O) ^
Cl SZ

I*

O 0
0

0

o 0

c

0-2

< a

CL c

CL -E

O ■
CL
0 .
c .
0 .

1= 0 0

0' -tr
0 >

JD

D

CL

"D

0

X

LU

> co

-4-* ^ CD

g- c -O
8.2 o

0^0
'8.5

0 o

> 0
(/) ^
0) ^
3

o a

M—

c o

O QJ

0 2
■e m
o

0

-D

C

_0

o

S

D

CL

LU

"D

0 0
E
0
0

o 0
0 0

CL Qj
« -Q

0 c

±5 O
. '
.O g

01 O)
£ '0

- 0

S s

o £

x 0

o

0 >

•2 ^
0 <C

•2-0
CL 0
- 0
0 0
0 0
c o
— o
-2 o.

Q. O)
° C

0

-9 £

H- 1-

. 0
0 CL

® "O
3 0

0 "0
C —
O X)

x: 0
g-w
a 0

0 r-

0 0
c x:

80

^■5

3 0
O 0
CD O

M — O

-t— *

■O

c c
0 0

8«
C -D
0 0
-2 ■o

3 8
a 0
■O Q.
CD m
CD

il

o) a

C 3

— I

O ^
> 0
C 0

0 j|"

■O -O

0 C
£ CD

0

JD c\(
>> CL

CD 0

1 S

o 9
0

x: c
o 0
0 "O
0 —
0

o 0

>*- 0

0 ro
0 0

3 0

-o ^
0 a
-o -
3 0
O JD
X '0
0
O
CL

T3 '
0 0
O
C
0

0

.9 >» o
E w 0
- 0

■o ^

9 O 0

^ DC >

m ^ '0

= H= 0

<30

8 o

■O "O
0 0

0 0
C -o
.P 0
0 c
0 o

TD CJ

-C5 C D

0 a

2 S

CL .

E CD
• = 0
3

a O

8 =3

^ CL
0

3 o

=6 2
-*— <

§ 0

u
c
0 *-
_ c
0 0
0 -5
“ 0
0

CL

E
o
o

-0
c

_ 0
O) w
0 0
^ >>
5 ro

a 0

0
JD "
0 O

= a

0 O
» >
JZ 0

a a

> 8

0 ^
3 co
CD E

C o

co a
0 h
0 o
-o o

X

03

C

0

CL

CL

<

0

0

0

>

0

O

3

O

0

0

-t— «

c

0

tr

o

CL

E

o

0

o

!_

CL

O

0

E

0

0

>

0

c

o

0

■c

o

Cl

0

c

0

3

O

-4— *

TO

0

4—*

a

0

0

0

"O

0

Q.

CL

0

0

JD

TD

3

O

3

cr

0

1

c

o

0

O)

c

L.

.9 2
0
E

a

o
0

x

c

Cl) 0

a 0

JD X)

a 0

8 js

2 c
0 o

3 CD

JD
TD
0
CD
0
C
0
E
>

-4—*

c
0
i_

L.

3
O

'wT
0

1—

o
0
LO

o

CM

0
O

o

> 0
0 “O

*- o a

a 0 JD
3

El

o

c
0
- o
o 0

c
o

•-E3 0 -0

0 TD CD
C C _
'E CD co

E _1 CD

7-5 tx cu

c— ' co co

CD D 0

"I"

0 ^ TO

S 2 O)
0 0

0

m

>4 C

-Q 0

■o a

0 -LJ
§ qD

a ~ 3

> "> O
0 > >

0 ■=

O 0
H_ TO
0 c
0 0
o —

CL 0

E 0

^5

0 a

0

__ 0

>- a

£ 0
H -o "O

0 9

5 ^
8.0

r^-
x

TO
C
0

CL c

o

0

TO-

c

2 0
2 0

0

4—*

0

TO

0

0
0
3

_ 0
0 O
0

TO
>. C
0 0
0
C.

o

.0 0 a

4— »

CL
O

0£

0 9
c a

c
0
E

- — 0

o a o)

° 0 CD

c’.E

'0 9
JD E

c

0

E

0

o o

TO M—

0 O TO
_ ~ 0
fV -° 5

^ 3 0
O CL>

m o 0

0

TO

C

a

0

O)

c

0

X

>

x:

Id

0

X

0

TO

0

TO

C

a

CO

O)

c

E

o

>

0

JD

4— »
0
0
E
o

0

c

o

0

0

>4
4— ’

0

0

TO

C

0

0

TO

C

a

0

a>

0

c

0

>*

n

<n

c

o

’<*=>

o

<

4=>

c

0)

E

©

05

re

c

re

4- TO S
O (D „
° 3
JD 0 2
0 3 O
O O
0 9 CD
JD

_H

.3 0 ,n

§ 2 0
to 0 2

0 0
o

CD

$ 2

0 9

4

TO

0

0

6 So CD

. 0
oi cd a

0

L.

- 0

0 c

a E

TO -2

C i_
J0 O

al

JO 0

3

CL o

1 O

3 CL

4<- 0

0 TO

1 E

0 TO

a

JD

0

CD

C

'c

E

0

t— o .9

o CM

a CM

TO

0

“5

0

$

0

l_

TO

0

a

3

0

3

CL

O

c

0

O

a

JD

0

0

3

JD

3

TO

3

O

3

CL

§

O

0

0

x:

0
5

0

-4— >
M —

O

0

O

0

0

l_

c

O

0

0

T —

0

0

*-4—*

0

L_

T—

0

0

sz

CL

CNJ

O

a

JD

0

CD

C

‘c

E

0

0

-O

c

3

C

o

"CD P

O CM
£ CM

O

C

O

0

0

0

i_

0

0

sz

CL

1-

O

O

TO

0

3

3

0

0

0

■

3

O

CL

O

0

0

JD

xo

TO

TO

3

3

O

O

5

£

0

0

0

0

1

O

0
4

0

0

CD CM
O

a a

_ JD

0 0
0 tx
■E 0
E ^

- ?

o .9

3 .E
8 E
0 a

9 >-
2 0
a to
a c

TO 3

3 -O

5 -2

3 O

8^

o<°

qI S

O

0

$

TO

0

0

0

-0

O

c

O

a

0

0

JD

JD

TO

3

3

CL

O

0

$

x:

0

»4—

0

O

2

c

0

0

0

0

0

L_

0

0

sz

CL

1-

O

a

JD

0

CD

C

'c

'E

0

CD J
C C

=5 a

3 0 rr

O CM

a cm

O

Rawlins RMP 2-29

Chapter 2-Lands and Realty Final EiS

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Lands and Realty

</>

c

o

■4— '

o

<

4-4

c

0

£

0

o>

re

c

re

(/)

0

o

3

0
if)
0
QL

>

05

i_

0

C

LU

x

c

§

1
c
0
E
a
o
0
>
0

o

>1

05

s»

0

C

LU

0

>

*3

re

c

s_

0

4—*

<

0
0
i_

O

re

o
in
0 CD

CO

C CD

05

C

’c

c

_ro

CL

03
0)
0)
0
O

>4 CD
c £ c

--4 -ST 0
0 CD 0
03

0

X

C X
F 3

0

xx

•i 1

X CD

•5 0

£ X

0 TO
03 3

£ O
< §

o >, o

03 C33 O

^ ® ■-
00 X —

2,.E +j
■0^0
■O I E

3 £ 0

o c °
X £ -9
0 ^ a

0 o
o 0
_ro it
Q_ 0

0 0)
co ro
n 0

0

0 0
'4= o
•-= c
'O CD
03 "3

il

CD
0
03
0

-= CD
C

o

' — C/3 CO
X 3 CO

0 O CM
03 X _
03 0 3
r- CD

0 ^ ^
E re c

o < x

3 w

o o
0 00
0 o
*_ n-

C 03
03 M-

■c

O -O
CL 0
C 0
- 2
X CO
•5 0

^ -Q
0 X

rrc

o

< $

03

C

'c

c

_0

CL

0 ~

0 2
1- CD
O *-
CD >,

O E*

CO 0
O c
or cd
00 -0
CO c

X 5
0 >

1 1

o

X
0

c

O CM
0 CO

2. CM
X CL
0 3

X ^
3 c
03 O

0 x

3 .9

0 7:

-5 c

O 0

. X

O o

3 0
0 7

E ro
0 0
o 0
CD 0
CL CD

0 1_
0 o

JO ^
0 0
> 2
0 C_3
O 0
3 O

0 C"-

0

Z CM
C M"
0

1C "O
o 0

CL X

§ 1
x cd
— 0
$ X
0 TO

0 -5

0 F

< <:

0 CO

0 49

O >4

0 03

0 0
£ 3
h»_ 0

CD' T3

CO C

X 5
0 >

1

x 9
0 £

0

0 -0

0 <- X

gig

M I

c/) T3 co
0 0 o
E co 0

o t

co a. 0

_q 0 0'
^-0 0

h- o E

_ -*— » ZI

t 0 ro
3 0 0
0 — 0

0

in 0

c = 3

E 0 CD
0 CD “O
0^0
0 !- 9

0.2 0

S ?
h"l

■ — - 0

x 2
0 o

03 X
03 0

§1

E 0
>> 0
0 co

y

0 O

.1 <

CO

I

CM

CL

0

0

0 O
_3 ^

0 0
> £
0 O
O 0
3 O

0 co
£ 00'

3 LO
0

■c X

o 0

CL X

•i 1

_!C 0
~ 0
$ X

< 5

0 co
o *2
0 >,

0 E
i^~ 0
^ c

T-' 0

"O

^3, c

X 5
0 >

1

X Q
0 £

0 _g
0 -0

0 r- X

Si I

(/) T1 (/)

0 0 o
E 0 0

o J0 it
o cl 0

0 -

JD 0 0
-Q 0
~ o £

“ 0 ro
3 0 0

c c= 3

E o 0

0 03 3
0^0

^ O >
CLt CD

^ 0
m 0

S ?

^.1
— - 0
"o 2
0 o

03 X
CD 0

ii

E 0
>> 0
0 0

11

.11

o

CO

I

CM

CL

0

0

C

o

•4-*

o

<

c

0

E

0

03

re

c

re

</>

E

0

-4-4

0

>4

CO

c

o

"■3

re

t

o

a,

0

c

re

0

S.E

CD ^
> JD
0 0
CO 0

3 °
O

(/) 0

0

_£Z

£ 5
CL "O

■i 1

sz 0

0 m

o 0
0 E

Q. O
O
0

'co .t

i5 t

_ 0 'if)

n 3 0

o
0

0

o

c

0

0 "O

0 o

.3 >

— 0

0 ~
x:

0 5

■2 "o

~ 0

71 O
0

•5 0
$ .Q

0 "O
0 3

£ o
< $

g’S

c CD-

C M-

0 ^

o.5E

o

03 Oil
CL

O 0

_Q

o

0

0 'oT
0 -!c

o Q

iS

X

X

c

0

0

0

0

c

c

0

0

X

X

0

0

L—

>

<

c

0

X

in

1

0

CM

0

0

0

X

0

0

0

K

!—

0

X

c

0

0

03

0

0

3

c

0

E

O

X

0

CO

0

0

_3

0

>

0 ii'
o =
3 co

O ,0
0 ^
0 5
*- 0
c c
0 o
tr ■*-

O -O
Cl 0

c 0
.3 O

J= O
~ 0
$ X!

0 T3

0 3
£ O

O XJ
CO C

o 0

CL

0

0 i j=

52 0
0 o

0 O

o
o

4_

T3
C
0

c
0
E
0
o
_0
CL

0

0

0

0

0

c

o

’0

X 1
0 CM

0

jj.S

03 ^

> ^
0 0
O 0

3 °

o °-
0 0
0 ir
E 0

II

tr ~o
o 0
o. -g

■i 1

0= 0
— 0

$ X3

0 T3
0
0

3

_ o
< £

C

0

I “

o 0
0 E

Q_ O

. o

>4 0
-°
'o .t;

0 44—

03 0
C 0

E °
£ 0
03 0

15.

0 CM

clS

0

o

c

1_ 0
03 X3

0 'o

3 >
— 0

0 5
■2-0
~ 0
O 0

CD -59
•*- CL

o 0

M- T3
^ O

0

c n ^
8|

T3

C

>4 0
0 0

■g in
3 CM
O 0

s XI
0 CD

O I-
0 — "
t ~o
0 0
- 03
0 0 _

0 3 -77

CO

0 CD

0 E

CL

0

C
0
;o

0

1—

0
0
0
0

4_

0
c
o
0
3
o
X
0 CM

0

J.S

CD g
> -Q
0 0
P 0

3 °
O CL
0 0

E 0

•4^ X

o_ -g

■i 1

X CD

•5 0
5 X

c
0
E
0
o
_0
CL

>4

■= X

o

0 4.

0

o

c

!_ 0
03 X

0 o

3 >
— 0

il

0 T3
0 -5

£ o
< $

_ 0 0

n 3 P

O 0

g>S

CO

c 00

O 0
44- X!

^ O

0 21

w '0

8 Q

X

c

>4 0

0 0

> o

2 0
0 2

2 5

O <

-3

-0 in

3 CM

> ^
5 X
0 CD
O H
0 ^
t X
0 0

- 03
0 03
0 C
0 CD

0 E

CL

0

C

g

'0

-08
X 1
0 CM

0

c

o

+4

o

<

c

0

E

0

O)

re

c

re

in

0

*=*

CO

E

o

-4— »

re

o

E

3

E

E

o

o

3 -9
.9 0

c

o

X

0

s §

0

c >
o 0 0
<-0 0
o -Q

■■S?

8 1

0

X

X

3

o

- 0
03 CD

0 S
6

CO 0

0

0

3

CT C
0 O

0 O 0
E t o

0 0 C
$ 0 3

■2 0 E

8 1 |

1.8
c c

^ 3

•2 E

x

0

m 8

E 0
o 0
o x

0

0

0

E

0

co

3 -9
9 0
0
0
o

5 §

0

c 0

o 0 0
(-0 0
0-3 0

0 0
O 3 w
O § CD
X $ O

0

3 -2
03 ^5
> X
0 0
O 0

3 °

o

C/) 0
0 »-
t- CD
— * _C

CL x

■i 1

X 0

$ X
0 TO

0 3
£ O
< $

0

X

c

0

E -
0 —
o .
-9 0
Q. 0

>0 0
i= 0

o o

4^S

is

3 CD
4O 0

II

11

CL CD

-iic 0
■71 CD

=5 £
0 0
44 —

U- 0

o 0
4*- c

>4 03

re £
0 o

0 ^

0 0

O q

2|

E "3

o 8
o co

0

X CL

X c
0 O
03 ,

0 9

C — CO

0 CO co

EX 1

0 CM
_>4 X X

0 c 0
> 0 2
'0 0

0

8 5

0 X
- X 0

0 o t
-0 'Z c
X 0

3 -2
09 m

> CM
Y, — if)
0 "0 0
% t re

0

L7 O

o x
CO c
0

CL

0

0 4i=

c -
0 o
X ~
o x

CL 0
C 0

■- 3

X 3

•5 0
^ X

< 5

52 8

JQ

3 ^

o

4

X

c
0
-4— »

c
0
E
0
o
.9

X

O cO
X V
0 CM

0

J.E

CD 0
> X
0 0
O 0

0

X

0 0
0 4—

E 0

X

x x

.1 1
X 0

■5 0
^ X

0 X
0 3

£ o
< ^

c

0

1=

o

.9 0

CL 0

>0 o
= 0

o o
ro t-

5 t

!s

49 CO

1 1

11

CL 03

0

.9 0'

.71 03

=5 £

0 CD

44—

1_ 0
O o
44— c

>4 0

8l

c° £
0 0

0 c
0 .9

c X

0 >
0 >
E "3
c 0
o

1 g

S’!

c 2 t-

0 o co

EX I

0 CM
^4 X X

0 0

o
c
0 X
X 0

o
>

<

c

0

X

o
0 2

X Cl

§ “? 0
^ 0
i2 ® w
^-90

22 L.U

3 0 0
0

0

3 .£
CD ^0
> -3
0 '0
O 0

3 °

o

if) 0
0 s-
c. 0
^ sz

x x

•i I

X CD

•5 0
$ X

0 x

0

c

0

Is

o

-9 0

CL 0
>4 O
^ 0
o o
0 o

CO

5 00
0 p:

3 IX

49 0
2l 3

II

11

X CD

0

X

o

0

0

■ i±l 0

-71 03

0 03

44 —

1_ 0

o o

4|- C

0 0
co ^
0 .9
c X
0 >
0 5
E "3
o 8

o 3
0 2

X Cl

1 g

S’! .

C -9 O
0 3 co

EX 1

0 CM

_>> X x
0 c 0
> 0

0 3 c
3 3 o

0 C 3

t 0 X
- X 0
0 'o 5t=
X >

X

3

o m

> c
<C 0

w J /1\

m, 1 CD

3 0 -T

3 X cb

49 0 0

4= I — i-
(D C 03

Rawlins RMP 2-31

CO

c

"<S

c

£

o>

c

N

2

CD

CM

v.

ID

■te=>

fi.

(0

■c

o

Q.

§

CK

</>

.C

1

co

CM

Manage livestock grazing to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Final EIS Chapter 2-Livestock Grazing

<D

>

<0

c

s_

©

>»

n

(/)

c

o

o

<

£

©

E

©

D)

©

E

©

>

©

©

o

o

u-

o

CD

©

©

TO

o

©

©

JO

o

TO

c

ro

©

i_ -

o

00
1—
©
CL
O :

£ 2
© C
TO O
O -E
£ "D
© "©
E ©
© —
ro O

fe-CL

o o

Q_ ©

ro ™
^ co
© c

o >

E ©

03

2 ©
ro oo

© to

X ©

i_ ©

TO

c

©

Q-

CL

<

w
CO c
CD 2

C ©

■■§ ?
© ro
E X

© i_

! °
E ©
© -

io!

© -^ b

O J2 2

-5 © ro

o

5

;g

=3

o

5

CD

c

~ .2
c 2
ro "D

■5-^

^2

i—

'© PO
© CJ
"O X

© Q
jz ""
*- >.

11

j= E
o o
co o

03

ro oo
© ©
X ©
o

TO

c

©

CL

CL

<

©

CO E
03 2
ro ©

'■s ?

© ro
E X

©

ro

©

E

TO

CD

©

c

E

2 ^

g ©

©
o
o

o

Ti © ro

©

c

©

0

CD

£ CO
©

3 1

ia^

© © 00

E - x

®oc
c ©
© o.

CL-~ CL
O CD <

Q_ © ' '
Q_ JO ©
CO

© c _ro

o > ©

£ © 03
_g O ©

£ © X

T3

©

c

03

© ©

!>«
© ©
*- -Q

c 2
ro 3
© §

~o

o ©

*- ©

© >

ro 2

o JO
03 O X3

*- © c

c o CO

g ° ©
E o o)

© C C
03 © ro
ro - *-

C 03 >,
ro c jo

©

>, ©
© e

03 ©

§2

ro cl

0.1

E n =
^ ro ©
© b ©
jo CD jo

© o ~

© 2 I

III

"O

I?

© ro
© 3
© g--o

03 E ©

ro © 2

*- jo ro

©

T3
o

o ._

© -cr

w ro ^

>. © ©

« E g
03 © CO

■§ 2^

ro cl ©

o.i o#J

03

C v.

O ©

03 2
© ° 2

© -5 x

> "O

2 g

2 o.

5= CL

ro <

O -CL
0 ©
zz ©
o o

2 o
_ © O
© © ©
9- > ©

TO
©
c

g ro

E o
2 ‘-g
© g- o

03 E -D

C — O

ro ©

1- JO

E-

© 2

E *

© £

© c w

>. © N

© E “

03 ©

§2
ro o.

O .1

Q.

O

O

©

©

>

©

©

£ 03
O T-

03 X

io

c

©

CL

CL

<

©

©

_o

ro

>

■o

©

c

03
m ©

S3

ro ©

>- JO

© 2

E ^
© £
© ©
>, ©
© £
03 ©

§2

ro cl

o.i

( f. )
03

2 ?
© ©
ro ©
o-o

033
ro §

E -o

© ro
03 ro
ro

©

c

0;|

03 X!
C C

> o
o ©

03

C

ro

03

.9 © ©

JO 03

0 o
> o
2 ^5
JO ©

O >
ro j=

E "O 03

>, 03 T—

9 ro x
ro 1 ^

I 2 ©

Q- C CL

© ‘ro 9-
£E<

ro

JO

©

JO

03

o

5

o
o

© d ©

E

©
ro ©

©

v*- O TD
O C ~

©

©

_ro
o

©

©

P ©

II

O X

c

© "O

E ©
© ©
01-0

g©

ro o

b o

■F CU

■■= ©

>

o 731
S 0
0 fr; >•

> 2 w-
'—(AO

(A

O §
© ©
m ©

_ro _q

o c
o ©
© E
© ©
> 03

ro
ro
ro
E

ro ©
© 2
© T, 2 ^

ro

© y

© 5

P ©

II

O X

© © ©
g ^ o

© § 2
2 $ §

©

>

ro

ro

i—

©

<

©

ro

©

E

ro

CD

■o

©

— ©
c

O O
© ©
m ©

ro _q

° T3

2 3
© o

© 5

P ©

m <

O X

_ TO
O ©

a. §
© =
© ro

"© ©
. jo

ro 2

1*
‘4_ o
© ©

© 2

© ©

I ^

O -o

©

o

ro

To

=3

w

3 ^1-

b CD
© 1

TO CN
2 £0-

■o 2
©

© a.
2 3
jo ©

© >
© o
ro-

c ro

_ "O

o ©

© =
© ro

© ©

IS

2 2 CL

©

o

t

o

©

©°?
T3 CM
©

ro c
^ o
© ©

8 s

© 2

© ©
> ©

o -8

ro

© >

ro n
CD 0

ro-

c ro

<

©

ro

©

E

ro

CD

2 "©
CL ©
© TO
© ©

© §

0 0
©£
ro 2

1

^ o

( A (A

Ss

© 2

© © ro
> © =
E £ ro
© o
O -o .E

©

JO

2

o

o

03

c

CD "§

O 3E
TO
03 O
2 £
2 ©
o ©
o ©

0 c
ro §

© -a
n ro
ro ro

o TO

sz c

O 2

ro ©

. TO
w ©
© ‘E
'-e io
ro o
©- E

OB 2
ib o

o

_ $

■b ©

i§

.© ©

2 03

3 2 ro

c -
O X
O LU

©

TO

ro

■o

2 "g -S

^ ro ©
^ © ro

2 1 g

| 5 |

b 2 03

O 03 g

o 2 ro
*- to ro

g5 o 5

TO © o
• ro 2
©

o

O O CD
o c >
ro ro =

©

JO

TO

3 ^
o _j
$ CD
C o
o

•j= 03
O C

■O _J
3 CD
o *-
- c
©

©

©
o
c

2
03 CD"
c ro

03

o ro

© "O
O CD
ro n

II

© 3

2 ro

2 3 3

(A 1_ £—
X O ©

® 8 g-
= ro 9-

© .© ©
TO t TO
i— -ri l-

ro o ro
to c to
c b c

2 © 2

© jo ©

w

ro

©

E

ro

CD

©

JO

] o
o
o

s $
m ©
2 8
cd2
2 CD
2 2

8 .22

o x

- LU

ro

© -g

N b
'ro ©

o TO
JO c

3 2

ro ©

03 i_

c ©
3 -
o 0

o ©

o ro
ro c/3
-o -o
.© ro

b TO
"O C

o ro

E ©

TO

©

o

0

1

co

c

o

o

©

03

X

3

c

©

CL

CL

E<

Rawlins RMP 2-33

Chapter 2-Minerals Final EIS

w

CO

o

C

■t-a

c

©

E

0

CS5

CO

E

CO

_Q

3

CL

C

CD

E

c

o

>

c

CD

O

CO

Cl

E

ao

c

N

'E

c

E

CD

-Q

3

CL

TO

CD

TO

CO •
i 0

^ CD
-1 «
CD 3

2?
.a co
2 0
'co 9^
> 2
CO CO

§ s

2 o

CD

3
O
0
CD

J= O

CO -o

E >>

© 2

CO CO

co c n

|?

S CO

</)

a?

>

o

®

E

O

■*-<

c

0)

E

©

05

to

c

CO

CL

CD

o

X

CD

_0

CO

i —

0

C

E

0

-Q

re

To

o

o

c

0

E

Q.

O

0

>

0

TO

TO

C

to

c

o

"co

0

o

CL

X

0

TO

c

CO

To

o

a

0’

co

co

TO

c

CO

c

0

E

CL

o

0

>

0

TO

TO

c

CO

c

0

to

1

_o

Q.

X

0

0

0

c

3

to

o

CL

CL

o

©

■g

>

o

c

0

E

Q.

O

0

>

0

TO

TO

C

TO

C

o

To

o

Q.

X

0

0

0

'c

3

to

o

CL

CL

O

0

■g

>

o

<

o

c

o

E

E

o

o

t/5

E

o

o

<

c

0

E

0

05

re

c

re

go

)

co

c

L— ■
0
X
0

;g

To

>

co

0

0

0

0

CO

0

0

CO

CO

TO

c

CO

C O
0

jC X
TO

2 £

g<

o 0

-C rn

0 CO

_Q 0

TO CO

go
$ 0

« o
_c :-e
go to
c

-= O

CO 0

0 TO

C c

E ro

0 E

B -2
!_ 0
O -C

si

ao 00

to ao
c _c
CO to
•— >,
o =

CO 2

c 0
0 2
X C
LU 3

TO
0

TO O
0

0 C —
coo

0

-C

3

0 TO

CO Q.

E 0

O O
0 X
CO 0

2 0

-C £

3 O’

CO TO
0

no ^

II

0 0
^ o
c -o

Isi

0 13

o p
0 b
TO 0
C _Q

° >1
5— m

0 £

£.2

_0

1 -S-
^ 0
O’ 0

• E 0

> CO
C 0
0 _
TO C/0

£ ao

o TO
03 c
O 0

^ 0
CD ao
<5 0
CO 3
0

— 0

0 O

£ 3

O 0
TO 2

O TO

is

X5 0
TO 0
0 2

C 3
O O
-43 0
_0 0

9- 0

x:

B

o o

o • =

o co

r e

c co

0 "o

1 =
O 0

O .9
> *«-
0 k

TO O
0 C

0 .9
05 ao

?.9

ro ao
= c

o ■>,

H- W—

O O
0 0
O w

0 “
0-2
0 a
0 co

To 0’
c c
o o

0 To

i_

0 0

CL CL
O O

2 O

C3 OO
0 C

o E
1 — ■ —
CL _
CL 0
0 0
u— L—

o

0 O

C 2
.5 H—
±1 o

c c

o -25

0 TO

0 i-

3 °

0 ao
0 c
0 :-E
E «
_g B

-Q C

CO o

£ ■+“'
O CD
(/) O
CD 4—

2 TO

0 p

0 b

ao

0

0

3 o

“ |

<s) .E

CD g
CD .bl
CO
If)

CD

.i-5

0 T3
E -2

31

CD E

. CL

ao 2
„ 0
x >

TO 0
C TO
0 y-
CL O

9 - 0

< CO
^ 0
0 CL

0

O

TO

C

0

i-0 3
0 C 0
> C 0
0 CO 0

5 E E

c

o

to

0

B

1—

CL

0

CO

t

3

0

0'

>

0

£

3

0

0

CO

i—

3

0
0
0

1

0

0

'1—

CL

o

1_

CL

CL

0

O

0

0

0

c

!co

0

3

0

0

1—

c

0

g

CL

O

0

—

L_

0

O

O

Q.

0

X

>.

0

xz

CL

To

O

0

0

'0

ao

>s

1—

JZ

0

CL

M—

O

0

0

•g

ao

0

0

TO

•+—

c

c

0

0

CL

0

O

ao

0

c

.Q

E

O

0

0

0

I °

o 0
<:

0

c c n
•2 o

2 0
0 o

TO C
0 ©

o =o

ao co
.9 TO
0 c
CO 0
0 .

ao ^
■g o

2 -o

2

o To

2 g-

CL

O

0

TO

C

2 0
— 0
< E

2-34 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Minerals

$ co
CO ^
O

fi

w g

X CD
CD -Q
C CO
CO CO
_ CD

> 03
b -S

8,1
05 (0

cl-

if

o ®
9 p

CD

co

CO

2 ^
CO -Q
.C CO
4= C

.CO o

X CO
CD CO
.CO £
-C CD
0^
§ o
co tr*
8 |
00 s-

‘ CD

CO

S-J

o

CO

a
S

"O CO

™ §
C CD
CO .co
CO 5

co CD

i ®

co 2

x s

JE

(—

•- Cl
co £
0 0
CO X
CO 0

- .C2

CO

C 0
•4= JO
co ■*-

X 0

0 CO
_ 0
§2

>>.£
~ co
> 0
Z co

CO c

III

1 ^
0 05

O •=:

CD to

— *
CO 0
O ~

° *
co 0
0 o

1*
° S
c "~

C 0
C\| 40

.*-§
"o c

§ I

a°

5.?

cm

oo ^

CO N
05 C
r- O

■S 0

n 0

a CO

< r-

if

Q 0

•+— CO
0 0

£ £

0 0

*= £

0

0

0

0

0

05

c

9- .co

5 x
o 0

° 0

•5 5

0

0 p

?l

1 c

0 O
O o

I O 4X
W 0 L
LLI 05 -P

Li- -5
a- ■§

DC 0

0 0

Sg

c ^

0

"+-J

o

0

Q.

£

0
03
0
£
c ‘
0

03 2
0 O

C 2

* 0
>■ GO
> c

o °
O X5

0 01
— 0

8°
O 2

0 0
X5

\ '-J

■o' «o
0 0
0

0 g

0 •-

ro -S M
0 0''
XI

c

o

03

0

O

3

0 O
F o

o w

P 0
o- b

9- ro
0 ^
"O ^
C 0i5

o *= <M.

CD i-

is.
0 0

I!

c

0

0

_Q

0

>

0

JC

0 c?

£. CM

Z < ■

o - c

c CM O
.9 CM CO

< o
0 1=
o CO Q.
'•p CD" °-

Ql| 9

0 ^ >i

05 CM' "9

C _ 0
|=6 0
0 92

Cl

0

^ , 0

CM "0
X 0
03 c
c

0

Q. 0
C CL n-
O < O

0 -o c
CL 0 p

*=i

0o®
2 2 0
0 o
c 'a c

< co -

00 —

0 >- 0
0 0°

1 00

£ » 8
05 Q t
$ o

C/)

s 0

CD

0

— T3
0 0 0

I ^

i- 0 ~

o

> co

E §

0 0
O 0

0 .a

O 0
0X1X5
- 0

0 O 3
" c 0

O ^ -p 2
^ 0 ~ -
0 o

•9 9

03 +- 3
C 0 0

” g 0

<=0 9;
*3 —4 O
O CM 0
g" co 0

C X5
0 0

III

O O

|

0 - .0

0

X5

X5 .-2 9

0 3 >

•5 c t
035 —
0 0 o

0 XI CM
"O 1

0 • °D

5E c cr

C O u_
2 *; co

0

9 ^
g.S

8 ‘D
0
X5

O t
0 3
0 0m
g 0 O

0

0 CO

0 XX c
0^0
0 .9 -*=

0 0C

o 0 o
g’g E

— JO T-

0 0 O
0 O r^-
00-a
0 xi 0

T 0
™ | 0
< > 0

0 0 ^
5 0 0
^.00

rt

— 3
0 0

O ^

0 0 c?

-9 0 -I
808

If £
§8
0 _

0

o

0

s—

CL

0

° m
0 0 0

t= -p o

c o

■o

I g <5

00^

r- -C X5

0 C g

pj qd

CL -9 0
x .co 0
o O CD

0 0 9

Q.'O 5

0
E

0
0
c
0

05
C

'c
'0
c
o
o

0 >9 0

C 05®

0 2 0
x: c 0

tl 0 O

>> C35

g oP

O o ,;d-

6 _g

CL +-•

0 't:
O O

0 0
0 "O

£ «
O

O O

0 -4;
Cl 9

3 8

0 _
o £
^ 0

~ -a

3 w
c 0

0 Q.

r 0

0 0

— ' — 05

E s :

^ 0 -s

c
'c

1 " u> - zz

co £ |

CO 0 0

^-0 0
•0 o x;
001—

0 05 /

E.Et
■3 C CM

g 0 <

^ F "0

9 0 9

0 il. 0

- s
0 0
o c

18.

c

-w X5 -

0 C

il 0 c CL

X

0

0

0'

0

0

c

0

>

3

CD

0

C

0

0

Z

0

<

C

O

E

CL

0

b

CL

F

c

0

E

DC

0

>,

0

0

1—

c

0

c

Z

0

c

4—

03

C

O

s

0

i_

0

CD

s—

0

03

0

C

0

3

0

03

_>4

!—

2

C

2

Z

0

i_

\

3

03

0

0

0

0

0

0

O

CL ^ _

0 TO 2

> 0 I
9 "0 c

3 ° —

0 0 g

008

■a cd —

9 0 0

2 CD 0

o ^ "0
2 o 0

■°o)V

0i-O

(f)

CD

E 9

o

§ £ c

o cl °
■+- c 5-

“ 0 0
5 X CD
.0 0“

& 0 -9

01 -S

X5 H S

ro • 9-

CL O

0 0 9

0 05 0
0 CD 0
CD w 0

*“ o> 0
0

C 0

"0
o

c
c
c

O _0
CL

0 3

Il-g

S ro 0
g 0 0

O Q. O

Q. «
0 0

Si

XI CD

>4—

%s
^ 0
02 b

05 0

0 -o co

0 ■> CD

9 q

®Z0

0 0 05

co 0 x:

£35.^
CD O -

(D 0U

CL

9- 0 ^

0 0 O
■K co 0
o CO _
C 05 LO
— CO
0 X CM_
0 '0 LO

■i c I

2 eg 0

c 0 0

o 0 05

^ g 0

c= c C

-0 0 5.

0 T"

- ^ .E

g 0 0

P 0 0

0 8“
^ 2 §
£ CL _Q

<m' ? 0

1 En
CO c

^ 0 -o

0 2 ra

35 CD . -

CO 0

£ § 8
OO0
CO 0 —

■£ 0

-o

-O

0

c

0

0

c o

.0 £

c
0
E
-o
c
0
0) E
> <

E ^

0 s

•o 02

0 r-
X5 .£
■c CO
CD 0
0 CO
0 r-
■° O
0 X5

05 m

0 ,9

0 O
b co

0 05
05 °5
0

0 0
— £
CD »*-
C O

05

c

0

-0

CL

3

X3

c

o

>,

0

X5

X 0
0 0

0

o 0

-b- >

MS

•t± 0

E b

0

0
c
o

_ o

0 05

0 C T= -55

0 00 ~

00 =
O 0 $
0 0 05

E 0 c

1- co c
0 0.—
cl 0 E

0

c 0

o 0

X5

0 9

C 3

0

0

0

O

0 >5 "9

T3 X5 0 _

9(000
- to aO

o

c

0

-O

0 F

m ° 0
0 0'+=-

o -o
*- 0

g 0
9 ~
52 c
0 o
0 o

■0 0
$ X5

0 -Q

3

-o' 0
0 ^

"q. 0

E 0

0 0
0 0

0 0

—

0 TS
> 0

> O

.0 o

0 xj

■c 0

o .>

>1 0

xx o
■= 0

XD *“

0 .52

'5 c
0 o

C ^
3 0

0E

XI CL
CL
j>5 0

O 8

9 8

0 —
x: 0

1 ®

.E ox
0 0

C 0 c
0X5.0

^ 0
3

0

0

QQ

c

o

-Q

0 b
<J 0

0

9 ^
■9 c
0 o

0 -o

03 O

05 £

0 05

1 E

0 05
0.0

0

1 ^
> 0

05 C
C O

c 0
0
0

b -e

0 =5

M —

0 1-
o £

o M-
"o 2

C X5
0 0

0 O
0 o

T3 ro
C5. 05
O X5

0 O
X5 +-+

"O "O

1 1

(/) a>

8 0
o -o
o 05

br s__

O- 0

05 W

.E "o
c C
0 0

9 -

CD

0 ^
_ c
0 0
O 0

° O
0 0

2 C
M — O
O 4=
0 2

0-3
2 8
0

c
o
o

L.
0
c
$
o

9 0

o

® E

3 8

if

11

0 ^
0 9

(- »4 0 O
5— r- —

<D --

O 0

- 0-05

05 •
C "O

0 0
-Q 0

^ -g
3 w

o 9

0 8

0 X

05 CD
0 £
0 0
b ro

0 2

c
0

1 1

0 0

II

5 C
•i 8
0

-O 0

C ^

2 i

M—

0 !_
o o
o

9 S
0 0

_ 9 -o
|89

s^'i-

9 8E

0 C -O
0 0-^
c 0
1—

3 LJ
O $
0

o

0 ~

U 0 o

5= 0 0

Q- 3 £

CL 1 ^
0 0

_ -0
.0- 8
" E

0 9"

*4— CD
r: 0

o 0

CM

X

_0 "O
X5 C

8 2.

g'E <

'0 0-0

0 9C
_0 ® 0

0 8 .0

-pi «+- ~p

E 0 0

or 0

i_ C

O O

O

CL

0 c 9
5J |

0 —
E E

w h- 0
>
0
O

0 s°

-0 co
2 cm' 76
£tj,o
C c O
00^

0

0 .iX
0 §

CD c/5
0 X5

0 O 9

O LO 0
CL CM — 1
+_ ,-T _0
8*5X5

9

Q. 0 3
O 0 JO

fEo
9 o ^

O H 1
C a.™
£ cl<
$ 0 03

s 1 «

f- 0

o CO
CM

08^

03 -Q
0 0

V D1

0 CM

S<

0

0

O

x:

0

CL

0

03

C

0

■0 0

c
O

0 E

o Jr 9

03 X5 £

0 0 X

CL-^ C

0 O 0
O JO p

O o 0

0 O a

S §“

o

0
>
0

0 Q

X 0

O o

0
o

O

8 i 0
8E|

.i a
3 O) 0
c c

° 03 05
0 3 .£
0 ° 0
E E-2

0 0 CM
2 2 <
Q. Cl cl
CL Q- CD
0 0^

0 ® 0

8 ®w

1 C •
03 O —

o S

000

9 E 0

Eg 0

E 8 2

CL

0

o

X

0

03

0

0

CL

0

X5

3

O

>4

0

03

C

0

>>

0

b

3

0

O

0

O

s

CL

05

C

03

_3

O

c

c

0

4— *
0

1

_o

CL

X
0

"0

o

'0

>4

XI
CL

o

0

CD

0

0

x:

0

3

0

0

0

0

o

CD

0

2 0

03 S
0 ^

E q

0 C 0

■° 03
0 C

Sb

r 0
0
v

0 03
0 0

^03
0 03
0
0
0
O
0
C

-Q

XI

o

v—

CL

>i

03 £

r 0

2 8-
o 9

lc 0

> f

03

C

0

0

0

o

1—

3

O

0

0

o

0

CD

CD

C

0

0

0

0

-g

'0

c

o

o

c

0

CL

O

0

X3

3

O

<

CL

CL

02

0

0

03

c

'0

E

0

v_

0

0'

<

Q

CO

o

0

03

u

< 9

C/5 0

<: i

w 0

j?

Q_ W

8 S

X

CD

C

E

03 9 O

c 2 >
ro 2 <

0 03

c c
o 0

0 _
o 2 o

3&S

03 b O
0 CD o

JO C O
03 o

9 E 0

2 "o 3

0 03
C 03 2

03

0

JO

E ^

0 roC°
o 0 03
O X3 -C

03
C
0

to 9z E

5 E'

0

^ 2
0 -52
Z 2
l— E

03

0
0 2

_ 0
0 9

r“ 0 -==

2 2 g

c
0 _g

0 5.

>

c 03
O C 0

oro-g

i— c

O -p 0

h— CD
>> >

C o
o ro
03 E
- o

/—

0

0

03

c

0

2

0

XI

0

0

0
0
0

0 03
— 0
0 03
X3 3

^ x°

° o °

$ X CD

0 0 2

2 o 0

0 4X 0

-c (j 0

X 0 -

o E 2
b 9 c

M- X5 0

“0 2 E
4= 3 0
c o
0 f

E2^2

0E 8

0 E E

f Oi
0.0
£ o c

< CM 0
CL .X E
Q_ 03 £
^ C O
2 0 ■ —
05 a>
o c

0 E-lu
+-> ST 2
111

111

029

03 0 CD
C > O
0 0 2
_l 03 Q-

Rawlins RMP 2-35

Chapter 2-Minerals Final EIS

2 8
0 >,

V, 03
0 c

0 c

o 3

O X
0 X

m 0

co 3
0 w

i_

0 3
1 c Q_

l< 0

. 0
3 co

CO o

s 0

^ CO

b $

3 2
0 X
— -C
CO

0 ^
.2 x
E c

0

c

E

o

c

0

X

O

X

0

>

O

i__

X

X

CO

O

c

0 tr
-Q o

(0 Q.

CO 2
O Jl

2 CO

05 0
C C

3 E

o <
0

^ 0
Q. o

% 'o

$ £
CO 0

X 0

£ 3)

*§

= 5
0 0
o t3
2 0

X U,

g.0

X g>

Si

E 8

CO —

0

>1 -3

3 CO
o c

*= CO
c C

11
X 0

o

o 2

3 CO
o ®
0 >1
If^CM

3 J-
0 £

c
o

0
co
0

» I1

CO 0

8.2
w- E
co 0

CO JZ

0

X

X

3

O

f |
16
X 8

o .2
x 0
cl 2
< 0

1 g

0 0

0 E

0 _co
CO 0

0 5

X 0
c

x' >
0 c

o 0

§: o

0 ro
0 ro

0 2

El

1 *
0 0

. c

TD .2

X 0

0 8

cl .2

0

0

X!

0

0

0

0

1

>,

X

I

0

0

0

o

c

o

X

0

L_

0

x

'0

c

o

o

0

X

X

3

0

1
0
0
o

CL

0

0

0

o

CL

0

X

"0

‘i_

0

0

E

"0

0

c

0

X

c

0

0

CO

c

0

C£

0

x

i—

0

X

c

0

CO

CO

c

£

o

>*

n

m

c

o

o

<

+■»

c

0

E

0

O)

CO

c

co

c

0

E

0

k_

3

O’

0

Of

c

0

!h

O

0

**

o

L.

Cl

ro

l_

0

C

0

O

3 x
o 0

0 0
0 TD

> 0_

0 ^
lu 0
05 CO
3 0

X 0
1- 0

E

>

0
>

O X

.2, x
x c

0

0 g-x
0 9- 0

X < 3

-n 0
2 0 0
3 0 —

OO0

0 x
£ 3

0
X
0

8 0
t c

^ C

0

0

000

C 0

^ 2 0
0 ro 0

CD 0

0

0

c X o

CO
2 00

0

3 o
3 'X
O 0
0 3

0 Q.

o 0
0 0

2 g,

X
o c
0

0 _
8 o

0 0

3 0
x 2
x 0
0 >

2 06

0 c?

c OJ
2 x
0 0
2 ^
0 co

0 cm
0

0

X o
0 CM
X

.2 x
c
0

X
X
<

X
c
0

3 X

O 0

0 0
0 X

2 0

> _co,

0 "C
lu 0
X) 05

3 0

x 9

a e

£ >.
03 0
0 >

3 a

00 .2

o x
.2, x

0 <:
x .
x

> , "0
0 2- 0
X < 3
0

0 0
0 —
O 0

3^
0 x

O 3

3 O
3 ’X
O 0

0

3 2

CO

CM

X

0

X2

^ c

b.g
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 3 0
O 0 <d
CO 0 — 1

0

o ^

2 co

o w
0 0

2 §5

^ X
O C
0

0 _

.2 0
0 0
3 0

X 2
■X 0
0 >

0 CD

W CM
0 N

o 2
0
0

CO

2

x o

0 CM
— X

2 x
c
0
X
X
<

X

c

0

0

X

2 -
3 X

o 0

0 0
2 x
2 0
> ^

0 "o
lu 0
CO co

2 0

x c

1- 0

a e

£ >>

03 3

0 >

ii

a 0

3

O) .2

o x
.2, X -3
X C -t;
3 0 $

0 g-x
0 9- 0
x < =3

T-, 0

200

3 0 —

OO0

x 0 2

>;§ ^
x -j; 0
0 0 0

o ro <d

2 2 co

a 2
0 0 ®
2 1 §

O 0 0
030

0 X2
^ X 0

o 0 co
0 0 0
o 0 0

o 03 0

°--o 0

O C 05

'*■' 0 X
0 = c

O ° 0
0 0 O
3 0 X

q. 2 o
X 0 0
0 > 0

CD

CO

1

CM

X

0

0

X o
0 CM

X

c

0

X

X

<

X

c

0

0

X

3 X

O 0

0 0
2 x
0

— -S

o
0

X
0
05 05
3 0

15 £
>- 0

a e

42 >,

03 0
0 >

1 1

= s

CO .2

O X
.2, X -3
x C - 5

3 0 $

0 g-x

0 9- 0

X < 3

-7-1 0

2 0 0
3 0 —

o 0 0

x 2 —
8^8

C? -^3 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 2 ro
_0 JO (U

O 8 “1

0 o S'
2 2 co

0 lo'
0 c?

3 O
3 -^3
O 0

CM

X

0

o 0
0 0

2 gj

^ X
O C
0

0

o o
0 0

3 0
x 2
•x 0
0 >

0 35

0 CM
0

O 0

_ o

0 CM

X

c

0

X

X

<

X

c

0

o

0

13

3

0

05

C

0

0

0

c

0

0

o

0

0

0

O

0

0

CD

X

c

0

0 CM

x 2

c ro

0 3 05

— o 2

0 x ’0

2^8

1 82

a 0 c

'o &

0 0 o
05 X 0

0 8 -0

0 -Q

O .0 ZD

Dr x o

0 0 5
- 0

3

X

CO

o 0 00

co 2 co

o

CM

it

X CL
3 <

/A

0 CM
05 q_

X 0

lie

C/)

c

O

c is

0 3

co .9-

0 X

0 0
i— r-

0 8
1R ^

a 0

O

0 0'

05 X

si

o 0
o TD
CM_ 0
co 0

^ a

2 0

0 0
0 2
— 0

o a

c _
0 0
X x

o

05
X

C 2.

0 o
0 ™
o *

^ X
c
0

o o
^ ,0 3
-xx

Is- 3 <■
CO 0

X

0

x^
C 3

i?x

C f )

e|
0 0
05 3

.2 x

_ c
0 0

I?

0 X

M—

o 0
0 X
0 cr
0 _0

S 0

CO 0
00 0
tsD _0

o 0
“ 0
CM 05

0

0
0 0
o 0

ca

0 X

0
X

C 2.
X 0 o
X 0 ^
3 o .£

0 *- X

*1 1
CD X
CO x X

1 3 <
N 0 3

0

2 OM
CD

0 c
— o

0 X

0 a

X 0
<3 CO

a 0

0 0

0 X

0

c

o

x 2

3 a

0 3
05 .9-

.2 0

2 0

o a

3 -2
0 0

g-73

0

0 _

X 0

0 o
CM

o a

Dr x

CO 0
— 0
0

X O x

o o

$ .a x

LO "3 <■
CO 0 -X

CO

h- a

0

0

0 0
0 0

0 3
0

0 o
o 0
o 0

a 35

0 X
0 3
>- _0
0 m

c 0

O £

0 0
0 3
0 O
0 0
0 O

X 0

C5 X

3.E

0 0

2 0

0

it

o o
o *-

a 0

ro 2

I-

o 2
E 0
o

>7

o 0

.a e

X 0
3 C
0 O

CO 0
-9 3

(/) Q_
CD ‘43
_CD c/)

o ^

8 a

o 5

0 ' o

0 a

0 2

< 8

cci

>,
c 0
■2 0
0 0
a 03

o

0 c
0 0
0

b|

0 a

CD

■0 c

£ =
0 0

S 0

O x

X

0

x^
c C

i^x

o 0

— c
0 0 0

a 0

if. r 0

03 9
C

0 0 0 0 X
o
0

a ^

x a

CO w
3 0

o' a

r^-
o

- 0 °?
CO 05 CM

if)

0

X

o

3

if)

to

c

o

0

.98

to .2

0
10

0 0
0 0

1

O —
~ 0

.2, °
X 0
3 0

to to

X

0

x^
c C

to

X 0

3 X

0 O

05

to

— c
0 0

I?

0 X

M—

n 0
0 X
iO £=
0 _0

8 a

O 0

to

CM 0

cm' a

£ 8

0 0

CO 05

c

0 0'

0 c

a 9

o 3
c 9 0

05 .9- 3

9-0 a

^02
0 0 1-

03 0 0

x a 0

2 o —
0-^0

5 0 0

oj.0 8

CO -Q 0

I 3 0
CM 0 0

X

0

Xs
C c

™x

to

X 0

8 o

_ c
0 0

41

0 X

M—

o 0
0 X
0 C
0 _0

0 0
X

o 0
3 0

00 0

id a

a.j

CM 05

i5 0

0 0'
0 0
_0 o

o 3

1.1

0 0
-0 0
x a

§2

&f

CM 0

0

2

o

0

X

^00
05 0 O
£< <
0 0
3 2 3
000
*= 0 >-
O cl I —
2 c 0 TD

0 >1

0 m

0 _
05 o

8 5

0^0)

0 3 —

0 LL! 2

X

0

x^

C 3

™x

■5 a

— c
0 0

0

X 0

8 "o

c* 0

0 0'
CO c

_0 o

O 0

n 0
0 x
0 c
0 _co

0 0 ;

x -
2 co
0

00 co
|C 0

«H 0 ‘

CO 05 (

2-36 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Minerals

m 0

g 0)

2 ^3
0 03

\°z

fc o

° I

0 co
CD CD

4— 1—

o .

” ° s

O CO o

^ td !=

828

£ »- CD
<D

E2 ro
£ ° o3

t c C

ro ° 'c
0 (0 c
8 o 2
_ ro ro

m O- *♦—

52 M-

c - O
o 0 -£

g ro 0
o J? E
L E o’

KB g

“"0-0

ro

0 22
- CD

w ro
ro 22
0 —

~ TD
O CP

si

Q_ *-

o 2 0

CO 03

ro td
0

l—

<

b

c

O 22

ro

o

CO

0

22

$

c 52

0 ro

0 03

g 0
03 0

" -o
— 2

gg

03 —
0

O

ro ro —
b 0 03

C 0 C

ro ® .2

CD ^ ro

^-8 g
O § o

ro 0

||i

Z 0 —
0 *“
ro 03 0

r ro 0
o ,n >

=3 g 0

0 O 0

0 ^ TD
C i? 3
F o O
2 .Q- $

0 oo 0
O 03 C
O 0 ’co
i_ 03 i—

O 03 00

E.J §

O O 0

2 -b ro

CD 0 1-
0 0 0
h=r *- x>

0

03 CM
03 q_
TD 03

II

° "O

ro 2

-g ®

S3 0

2 0

0 0
0 TD

SI

O .03
CO 2D

oo cd
in g
o

§ 03

0

03

T3 22
C O
03 3

03 1/3
C 0
0 §
03 •=
2 ro

c!-
0 0
Q- 0
O 0

0

03

_Q 0

tt 2

3 2

o o
5 £6
00 3 CD

oo 0 Z

0 '
03 CNJ
03 q_
TD 03

ll

f”

-g ®

S3 0
2 Q3

O

0 0"
0 td
c
ro

o

ro —

o 03

2 -o

co ro
^ 52
h> 2

0

03

T3 22
C O
03 23

03 g
C 0

0 §

03 2

2 ro

5 K

0 0

Q. 0
O 0

0 g

_Q j£

12 £

o o

Is- 3 ^

co 0 2:

ro eg

03 q_

"O 03

I!

° "O

03 2

-g ®

1 g

o ^

0 0"

0 TD

si

o 03
CO _Q

o ro

® ro
cm 2

0

03

TD 2=
C O
03 23

03 1/3
C 0

0 O

03

O =>
“ .9-
0 0
Q- 0
O 0

0 5o

_Q 2

2 2
3 2
o o

- .o

co 13
CO 0 X

CD

ro eg

03 Cl
TD 03

II

O

"m 2
C
0

TD
03
0

2 03

O 2
0 0"

0 "O

si

o 2

C30 _Q
03

2! 8
LO 2

0

03

TD 22
C O
CD 23

03 W
C 0

0 §

2 ro
o =3
Q.
c 2=

0 0
Q. 0
o 0

0 g

_Q

33 o
=3 tl!
o o

5 2,b

co" "§ CD

co 0 2

0

2D

o

c

c

03 03
0 2
0 0
0 03

2 2
> 2
0 0

O TD

II

0 0
E 2

O O’

w '0
0 £
0

3

-o >»
c -Q
2 >-
s- c

0 o
2 -o

0 0

II

X3 03
0 0
C X3

1 g

0 O

O

0 £2
SO O

II

JD O

Q.

0

ro

o.

o

s-_

Q.

CL

03

0 c
ro 2
0 ^ro

03 23

1— 0
^ 03
03 2

2 0
0 >

03 g=
0 o

0

T3 E
0 ^
0 0
o o
o E
0 0

03 JC
0 3=

< 0

Ci 0

c 22
.0 .t:

03

O T3
0

0 o
ro 2

G I.

05 tr

ro Jb
CD 2

TD 00

c 2

^ 0

o lo

0 eg
03 q_

03 03

ro 2 cn
O c

ro - 0
— “O CD
O 0 0

03 C O

0 E 03

2 O
o 0" o

020
0 c _5

C3 — -Q

03 2 3
O go o
co ro $
eg 0 >
co" 5^ 00"

1 — 2 co

0 eg

2 Q-

03 ro

■o ^ 03

c c

ro - '0

o 0

03 C O

ro 0 “
2 0 T3

o»o

020

0 c _5

o 2

03 0
O Z
s- 03
eg 0

TO

23

o

5

cd $ i"-"
00 2 co

0 ctj
S, CL

or ro

T3 2 O)
C _ c

ro 2 '0

“ -n CD

O H 0
ro c o

ro 133 “
® 8^8
^ ^2

o c/3 O

020

0 O o
o ro

o — TD

ro 2 3
o -Q °

0 03 §
■»“ 0
-2 ro ^
CD 2 co

.03

0 CM

SSv CL
03 ro

■O 2 03

C _ c

ro 2 '0

• — Ti CD

0^0
03 C o
®

0 E 03
2 ^ O

o (0 o
020
0 o ^

h 03 ^
0 — "O

ro 2 3

O .Q o
o ro $
CD 0 =*

CD ro co'
CD 2 CO

ro

0

0 c

S'E

3 2

O -Q
> 03
■*—>

0 ro

E o

o —
ro E
o o
co 2

c

CD 5
^ 03

2! TD
O JO

.a .•*=:
< §

5 7

TD CM
0

0 ro
O 2
CL^

2 "o

Q. C
u. 03

-g ^

C CM

3 2
^ m

0 C.

ro ro

0 0
-Q c

2 E

o 2

^■8

0 2

2 S

o o

03 —

o E

T- O

03

i_

TD

-C

•3 °
5 7

TD CM
03 o

of

CL ^

2 T3
CL C
>_ 03

■<- C
^ $
ro

i—

23 TD
O SZ
JZl

< 5

ro cm

TD 1
C CM

3 2

^ m

EH

03

L-

0

c

0 'F

2D E

2 2
3 -Q

O 03

$ ro

03 8
0 2

- 5

O TD
O 22
^3 ±2

< 5

_0

03

$

03

1

TD

-C

03
$ CO

TD CM
0 r r

sf

Q. S

2 -O
CL C
l. 03

-g ^

C CM
0
£^2D
*2 03

0 t

ro 3

t= 0 ±;

^o
3
O 2D

5 2
0 ro
0 y

_0

ro

$

03

1

TD

CD

3 TD
O 22
2D ±2
< §

$ -Tj-
TD CM

0 0^

gf

CL «>

2 TJ
Q. C

^ ro

-g ^

C CM

3 2
cD2D
*2 03

0 t

TD

ro -t;

b ro

3 £

cr

0 0
E 0
cp 2
2D >

TD O
3 ro
O _0

5 ro

|1_
ro E 0 ro
0 <p

o ro

8 8

03

K 2

0

22

0 o

o

c 0
ro g

2D 2
3 "2

2 g,

TD 03

ro X
ro g

3 f
0 03
0 O

0 0
3 ro
03 0
C3 H-.

0

SZ ■

■4— 1 s

^ 03
2 CM
0 CL

o ro
ro^
2 0

2 o

0 LXJ
TD O
0

2 03
2 .£
o §

0 o
N =

0

0

i_

C3

03

O

CO

CD

cm"

TD

C

03

c n

o

LO

o

Is-"

O

LU

o

<

c

o

E

0

0

c

0

0.

3

o

$

o

CD

TD

£ ro

2 g
>

0

SZ

0
JQ

2
3
O
$
c
.0

ro
0 0

O 03

8 8

03 >_

E 2

00

CM

CL

ro ^
ro g

3f

0 03 0 LLI

ro -5 b o ■—

0

0

L-

o

03

O

Is-

co

CD*

CD

0 0

o ro 0
03 0

03

C

TD

0

^ 03

2 g

0 2
2D >

TD O

3 ro

O U)
> 03

si

? £
0 0

o"

2
o ro

8 8

03

E 2

03
0 O
0 0

2 CM
0 Q.

o ro
8^
2 0

2 o

0 LXJ

T3 O

03 <C
2 03

2

0 §
0 o
N ^
0 2

0

0

1—

o

03

O

03

CD

O

LXJ

O

<

Lt=

_3

GQ

O

E

o

O

g o
b ™

03 O

O’ CO
CD •
03 CO

Is-' ^

0

0

i_

O

03

O

O

-sj"

00

O

LXJ
O O
O LU <
LU O 0
< F=
C X

O ^
o
o

O

<

0

TD

C

03

C/)

C

CD _

o E

q_ 03
0

-g 0)

Rawlins RMP 2-37

V)

UJ

to

c

£

a:

a

<0

■c

o

LU ©

(f) ^

m

re

o

0

0

©

Ui

re

c

re

in

0

>

2

o

©

5*

0

*=a

C

0

E

©

01
re

E

©

co

0

CO

3

>

X

O

E

o

M—

CO

c

3

CO

0

l—

0

CO

CD

E

CD

-0

0

O

■_

3

O

0

0

1

0

0

CO

0

0

c

1 o
1—
o
o
O

CD

0

0

3

0

0

'i—

X

0

i_

X

X

CD

CO

C

3

CD

CO

0

1

c

o

0

o

3

■0

0

O

3

3

X

0

■g

>

o

CD
3
C T
0
■0
CD
C
CD
0
-g
>
o

X

<

o

*->

E

O

E

E

o

o

in

E

O

o

<

+=>

E

0

E

0

O)

re

c

re

0

0

0

c

o

0

0

co

0

>

o

0

o

0

2

CD

>

0

0

0

>

■O

CD

O

c

o

■O

>>

0

0

>

o

-O

0

N

o

o

E _

o £
0 o

0 '3=
3 X

2 3

c 0

£>
o x
0 o

~ a

0

CM

£-S

is

X O
0

a o

X <D
0 0
0 <
E S
0 Q
x w

SI

>.

CD

E

T 3

0

3

O

5

0 _
£ CD

0

CD

0

CD

0 "0

re T3 O > c

o> re re ^ .2*
“o.O°2

2

re -a 5 X cd (-1

£ x Q-5^ |
0=0 g,fe O
c 2 2 0 e

' T3 — :

2=1 S .M

TO

re $ g. 5 re «

0

0 CD

Z o

o =

c
X CD

0

O
c

_ 0 o

h= c > 13
re o re ^

0'" u re

0 re t- _c

El *

H |1 8 ? £
^ o o — .E
*■? ° *- 2 0 c

™ - ■§ -Q ^ X
° 0 0 0

TO

Cl - .

0 h- re g
>o^-o
0
0

O < 2

0 -g 0 q_

0 X

CM

2 c=

3 CD O
O 0

T3

X 2 CD

3 2 2

0 *0 c* 0 2

X O
0 CD

O 2 CD
_ ~ 0
— w r- w .E O
CL > . E > JZ -C.

2- u

< C X
_ CD 0
CD 0 o
> ~U *-•

CD ~

t £

0 < 2
w . 0 ^ 2
2 re 3 p 2
2 0 o 0
> *- 0-0

gpss?

® C £ CD (0

° cJT

0 0 2 8 cm

s Is-

O 3 0 03

-o

CD
O

■a

0 _

8

o

CO o

C $

0

CD
c
CD =

E c

0

2 v <

0

3 -c

re co — q.

O C 0 o

"0 CD -

o

~o X

C 2 0 CD

o "0 •£ o CO 13

9- C ~ 2 <D

° ° 03 2 13 o

2 co 0 2 o 2

0 =

re £ 0 >
2 Q 2
9 "cd o —

o >
g ^ 0

CM

"si-

i

CM

X

0

i 1 s I > s

0 — •= 0 "o ^

h- 0 E *- C T3

re > • - -c ro c

o 2 ~i 3 co re

c X •- 0 2 1/3

° 0 5 o 0

> 0 >- o

§ 5 S

. O • — -Q

O "O O 0 0

2 2 >< 0

X3 0 0 2 CD C

= 2 q.3 o .05

> — p re 0

> 0 o q_x3 0

< C O (DQ

0 0 co p o

0 — 0 - ~

00 — — "0
0 0 o) o 0

O 8 -I -re |
° m re re

O.C2H

■O
0 0
■g
>

3
0

X
X

s

X

0 >
-0 0

o

CO "O

|I

< ^
O CD
0
>,

5§

I®

o P

2 -re

D 0
. >
(/) -Q

2 0
2 2

0 2
> o
$ E
o ^
c o
cp 0

0 CD
#§
N

O O

CO

c -0

3 CD

2 0
2 o
O O
- 0
0' -re

0 "O
re 3
0 o
2 5
2 =
0 0

zt

§ s

o X

Cl

■o 0

2 ^
O LU
^ re

2 l—

0 o

1 |

^ C\3
CD

o§

S o

c

1 0
re, c

0 5
2 ^

P

O CD
C 2

(J >1
© 2

c 0

2 3?

0 0

x J—

E M

0 0

3 §

X T3

0

0

C

o

o

2

o

Cl

0

jC

0

C

i_

0

o

c

o

o

2

0

0

-0

c

0

JD

3

X

3

O

o

o

>>

0

E

0

0

3

0

o

2

0

>

-0

0

N

1

O

o

E

o

0

0

3

0

_o

o

c

0

c

0

E

■

0

x

0

c

o

0

0

0

0

£

0

i_

o

X

■0

0 0
N 0
= O

0

0

3

>

X

O

0

TO

0

C

0

21

in

E

O

"2

O

<

+■>

E

©

E

©

O)

RJ

E

re

CD ^

re

^ E
0 0
x co
~ 0
c c
— 0

re ;>

re 0

2

0 0

fl

> o
-0 o
0 o

■a »

3 re

o o

S X

-0 0
0 0
-*— < -t— »

E B

— i —

CD 0

-re o
■0 2

1 >

*.?
0 re
CD co
o 2
0

0

o >-

CO CO

12 0

CO

0

X

0

0

>

2 «r

0 0

o re
8 ro

0

c co
0

0- 8
re >

c <

3

Q 8
2 E
*= 0

c CO
0 0
cd =

X O

CM

X

0

TD 0

0 0 0
re c 'F 0
0 0 E o

Q c = >-

0002

x co -O g

2 re 3 0
re P >

0 ^ $ T3

0 0 ^ . E
0 > co re
-f -s 2 2

2 o -o

0 0 re

g-o 2

8 CO 05

o ^ re

if) s w
2 re >c
§ 2 ^
x < 2

<0

c

I

q:

00

<0

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE USE

o

s

a

<0

■c

o

to

UJ

TO

.c

£

cd

x

03 m—

p o

co 0
to

O 0

X E
— CO

*4—

O X

c
CO
C/D

C/D

c
o
F

o 3

CL CO

X CD
0 OD
CD

>

X

o

o

c

CD

CL

o

CD

X

2

13

O

5

2 >
CD £
DD O
0 C

> CD
c -C
o f—

^ M-

0 t
0 cm

§ s-

"O P

CD “3,

>

*= 0
a 0

(0 3

0 o

v 0
0 £

E s

p £

OD CO

OD C

la £

0

0 0
3 O
2 2
0

0 >
O -o
X C
0 CO

0
>

0 X

X 0

0 5
*- o

0 0
0 _Q

1?

o $

> >

X -D
0
O

c
CO
0
-O

0 0
o x

5d*

£ Q.

0 o

X X

0 0

T3

c

0

0

<

CO

0 _o

®C3
OD o
C CO
X

E

c F

0

0 0

3 O

2 Z

0

0 >
O -o
JO c
0 0
> 0
X -D

c 5
0 o

0 0

if) _Q

>!

o $

X 2
0 0
O X

CD £

£ Q.

.0 O
X X
0 0

T3

c

0

0

<

CO

X

C

0

0 ««
0 <
O ^

2 §
0 0
0

0 Q
3 2

o 2-

C T3

S. 0

° a

^ E

0 0

> 3

0 cm

CD ^

o

0 ™

o Jo

f2 2
- 0
CO 3

S 0

x £
£ o

.1 OD

c

0 XD
0
X

-S CD

° 0
0
3

0 O
C

CD OD QD

O 0 o

C33 O =
CO -O -2

X
0 0
2
b

O

OD

0 '
JO 03
’..t; c
CM 0 0

03 0
0 0
■4— • ■4—'

1 e

0 0

-Q g

03 Z

3 ^
o >

0 CD

2 03
CD CO

O o

CO

OD OD
CO .£
00 0
^ X

T- 0

<D 0
£ CD
O P

° X

E 5
0 0
O
_Q

"o —

0 03
X 0
*- X

II

0

5 C

03

0

0

o

O

0

03

03

3

O

$

0

2

* 8

O 3

CO >

CD'S
3- O

0

0

si

0 >

03 03

IP 0
n w

> “O
5 0
0 2

^ 03
O CD
CD "ti
_ , 0
S c

p OD

lZ 0

CM 0
T- 03

0

0

g

Z

0

>

0

O CM

0 ><
03
C
0
cL Q-
0 £.

° 03
O C
■*-' 0

0 ^

0 3

o CM

CD o

>4 03
= C
0
c
o
0
0
0
0

•o-

O"

I

CM

X

0

X £

2 0
0 0

O 3

^ ^
Cfl I p

2 o cm

0 O *
§ 03 C

CO 0 0

O 0 Q_

M-'OO-
1- o <

2 T3

15 2

0

E 03

0 0

OD O

O) ii —

s I

0 X3

0

15

z 0

O 0
Q. 3
O

0 0
3 0

x o
O $

C/) -rj

£ c

'0 ro

J-S

• i= C0

CL O

OD ■

fc

o

03

0

£ w

O 0

Q- 3

O

o $

0

"O

c

X

£

CD

CO

0

c

1

OD CM

0

X

P

0

X

P

—

X

p

X

0

3

3

O

>

3 0

03

£ §

I OD

0-E
_q c n

1 !

0 CD

5 X CM
0 O X
CD o
0 .2
1—

0
o

03
c
c p

0 Q-

o <

0 -
£00
o c >-
CD OD QD

« o 0 O

2 CO 0 -

03 0
0 0

0 0
-Q o
03 JZ

3 P
o >

QD

h CD
2 "03
CD CO

O P

P 0
£

O P

0

g.
Z
0 0

CO 03
p

00

CD

„ 03

. ,-ti c
CM P 0

■sf OD .2

00 0
'Hx

T- 0

o —

0 03

x: 0
x

II

*; 0

^ c

03

0

0

O

o

0

X!

03

3

O

0

2

” 0

O 3
00

?X
hi O

< f )
CD

si

II

0 ^

X 03

33 0
n *
^ 0
« 2
2 -o

O 0
0 -tJ

^ CD
£ c
P OD

0

CM 0
t- 03

0

0

g

Z

0

>

$ P

0 CM
0 .><

1 "

£ 0
E o.
0 o.
> <
° 03

o c
0

0 ^

0 y
O CM
CJ CL
T3 0

>4 03
C

0

CO

CM

Q.

0

0
C

o
0
0
0
0

X2 p:

3 ®

D 0

O 3

5 ^
0IP

2 o ^

0 o Z

g 03 C
CD 0 0
o in a
S £-

T- O <

0

05

>

X 3.

s X
c Z
0 c

Q. P
O CL

O C/D

r; 03
V, ro

P O

E OD
C

Q.

<

03

C

0

CM

■3

P

JD

2

3

o

0
p 0

w Ki
CD c^1

b s-
0 £

O S3

S.s

CO 3

O

_ O *-
0 OD _QD
O 0 O

Z

CM P
O 03

P

CO
CM
CM

CM" P 0

P

>

03

C

03 0
£ £

1 i
0 0
-a g
03 Z

3 P
o >

0 CD

p 0
o o

O" OD

£ «
T- 0

p 0
£ CD

O P

■g £
0 0

p $

■go

O P

0 03
X 0
— X

II

CD

> c

03

0

0

o

o

0

X

2

3

o

0 p
0

O 3

^-x

Sio

03

C

0

CM

3

1

CM

X

0

CM

X

Z>

c

p

X

X

<

0 M—

P o
0 0

p 0
x E
— 0
»4—

O "O
2 0
o 1/3
F ‘
o £
X 0

03 P
0 OD

£ 5

0 C -
X O
0 CZ

> 0 ■
c X
O I—

>

X

o

o

c

0

X

o

0

X

0-g
— 0
-* o

0 b

1 c

0 -^3

OD 0

od'x

0

S 0"

5!

o $

0

0 X
0 0
■■!=: o
0 >-
OD D3

c £

Q- g

E x

0 0

0 1
0 O

W T-,

0 X

o 0
CO J 8
£ 3 £
0 0 ■—
0 X -C

>^>

loE

O $ 0

0

£

3

>

X

O p

O CM g

s 0
P 5

c ■—
P 03

&s

p §:

-o <

£ X

X =

OD

c

0

X

p

5 in

b co-

rn p

X
0 CD
p

P o
o c >-
p od aj

0 O

0

0 Sz

f2 p

1 : 0

CO 3

OD 0
CO X

0

CM
CM

CM _ __
CM '0 0

X 0

£ £

1 1

CD CD
X o

x Z
3 P
o >

$E

0 CD
0

p 0
0 2
<33 X

29 0

p 0

£ P

■2 x
0 0

II

p 5

0-8

(ID y

p

0 X
X 0
■*- X

II

.t; 0

5,3

X

0

0

o

o

0

X

X

3

o

$

0

2

™ 8
O 3
CM ^

°-x

00 CO

CM O

>4

1 c
C 0
0 to

0 ^

0 X

0 £

X ^

3 113

D 0

O 3

0 X ^

2 O CM

8 0.5

o X c
X P P

03 0 X
|sj o X
t- 0 <

Rawlins RMP 2-39

Chapter 2-Paleontology

V)

C

"<5

c

iC

m

re

o

O

+=»

c

©

E

©

O)

TO

C

<0

c/5

0

O

i—

3

O

0

0

"ro

o

05

o

o

c

o

0

ro

CL

M—

o

0

JD

03

>

O

c

0

o

0

0

X

4—

o

>>

'C

O)

0

0

X

c

re

c

'ro

c

0

-i — '

o

X

0

0

X

X

0

0

O

TO

O

C

03

E

0

0

o

0

X

0

0

0

o

I—

0

o

0

0

"ro

o

05

o

o

c

o

0

ro

CL

c

o

"■4— »

re

o

0

L.

X

X

03

X

C

03

C

o

re

£

0

0

c

o

o

0

X

0

0

0

O

E

o

L.

CL

o

v>

0)

>

o

©

S'

O

+-•

c

©

E

0

05

re

c

re

0

0

0

1

0

0
0
0

1

0

_0

03

>

i

x

05

X

03

X

O

X

C

o

X
0
0
03

XI
0
03
0
L.

03

O

c

0

>

c

o

CL

05

c

0

X

>4

X

0

0

o

0

o

0

0

03

O

03

O

c

o

0

03

X

^>>

C

0

X

0
0
it=
0

0

0

1

0

>

X

03

0

05

C

0

E

x

o

0

>

0

X

JxC

0

X

05

0

0

i__

0

0

03

0

E

0

>

o

0

0

1

X

o

0

c

_ro

x

c

0

£

re

0

o

0

x

0

o

0

'o'

i—

X

X

0

0

c

0

0

0

0

0

<

0

0

o

1—

0

o

0

0

4_

"re

o

05

o

o

c

o

0

03

X

0
0
L— *

'c

0

X

o

X

X

o

0

05

re

L.

0

o

o

c

0

X

c

03

C

're

-I— '

c

03

E

CL

o

0

>

0

Q

0

E

re

05

o

o

03

0

i—

0

o

o

X

0

X

X

c

03

0

0

'c

0

X

o

X

X

o

re

c

o

re

o

0

X

0

0

X

>

o

0

0

0

o

o

03

X

c

03

0

0

X

0

X

X

05

X

03

O

05

O

c

o

_0

03

X

4—

o

c

o

0

X

1

0

c

c

're

c

're

E

x

c

03

X

O

0

>

0

Q

X

0

re

o

o

O

Uj

o

Sfc

re

3

o

o

0

-c

0

re

o

O

re

c

0

£

0

05

re

c

re

0
0
>

X
re
E <

0 0

*r 0

< £

— re

< §

o P

c re *-
o .y •fe
E 05 °
c -2 S
= 0-2

w ° g>
0 0^

£ re S
.2 as

t3 ^ ^

<

O Q

0 0

55 S £

E

©

05

re

E

re

0

CD

re

c

re

S

0

-c

0

c

o

o

re

0

-t — i

c

0

0

e

X

0

2

re

0

x

4-

o

c

o

-re

o

0

0

3

0

O

C

0

E

0

'5

CT

0

4_

c

0

re

O)

E

1

0

0

0

_o

03 ^

> VI
o w
4= 03

4-» X

.2 0
O 03
0 O

>

X

c
03
X 0
O 0
X 03

E °

— 03

IS

*' X
O 05

0 2

o £

L.

X 0

O 0
X

1-2

05

03 X

O 3

<2 o
E $

0 0
X 0

X —

3 w

o >

5 03
0 .2
0 05

E 2

13 O
O "q

u> 5

E 8

re q.
o S-L

M—

05 O
-2 c
2 .2

ll

03 2

Q_ x

0

x

>

X

X

0

03

0

X

X

o

o

0

0

05

o

o

c

o

0

03

X

X

0

a-

_Q

2

0

re

■_

x

0

X

0

>

4—*

c

03

O

X

'c

05

'0

_>-

re

o

05

c

o

_0

o

o

0

X

c

_ro

0

05

c

03

a:

>4

X

"re

0

H

0

x

■_

03

X

c

re

CO

05

c

>*

n

05

C

o

‘5

O

<

x*

C

©

E

©

O)

re

c

re

o

!■§

0 S’

■X 0
= >
O 0
03 X

•4—

§>!

~ 03

E 0

X-^

l- 0

0 O
C 15C

x 0’
o c
©

> 0

2 ^
Q 03

X >4
05 X
E: CD

2 g

i “

03

0 c
±E 0
re

o 2

0 ^

1 5

4;

o 03
0 O

0 _o

m O

0
03
c X

0 O
03 © $

0 — VI

Cl 03 03
03 X O

o

X

O 5

0 ^
+= 0
-= >
o 0
03 X

4 —

- 03

2 0

X

0 O

c

x 0"
O c
© .21
> 0
2 w

Q 03

X >4
05 X

0
0
03
C3

0

0 C
x O

re ^

8 S

o 5

x

'0 03
0 O
X 05 •

0 o VI
"o 're
ro 2 ra

^4 E X
0 O
03 © $
© -= «5
1- 03 03
03 X O

2-40 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Paleontology

0

TO

c

0

0

JO

C/3

o c
S-2

3 O
Q. C
C 00
2 0

c
o
£
E

08

CO o
o

0= C

>>

JO

C/3

0)
E

CO O

co co
2 -c

o $

C *0
O CD

r, £

0 £

TO

O) Q
CO _0

O o
£ o

o
O .2

w -Q

CO o
£ X
TO -
c co

s.^

CD
TO

O £ ^ € .2

E c
co

CO TO

0 CD

t: £

c O

I”
62
CD 2

s 8

-O £

So

2 S

1 g.

TO

C

CO

jo

CO

c

CO

3

co

0

c

CO

3

cr

0

X)

CO

0 «
CO o
0 o

LX CO

>, c
2 io

1 3

w co
■O 7D
§ 0
5 CD

2 45

91!
0 0
£

v o
c —
o co

® o

N t_
= CL

5 0

*2

.1 8
o .2
ro CO

co E
0 2

§.-
0 U3

TO CO

T3 _0

0 O

i_ TO
O C
m CO

~ 0
> 0

0 O

0 g>
c 'C
O 3

CO "2 C
0 O 0
£ ™ 0

0 c -43

03 £ >

1 s

CO co CO
0 0 O)
-Q 0 C
0 JO

O 0 ^

£ 0 £

8 s .2

0 V "o

0 >s ,,,

^ £ 8

2 0 CO
O 0 t

>03
0 O 0

0

c

o

jS "O
0 £
£ co

W >s
CO 2

c £

3

S w

0

0 0
o 0

3 -Q
O 0
0 0
0 0
— V

0 >s

II

O 0
CL O

0

JO 0

0 o

v >_
^ o

JO ^
0

0 d)
0
o

>
o

0 0
C TO 0

~ Po

ro

8^ i

F o o

C— 4 4 —

0

0

0

0

c £
o

o E

0 i)z

o c
O o
>. 03
JO

c

o

E

E E

8 «

M— 0 C~

° co .2
0 0 -t-c

<= o 8

0 £

w 0 0

0

CO 0

0 2
C CO

0 t

3
0

o>

c

c = .2 ^

Pi M— H-

*88

c
g> i_
0 o

f— — — L/ /

F CL —

JO

o

SZ

0
0
0 0

0

0

c
03

0 oi
Q L3

fl) c/)

?5 "o (0
C c £

o o

<-> 0 ~
030-0

E 0 J

0 to 2

c CD 0

o > Ej

o 0 $

c
o
E
E
o
0 o

£ 0
-O CT

Kg

0 .2

o

C O _
0 03 0

0 O C
800

0

>> 0
JO

JO

w 0

0

o ro

V m

0

C O
O 0
0 —
ro°i?

CL 0 CL

2 £ o

£ co
0 2
0 0
iz 0

?!

0

CT" 0
0 c

w o
0 .2

8 o

0 2
O o
0 O
0 —

<D 8

80

c-*- CO

c

O X3

3 2
(/) CO

-O ^
£ CD
^ o
2 2

T5 3
0 0

-O

c

0

0 03
C C

0 5

o 3

- «
0
0

o CD

Q. 2

(/) CT3
4“
■° 3
“O (/)

S?

CO

c

0

0 CO
-O 0
0 0
o 0

3 O
0 -o

2 g

2 'd'

O 0
> 0
0 0

o o
" 0

3 O O 0
■o ^ c
o o

> £ o
o ~ ~ ~ 0 0

Q--^ E

0.0
0 0

o

0 CO

0

0

0

E

0

C/D

^ 03

> c
2 jo

1 3
0 0

-o

8 C3

2 CO

0 0

£ *-
■V o
c —
o 0

8 o

N s—
r= co.

5 0

0 £
0 2

"0 w

/ft

(/)
c
o

To

Ifl

-002

T3 8
c 0 3-7

0 o CJ
3 T3
00 c:
,n 0 0

0

— “O C/D
> CO

X3 O co
o > ^
0 0 o

0

-O

c

0 -

0

o c
S-2

3 O
Q. C

F ^
£ P

0

0

0

_ E

0 2
0 co

o r-

o £

C -O

o 0

II

o ro
O .2

c
o
E
E

08

£ *4—
0 O
o

ii= C

c .2

03 Q
0 _0

0 o
£ 0
c ^

03 o

£ X

JO

: 0 3
i co

0

>

JO

E c
0 -
0 -O

o 0
c O

o

0 £

jS 8

5
o

0 ^3

£ K

"O

c

0

03

c

’0

3

0

0

c

0

3

cr
0
Jli
0
c
o
0 .
0
0

CD

C

0

JD

0

i_

03

D

O

to

O

"O

•*—>

C

CD

O

0

O

0

CD

0

0

CL

i_

13

CO

C

0

03

"(D

O

C

c

’i—

\

£

CO

c

0

0

JO

0

0

0

L—
— 5

0

0

0

£

3

0

>

O

0

E

0

0

0

0

Rawlins RMP 2-41

CO

UJ

15

c

£

(/) ~

UJ co

< CM

UJ ©

(0

Q)

O

E

<D

co

l.

o

’«>

S

■o

c

CO

c

o

£

CD

CK

Q.

to

■c

O

j/>

TO

©

0

*->

C

0

E

0

O)

0

e

0

o

o

2

3

o

M—

o

CO

CO

0

o

o

0

03

C

0

>>

03

c

0

CO

c

0

X

0

0

0

03

O

E

E

o

o

o

0

C/5

0

>

4->

a

0

s*

o

<4->

c

0

E

0

o>

0

c

0

co

o

'0

>

4—

o

0

M—

0

0

03

c

0

o

0 0
0 ~

> CL

Q. E

3 CO

0 ~0

^ O
O CO

co -2

.2 -e

-Q 3
3 .0
0 03
03 0
© 0

0 03

?!

> 5

5 =

c

— c

c ®
0 E
E ^
0.0
_0 03

® 0

0 ^
-a co

3 -o

-O c
0 .2
0 ~
> 03
■-F C

O o
0_ a
S’ ©

= 1
.2 a

0 03
O 0

© 0
0 (D

S«

O 03
0<

0 c
XI 0

r e

0 0

03 CO

'0 ™
r~ S—

o ro
o 5>
— c. c
0- o

<N S

o

CL

® 0

^ Cd

-O 03
© 03
0 0

CO ©

51

0 C

S $
o

< I—

S 03

Cd ■§

LU -g

E <t

0 0
0 £

0 !_

-

0 0 ;|
-2 O 0

c

0

E

Q.

O

0

>

0

03

03

0

J0

O

C

o

CL

0

O

X

0

0

x:

0

CO

c

0

0

03

c

0

0

0 0
H= CD
C >

t o
o — >

Q--g
Q. o
O c
C o

.2 0

0 03

03 b

O 03

0 -9
0 ^
Q. 0
0 £

13 CO

o .2

>> 0
.0; 0

0 E

O’ .2
0

E 0
0 .0
0 ■=
*- o

^-0 0
IN- **-

SI

Q_ 0

® 0
^ C

03 ®

c

0 03

?l

0 ©
3 0

^ C

< E

^ 0

cd o

LU 03

r- ©

E 0

03 XT
0 O
0 -3

LU ©
0 0'
x: 0
0

— 0

0

co

0

c

o

0

o

3

03

0

-Q

3

Cl

0

■g

>

o

c

o

0

0

0

Q.

Q.

0

03

c

0

c

o

0

o

3

03

0

C

o

0

0

i_

CL

i-_

0

C

(D

0

3

O

S

3

Q.

0

0

C

3

■c

o

Q.

Q.

O

0

■g

>

o

i_

0.

<A

03

>

«8

C

!_

®

4->

<

o

*->

c

o

E

E

©

O

E

a

a

<

+-»

c

03

E

©

05

CO

c

CO

c

o

0

0

i_

o

0

L_

0

c

o

s

03

<

JD

3

CL

CO .
N-

0
0
O O-

m ©

CO

0

JZ 0
0

s 8

_Q

_0 X3
33

0 Q_

ro "0

03 O)
0 0
3 ~

.£ 1
•4— • i—

C 03
8^
0 =
3

0 3

0 -=
ro 0

2 3

> ■
o

03

C

Q_ 0

•- I

ir 03

03
0
C
'0 0

03

0

0 0
-Q 0

O C
§ 0
0 c

0 Q.
.■t: o
w 0
c >
0

*= 03

0 i_

0 O

i— M—

2?
03 0

c -g
0 ’w
X o
UJ b

o

>4

0
M —
0
0

03

C

0

X3

3

CL

O

0

O

1—

Cl

O

03

0

03

_3

O

X

0

0

_Q

0

3

E

0

0

0

■_

0

g

L—

O

0

Cl

0

c

o

o.

0

o

X

0

0

c

o

0

0

l_

o

0

I—

03

0

0

I—

0

CL

0

03

O

C

0

CL

O

0

J3

T3

3 0
O 0
$ =

< 5

0
o
1 —
3
O
0
0

0

0 .ii:
0
0 (D
E CL
— 0

0

03

i_

0

03

C

0

CO

co

c

E

o

>4

<:

>»

tfl

c

o

a

<

4-»

E

©

E

©

O)

CO

E

ro

0

XT

03

C

0

03 '0'
0 0

o’ g

© ”
> o

0 CD
03 CD

§2>
(/)
0

"O
c

ro s

■D <-

0 o
CL .2

-2 0
0 0

0 g

c

0 >
0 ^
0 0

0 b
E ro

T CD
x0 CO

^ co_

CO

c _
■a co

1 §

3 03
0 0

0

C

0

X2

x:

03

'I

3

O

>

CO

c

’« CO
0

0 CL
~ 0

c -2
0 _g

O Q.

§.8
O 2

O S

C 0 0

.2 Q_ x:

CL

0

03 o
0 x
cl 0
.2 0
0 x:
>

0 xc

03

Y ©

I?

0

© 0

CO

® §

CL .2

3 ©
0 0
0 b

03

0

0
o

0 03
2 ^
0 co
0 >-
0 0
o >
£ Od

© £

X3 ro

^2 £

8 ^

Jfp

0 ©

2 0

0 © CL

© 0 -S;

= 0 e-

^ 13 o

CO 0 0

.2 = 3

03 © Q.

§ 5 '0

2 g O

1— 0 rri

3 CL^

0 O 2

0

0

0

E

0

CO

2

3

O

03 0
0 <D
Q. >-

> C3
0 CD
03 CD
2 C33

03 0
© 2
ro i

cl .2
2 ©
0 0

^ b

CO

I 8

0 >t
0 w

0 eg

0 _0

O Q.

>

0

>

0 0

0
2 0

.2 ©

0 F

E -5

5 'C

o '1.

CL CO
O

0 C
o •-
C 03
0 0
X3 CO

2 3

co 0
2 ©
S "
c
3
o

0 c

X3 0

0 0
S E

o

0

o

CO

CJ3

CM

M'

CM

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Recreation and Visitor Services

(O ~
LU re

< cn

LU 0)

to 0
0) c o

0 •= re

to 0 0
M_ 0 JO

° b -o

re re 3

E -o |

o’ w
i ®
£ > °
~ 0 ro
5 -o o
0 5 oo

TO 3 LO

E^s

TO

C

re -2
0 2

C 0

E &

£ 1
c ro

® re-

re re

b w
re o

.E Q-

E »
re ^
_q re

■S'b

o re
o E

re

re re

0 JO
CD TO

.2 3
to o
2 £
S?i2

- re
re ^
$ 2
0 TO

TO ~

CO

JO
0
Q. Cl

re 5

c

0 o

£'«

3 E

1^
> 0
re *-
0 0
~ 0

3

0 cr
to -Q
.9 0

I—

=3 -C

CO 5

3 =

Q. 0

<3

0

o

Q- 3

TO 2

B ®

0 s
CD >
'•£= 0

£ E

re

to re
re 0

o. -tj re
O' re re

c

re -2

CO

■2-e

0 0

0 JO

b -o

re 2

c 0

E 2-

0

0 0
re jo

CD TO

.E 3
TO o

o -2

003

E to >
0 >

CL —

O re

re 2
> o
0 0

§ TO
re §

7~1 — 1

C TO
0 c

c ro
0

O _ V)
^00
b re

re o

.E cl
£ »
ojl
JO 0

S'b

o 0
O E

5 2

0 TO
TO ~E

CO

JO
o
cl re-

re ®

c

0 o

£15

3 E

|3

> 0
re 1_
0 0

i= 0
•j= re
o cr
To-g
.2 0

l—

=3 SZ

re 5

3 =

Q. 0

_>*

0
-* — ■
0
re
cr
0

TO

0

re

re

0

c

re

"O

0

■g

0

>

0

0

-Q

TO

O

o

o

0

o

Q- 3
5 -re

TO >

B ®

&>

*= 0

$ E •

re

re
0
0
E
0
c o

0

o JO

ere 0
10 *£
in’ o
o

re —
0 o

-t— » -*— »

re -Q
c re
2 o
0 o
2 re

O JO

2 5

TO

0 o

01

8 s

re b
Q 0

-Q

3

Q.

-= re
.2 -£=
1—

0 ><—

i°

_ .2
2 0
re re
.E Q-
E 0

- TO
0^ C
j= 0

C

0 _re

re 0

® Q.
■ — re
E 3

1^

1

co

O TO

|s

3- 2
0 g_

s ®

SI

o 5
c re

> 0

■2-b

TO £

<5 ^

re

0

i—

o

0

0

1^-

TO CD
° oo’
2 CO
0 CNJ
Q.

re 0
b P

ts~

b 00

3 x

>0 3

c re c

o 0 re

TOO-
0 c >•

re ®
^ o

TO .

•> re
o re
h- 3
re c
-§■2

re
re
re

_ 1- 0
3 re 0
oC o

*c“

h- o

0

0 o
J= re

1- cr

S E

i, 0 Q-

N E o
Q- 0 re
re — >

re

re

re

o

0

0

1

TO CD
° OO’

2 co

re cm

CL ^

re ro

b 2

c <
$ re
o re
I- 3

N-

b 00
^ ><

b' bo

to re c

o re re

c CD Q-

°-T0 Sr

£
re

re
re
re

_ re
3 re re
o ec o
> 0

re c

%-s

TO 0

< re

0 o
sz re
1- cr

(D O |

0 Q.
N £ O
CL0 0
re 75 >

^ re 2

o

C CD
= c

^ c
re 3

CD

0

TO

re

'0

1

Q_

ro b

7T w
0 .2
Q- 0
CO JO

cr

to

’re

o

‘c

0

o

to

re

c

o

5

re

0

-o

’>

5

re

4->

E

0

C

E

©

o

re

0

3

3

-e

o

CL

CL

O

3

c

o

0

o

3

TO

0

TO

C

0

0

>

0

!—

CL

i-_

0

C

0

N

re

0

JZ

CL

E

0

o

0

CD

0

c

0

TO

0

0

O

o

re

re

0

re

0

3

3

t;

o

CL

Q.

O

C

o

0

0

_

o

0

o

o

TO

3

O

M—

o

■

3

-TO

'0

>

0

TO

0

3

C

3

o

o

0

Cl

E
o
O
I —
CO
2
Q
O

2^

CL

E

o

O

o

X

o

i-_

CL

C

c

o

c

0

E

o

c

0

JO

co-

re

3

0

re

re

TO

c

0

3

o

0

0

CD

0

>

CD

O

O

0

CD

re’

3

CL

0

1—

CD

O

CL

O

M—

o

>.

're

0

>

3

•*—>

0

0

1

CD

0

O

re

0

CL

E

0

x

0

0

JO

.E

'0

>

0

0

re

c

0

*i—

0

Q.

X

0

>>

0

re

0 0

w TO
3 >
O Q
re L- 1

3 "re
5 3
0
0 c
JC J3
■*"" c
0 o
0 O

— ^
0 re

c 2
0 0

C -C

o P
O ~

0 E
x
0

0

CD

O 3=
0 O
re 3
0 0
re 0

g «

re c
0 0

2 re

c
0
E

c
o

I—

>
c
0
3 0
.2 ^
b £

-c

"D c

c ?

0 E

.2 0

b ■£I

re .2 _j

3 to 0

0 0

Q- ^0
c £

w 0
re c o
0 c

E -2 §

ss-|

000

i— CL
0 0 X

0 0 re
re to =
0 o re

0

Q- re >
0—°

iff

- C E
0 o o

re 0

.1 8 b
b b 0

CL O
0

0

0 0 13

o
c

2 0 =

$ re
re 2

> _c

20^

i 1 3

t £ ^
& o ro
q! w re
00^

JC CL >

•|EQ

> 0 —

0 x re

20^

|?s

cu ^
o - S
."2 0 ,9

>-gU
o > 0
CL Q £

Rawlins RMP 2-43

to

u3

"(5

c

iC

</>

0)

p

E

D

CO

<0

S

p

c

CO

c

o

CO

2!

u

CD

ct

a

CO

•c

o

w ”

lu ro

< ™

LU CD

td

c

ro

©

©

>

o

©^

3

O

C

©

E

©

CD

CD

C

CD

E

TD

c

CD

C ©
£ °
o ©

~ CD

La

0> m

5 ®

-»-> _L_

3^

Z. re
c

CD >

2 "8)
3 3

re 2

C SZ

c ©
© TD
O C
CD _CD

F'

CD
c
o

©

c
o
© re)
fc 2
© t
©

©

©

>
td
CD

E

3

E

c o

£ I

CD C
© ©

> )=
ro re

-ro sz
= o

re w
2 re

w

re 3

CD

3

o
© w
-g ©

p

C- ro

©

©

©

3

re

-D

re

a.

E

o

o

TD

C

CD

CD

C

CD

C

Q-

E

CD

a

©

-*— *

CD

■a

o

E

E

o

o

o

CD ^
O -c-

ra ™
© _©
TO TD

re £

re ©

£ ^
o c
+; ©
© TD

> TD

td re
C CD
CD cO

© re
re g
© 0
"re 'i_
© ©
© o.

>- X
!_ ©

£ ©
© N
.re ro
•— ©
c >-
re o
•c ~
o ©

|i

c- re
O CD

(/)

■

o

©

>

o

w

©

CD

c

TO
©
i_

O
©
i —

©
o
c
CD
-C

c
©
td re

"re w

CD TD

.E _q
ro -c

.E ©
ro ©
^ cL

©

c

<:

o

>*

tr

©

Q.

O

©

CL

O

O

a

TD

c

CD

©

c

tc

CD

CL

©

.re

E

3

t

O

CL

Q.

O

©

3

©

3

CL

©

TD

C

_ro

©

CD

c

©

QC

©

TD

u

©

TD

C

©

CO

CD

c

E

o

>v

©

o

c

ro

_c

c

©

TD

C

©

©"
■

o

w

©

<

o

*-»

c

o

E

E

o

o

w

c

o

"+■>

o

<

*-»

c

©

E

©

o>

ro

c

©

re

TD
-g
- E

Is

© ^0

I!

o

c I —

re co

•1°

0 ©

re -ro
©

TD O
c

© CD
- C

re ~

= ©
td ©

§ "re
> ©
TD

c
.2

S ©

re fc.

CD ^
© ©
> 31

re l_

^8

re re

o 9

re m

cd E
re Id

€.3

ro ro

IS

cl £
2 £

© °
© ©

re 3

re o
> ©
o £

CL

2 E

© ro
© x

3 ©

©

©

£

©

©

-Q

O

o

ro

L_

H-

g
'c
©
o
CO

rD- >

C TD

t re
O 0

8:^

O ■ ==

0 o

?I

o c
E re
cl c

2 c

“O ^

0 o

2* re

82

E n

^ 2 .

2 8 |

5 CD 3

§ sz o

5 0 0

c re
o re

8 re
0 o
2 ro
re o

0 c

o. 2

| !

O

"re c

0 2

IS

as

© Q.

Sf

1 S

si

O

'■E O
.re c

3 o

rer'-F

Si

|2
E Q_

re ^
re 2

CD Ct

re 0

TD -C

Si

© -re
?re
ro sz
o

o ro
X 0

re Z

td re
re td
re 0

% re
'E re
o

re td

© ^
2 8

TD CD
© X
CD =

8 ^

1 -

E Cl
0

td re

2 ©
3 >-

o re
$ ©
<-S

^ E
cn a

w o

© CL
-C CL

I— O

© .
SZ ©
©

o 8

co .re

% ©
3 CL

O X
iz 0
© _
ro

IS

re To
F 2

f 2

ro >5
c ^

3 CD
W 3
© CT

L.

re

= -re
•2 ©
c >

© o

o. |

3 2

I?

c ro

re =
E 2
re ©
> ^
w

C

© O
t: cd
2 2
g- 3
E 2
O re
— ro
ro ~

I— 're
.. ro

re ,<—
'c o
© — *
o ©

CO

II

■B ■§

CD C

Z re

© ©

2 ro
> >

Q ‘fe.
ro ^

© 5

C 0

ro 3

c Q-

re ^
E o
_© ~o

Q-t

E o

2 o

c

©

E

©

©

i—

CO

ro

©

3

©

TD

©

CO

CD

C

CD

>

©

>

©

C

©

c

©

-Q

3

o

©

©

©

ro

2

©

ro

co

TD

c

ro

co

c

©

X

LU

c

o

re

3

Q.

W

O

CO

CD

c

©

ro

re

©

ro

co

TD

C

CD

O

o

c

©

Cl

O

©

-O

3

O

©

©

3

O

_©

g

sz

©

>

2

TD

CD

—

©

©

TD

C

3

o

ro

©

©

©

o

©

c

c

3

©

TD

C

_ro

©

co

c

ro

tr

>»

x:

"ro

©

I

©

TD

L-

CD

TD

C

ro

CO

co

c

E

o

>

©

>

+=*

CD

C

!=

©

<=■’

<

>*

TD

©

E

O

o

<

+=»

E

©

E

©

ro

CD

E

CD

©

TD

2

II

^ ro
© re

re |
ro E
o ©
° 3
52 ro
© ro
td re
c o

^ o
o

TD 0

2 Cl

CL O

©

TD ^

II

§ ra

w
©
l—

o

ro 0
2 5

= ro ©

ro

^ro
© re

TD 2

ro 2

o TD

L= ©

TD ©
3 O
CL O

3

©

3

CL

©

TD

I S

©

TD

2 cT

II

ro

2 8
o 'F
ro E

0 ©

si

© CD

1 8

^ o

g

TD 0

re o_
CL O

0 CD

8

TD CL
3 2
O TD

iro

© 2
o ro
ro E

o 5

CD 0
C

© •=
TD E

ro 2

O "TO
= ©
TD W
3 O
0- O

© CD

8

TD Q.

3 ro

I ^

^ 2

© 2
o re
ro E

o 2

CD 0
^ C
© -=
TD E

_ro 2
o td

L= 0

TD ©
3 O
CL O

© ^
TD CD

2 8
3 Q.
O ©
■> TD

"© CD
© 'E

O 2
CD CD

O E

° m

cd ro

f!

^ o

2

TD 0
2 cl
CL o

© re
3

TD 3

3 re-

CD ©

8 °

re o
ro x:
o 2

s a

sS

ro 2 ©
2 © ^
g ro

2 re 2

^ Q_ ^

CL O 2

© ©
■° c
TD ©

3 E

§s

© ro
o re
ro 0

o 2

Std

-8 2
_ro 2
o td

L= ©

TD ©
3 O
CL O

3

O

$

_©

CD

$

CD

i_

TD

©

©

ro

©

TD

©

OD

3

c

©

3

3

3

CL

O

c

©

TD

©

CD

©

E

ro

CO

© re

-re 3

TD 3

3 CL

o ©

8 °
re §
ro

o ro

ia

sS

C -TO
O

g

3

3

CL

©

$

ro

TD

c

ro

2-44 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Recreation and Visitor Services

(/> “

LU CO

< o*

LU 0)

O'

CO

w

®

>

E

>4=3

4->

re

0=

r

o

j/>

ra

o

0

c

CD

E

CD

05

CCS

e

ra

CD

>

cr

c

(D

E

X

E

CD

O

c

LU

X

c

CD

_CD

Q_

x

■c

o

X

0

TO

CJ

O

0

co

CD

co

CD

'c

3

x

o

X

Cl

O

c

o

CD

0

o

0

o

o

x

"3

o

M —

o

>4

x

_CD

‘cd

>

cd

X

0

3

c

c

o

o

0

x

0

CD

CD

c

cd

0

0

>

O

0

x

O

4-»

c

0

E

0

05

ro

e

re

X

C

CD

CD

C

X

X

o

>

x

O

CD

C

$

0

>

0

CD

C

X

E

CD

O

CD

c

CD

c

c

0

X

CD

c

X

_3

O

c

0

0

o

'c

CD

c

0

X

0

CD

-a

o

CD

c

o 5
a. b
o. 0
O 0

g-

■X 0

ro £
a> «
o 2
® 0

CD

c

CD

X
... O

c Q-
® %

b co

_

E 0

CD =>

.E 0

0

CL

o

o

o

X

c

CD

c

o

re

c

0

re

CL

O

!_

CL

CL

CD

0

CD

0

0

0

-O

c

CD

0

0

_3

CD

>

0

O

L_

3

o

0

0

0

O

5=

C

o

o

0

re

CD

CD

C3

cr

■

sz

05

X

0

■a

>

o

i —

cl

o

0

3

C

C

o

o

0

>

cr

c

0

£

X

E

CD

o

c

LU

-O

c

CD

CD

c

o

CD

0

a

c

0

X

0

CL

X

0

re

c

o

re

0

o

0

■_

X

0

-4—*

re

0

CD

0

i—

CD

0

X

O

0

o

0

>

■a

c

CD

0

-4-*

c
0
x
'0
0
■

Q

a

o

0

c

0

X

X

C

CD

0

0

O

c

0

X

0

CL

X

0

“CD

c

o

-4— <

CD

0

i_

O

0

0

■a

c

_CD

0

CD

C

CD

cr

>4

X

"CD

0

X

0

X

i__

CD

X

c

re

CO

CD

C

E

o

>

CD
0
i —

CD

i_

0

>

X

0

re

X

x

■c

o

<

o

-4-*

c

o

E

E

o

o

0

E

o

X

o

<

-4-*

c

0

E

re

o>

re

c

re

-o

0

3

0

3

CL

X

C

CD

X

0

0

X

0

X

X

3

O

0

0

'c

3

tc

o

X

X

o

0

0

0

o

c_>

<

0

CD

CD

0

3

L-

0

>

‘i—

0

0

l

0

X

0

X

o

CD

c

3

O

re

a

0

E

E

o

o

0

CD

CD

C

CD

0

0

3

0

0

a

x

0

>

0

X

CD

1

0

0

X

c

3

i

o

CD

0

0

0

O

0

c

c

3

_CD
O
0
\

X

c

CD

0

0

c

0

X

'3

CD

>4

c

3

O

o

^5

X

X

E

0

0

E

o

_0

0

0

1

CD

X

1

0

>

'1—

0

X

0

CD

CD

C

CD

0

X

c

_CD

0

05

E

CD

X

CD

0

X

0

X

1

CD

X

c

re

CO

CD

c

'E

o

>4

0

CD

CD

C

CD

>»
X
0
E
O
X
o
<
•4— <

E

0

E

0

o>

re

E

re

CD

C

X c

® o

CD ~
CD
C
CD

c 0
5 *

P

^ I

< D)-S

S x:

X 0
co "g

1— X O ii=

>,.9>
= 0

x
O c
0 CD

If

0" X

.03 E
.t; cd
c o

3 -
X CD

O g
Q- x
X 0

o

0 0)

0 X

03 X.
o X C

o 0 £

CD Q. 1

x

S 3 S

X

CD <

o .E _

CD CD Qi
O c CO
= CD 0

3

O

0 p 0

t 3 3
C3 O m

O $ >

0

CD

0

E

CD

CO

0

CD

X

0

CD

CD

C

CD

E

0

X

O

c

X

3

o

0 <
(6 i

0 ^
F CO

CD

C

CD

0

i_

O

0

0

X >4

?!

If

< O)-
^ X

cr 0
co "5

>4.^

= 0
® X

o c

0 CD

Ig

CD

_C

x<

??
X I
X CM

“ re
o x

I— X

0 9- —
.03 E ‘

•ti CD
C O
3 -

X CD
O E
Q- x
X 0

o c*=

0
0
0
o
o
CD
X
c
CD

0 „

0 _ — -
~ CD <C

o .E ^
re CD cr

E w

CD 0

E £
O

0 X ^
iz 3 3

3 O m

o $ >

o i

X

3

X

0

0

si

ss

ii

CD ^
^ C/)

l-s

3 CD

> P

n 13
cj 0

0 ro

CD c
CD CD

ra w
£ 0
-> X

0

0

si

II
0 >
CD £

03 0

3 ^
3 CD

5 2

CJ <3
0 re

CD C
CD OT

ra <33
™ 0
^ X

0

CD

0

E

CD

CO

id 0

“O 3
0 O

E I
— E
0 £
CD 0
0 >
0 E
3 o

> w
O o

05 g5
CD ~
= 0
5 X
^ 0

0
CD
05
X

J O

o ro

£ =3

x

C -J3
0 0

o O

0

co

x z

X C
3 «J
O X

*!

CD

0 O)

s-i

0 CD
X 0

0

X

X

3

O X
^ CM
0 CL

S s

CD ^
0 '
— X
0 0
S. OD

CD CD
X £

re E

■o-S

05 >

s 0

■E g

X -p

LU ,E

X
c
CD

0 c5

5 x

4

X 3

03 0
0 E
O X
O 0

X t
X 3
3 CO

o

; i5

0
CD

0

X

X

3

O

CD

CM

X

0 CD
CD ^

05 ^

E 0

= CD
0 CD

C

CD

E

>4

0 0

0

CD 05

0 0
X CD
I— CD

>
0
c
0

co . E

Rawlins RMP 2-45

Chapter 2-Recreation and Visitor Services Final EIS

£0 ~

LU ns

< ™

LU 0)

0

ct2

C

X O
3 0
O X
CT W

(0 0
0 X

o
_ c
0 x

o

0

o

CO

o

LO

CD
c

0
0
CD

1

ro

<C _0

X f
CO

£ ro

0 0
5 .E
2 E

0 n
o 2

2 %
C

0 O

s?

0 ro

Se

s §

^ _Q

^2
3
O

0
o
0
t 0

3 0

co :-e
. >
0 '-J=

8 ”
O 0
2 >

0 '33

1 §•
0 0

O

>l

"0

3

cr

0

2

c

0 0
C ro

0 3
c O
CT 0

o 2

0 .ii!

tT 0
0 C

£ E

0

1 -
E 0

x

2 ro
2 ct

o ro
>

0 0
0 x

O ^

E 2

Eo

o 0
E 2
_ 0
0 >_
0 0

O ~ -o
ro 0 0
O c ®
£ o 2

OJ 0 0

pi

^ “E O

o; E $

CO N™ ^

£ ® 5

X

3

CL

■7= 0

2 x

0
x
0

0
o

2-^0

0

E c

_ 2

2 re
ro 0
.E 2

E °
_ x
>■ c
2 0
c

0 _0

— ro
CO 0

■0
0
3
0
i_

0 g_
Sjj
?2
II

O >

E 2
- 0

jg *

> 0

-5 -o

X £

If

0

X

X

c

0

2 2 CD

8S5

ill

c 2 2
0 0 0
Q- C O

° E 2

0 c X
-Q X =3

-O c
2 ffi r

E O

i 2 i

> c -
0 0 0
0—0
E E 0
ro 0 o

0 c CL

o 2 .0
— Ex

0

3
-0 0
0 >
O 0

2 -c
0 2
0 o

0 ^

0 —
■x 0

1 s-
0 ®
0

> c
cl 2

3 C

0
o
1 —
3
O

0 0 0
dE2!

E Ec ro ’

0

CT "
c
X °
3 0

o x
.E '0

0 0
0 £

m ’©
0

0

o

CO

o

LO

c
o
0
0
i_

03

<C _0

X f
CO s*

?©

02 0
2 ro

0 E
CD 2
2 0

O 0

si

O E
0 0
■Q >>
-O J=

o ®
5 0

IT 0
0 c

£ E

X

C

0

CT)

.E o

03 *J

2 0
.E o
x 2
0 0
o 0
0 *-
t 0

3 0
0

>

o

>.

0

3

c r

> o

> 0

0 0

2 CT

ro 0

"CT X

0
O

LU L—

.E o

0 0

o

5 'o

ro ®

"CT

E 0

0

0 0
.® 2
> 0

1 §
S>2
I E

3^

0 .E

o

>L 0

> ^

0 ro
c 2

is .

— 2 ro

5 |

03

2 E

o

0

o O ro

0 5
o >
0 0
1= -o
CT E
CO 2

0

^ -CT

1 S.i

1“ C >
0 0 0

2 E 2

03 O

g. ro
CO-o

§ “
0 ro
0 2

■5 ®
c

g o

03

CD

CD —

0 .E

o

>, 0
ro g.

0

0 5
o >
0 0
t -o

CT C

CO ©

2 0
.E y

0 CT

F °
c 0

o ro

2 > -ct Q

1 |i

i_ j- >

000

2 E 2

o

5 o

Q. 0
Xi

ro 0
o

0 0
2 2
•5 0

'■4=3 c:

^ o

S)2

1 E

3^

0 .E
x 2
0 >
o =*
0 0
t x>
CT ro
CO 2

CT)

C

'0

3 0
X 2
0 3
CT) 0
0 0

0

E

c

o

0

CT)

X
? X

LU m C

> -g ro
>— c cl

ro 0 ro.

2 0 <

o

L= L*_

X o

-■g

S £

0 ro
0 “

2 >

o

>L

>■ 0
ro 2-

>

1 §
™ ©
CT) —

II

0 .E

x 2
ro §

o >
0 0
t x

3 CT

co 2

'0 ro
c 2

l.|

5 |

^ ro

1 E

1 —

f X co

.1 §.i

^ c >
0 0 0

2 E 2

DU

£0

>

X

o

ro

o

O

4->

E

0

E

0

CT)

ro

c

ro

c

o

0

o

3

X

0

0

0

3

>

X

O

X

c

0

>L

'c

3

2

o

X

CL

o

CT)

c

0

ro

'c

3

2

O

2

2

O

0

X

>

o

0

0

>

‘•M

u

Si

2

o

c

0

£

©

CT)

ro

E

ro

c

0

E

2

O

0

>

0

X

c

0

2

O

0

0

c

CT)

0

0

X

X

c

0

< t. )

c

o

2

3

O

0

■_

X

c

0

0

o

2

0

CT)

c

0

o

'c

3

E

E

o

O

0

O)

0

c

0

E

0

x

c

2

0

CD

c

0

X

0

X

u_

0

X

c

0

CO

2

c

E

o

>

0

0

E

o

<

X

co

>

X

O

0

0
c
0
X

c

0

X

c

0

0~

1

o

0

0

L_

c

0 CT)

E -

3 ®
^ 0

CM

2

x

0

0

c

0

X

X

c

0

0

0

o

c

0

X

0

2

X

0

>

X

O

x

c

0

"0

c

o

0

0

L_

o

0

L4—

o

0

L_

0

>

X

0

0

o

c

0

X

c

0

L_

o

c

'0

U-*

c

'0

E

o

E

£

o

o

w

E

o

+=>

o

<

4U

E

0

E

ct>

CT)

re

E

ro

0

x

c

2

0

CD

c

0

X

>L

X

"0

0

X

0

X

u_

0

X

c

0

CO

CT)

C

0

0

E

o

0

<

X

CO

>

X

o

0

X

0

E

o

o

<

-4-*

E

0

E

0

CT)

ro

E

ro

LU

c o

0 3
X X
$ 0

0 2
0 o
£ E
0 o

> 2

§5

ll

0X

0 0
O 2

i: X
0

c w
o o

0 2

0 ®
2 CT)
O CT

8 s

E CO
O c

0 2

0

E

re 0 cd

ct t=

CD .

2 0
2 2

2

0

0

ro 3;
x ro
© ro
0 E

ct -5;

$ 0
0 2

0

1

2
o

X

ro£

> CT
0 0
0 2

t: X

> 0
c CO

ro o

'0 2
0 0

2 CT
O E
8?

EJ2
ro 0 cd

CT 2 3
O 2 CT

E S 0

2 2 l1

2-46 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Recreation and Visitor Services

® Q_

■£ T3
TO O

c w

v- o

0) Q_

5 °
< £

C/>

c

'(5

+->

c

3

o

§

E

©

_©

cd

O

O

c

©

E

©

O)

cd

c

cd

TO

©

TO

O

O

©

w

03

w

©

c

3

■c

o

ex

Q.

O

c

o

TO

©

o

©

o

o

=3

O

M—

O

>4

©

©

>

4-»

o

©

S

O

+-»

c

©

£

©

O)

03

C

cd

CD

E

CL

E

CO

o

cf)

c

03

C

C

3

x:

03

C

JO

O

C

W

©

x

C/3

"O

©

CL

O

©

>

©

TO

C

3

C

©

©

CO

w

©

'c

3

t

o

cx

CX

O

c

o

ro J
© ©
£- ©
o ©

© 3

O JO
C "4=

ro ro

JO CL

s £

o £

s|

0 o

C/) “Q

2 c
. ro

lg>

■4— » ^

1 I
^ >

©

c

©

JO

TO

c

CO

©

©

c

3

to

o

CL

CL

o

ro

c

0

ro

©

b

©

1

M —

o

©

—

©

>

TO

ro

©

o

c

CO

JO

c

©

o

c

'ro

c

'ro

©

CL

o

o

o

TO

c

CO

c

o

00

c

TO

o

o

o

w

TO

c

ro

©

03

c

ro

X

>

x:

"to

©

X

©

TO

ro

TO

c

03

CO

03

c

E

o

>

©

©

>

’■S

CO

E

©

<

o

*■<

c

o

E

E

o

o

©

c

o

-M

o

<

E

©

E

©

O)

cd

E

©

©

©

C

"©

■g

'3

03

03

C

©

©

©

CO

o

©

©

©

3

O

■_

©

g

jr

©

>

©

JO

ro

©

©

TO

C

3

1—

O

CO

©

©

©

o

©

c

c

3

o

To

£

©

©

JO

O

TO

©

03

C

TO

JO

O

c

©

©

0

1

3

O

©

©

■

o

©

o

L_

CL

o

£

©

w

©

©

o

©

c

©

©

'E

3

to

o

CL

CL

O

c

.0

’■4— »
©
©
1—
O
©

©

>

o

'

cl

E

©

TO

C

_ro

©

03

c

ro

or

>»

ji

To

©

X

©

TO

i

ro

TO

c

©

CO

03

c

£

o

JO

©

E

O

+■*

o

<

E

©

E

©

03

©

E

ro

CM

TO ?

P o

03 ~

J5 ©

£ 03
© 1-
C O
© d)

©

■° & cx

PI

I J ©

< 03 .jj>

c

a: cd 3
OT! 1
I a

CL O

©

TO ™

03 o

03 ~

o ro

£ 03
ro -

o CD

03 V

cx
ro

© “■
jo >

^T6

o 3
O CO" " '
$ X ©
<03 —

S J= C

5 2 a

t— CL O

©

©

si

11

” 6
|S

3 ro
> o

TO

©

© ro
03 c
© 03

w

©

TO

w

©

oi

©
ro

©
w
3

>

X
O
© ro

03 c

© 03

£ w
O d)
^ "O

©

ro

©

E

ro

W

o |

TO 3
© O

E ®

— g

© J3

ro cd
© >
W

3 O

> w

< TO

5 ro

O p

©

03

03 c

ro • =

£ «
x

^ ©

c

TO .P

ro S
— 3
o .9-
S ©
c O
03 CO
CL 7

03 £
JO O

T) S
$ °>

d3 1/5

E ro
ro S
© w
-e ro

I— 03

w

©

©

ro

©

~ TO
W ©
5, 03

03 ro
TO O
c CD

ro E

1 ^
X, ©

03 >

0 w

.2 S

x

LD .9

©

JO

3

0

ro o
— 3
O Q.

O ©

c O
03 CO
CL -7 .

JO O
2 £

3= I*

ro w
2 ro

ro S

© ©
-e ro

I— 03

©

©

w

ro

©

TO
© ©
5, 03
03 ro
TO O

ro E

03 >

.9 ©

.9 ro
x ~
LU .9

TO

c

ro

o

o

©
c >
© ©

o ro

2 £

^ i5
ro ©
ro

03

c

JO

1

3

W

To

©
ro 2

© w
jt ro

I— 03

03 CO
£ 03

ro jr

1 >

© O

“B ro

03

C >

E %
© >-
03.9
ro to

I?

c

©

CL

o

©

JO

* 2
"O E
ro S

— JO

2 ro

jo ro

3 o
X o

©

JO

2

3

o

TO
©

©
o
o

p _
-Q c
"O P
~5
o

2 £

ro 2

— JO

g ro
5 ro
o o
X o

2

JO

ro

ro

o TO

o ©
—■ 3

£ 2

2 3

cx

ro

CO

c

©

Q.

s ^

JP C

T3 ©

12
$ ®

■o E
ro S

— JO

g ro
5 ro
3 o
X o

Rawlins RMP 2-47

Chapter 2-Recreation and Visitor Services

2-48 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Recreation and Visitor Services

(0 -

111 0

< CM

LU <D

c

TD O

03 .0
— 3

o .9-

£ 0

c O
03 c/5
CL -7

o ^

8 $

$ !>

2 w

2 TO

03 TO

TO c/)
£ TO
I— CO

TO
XD

TD
3
O
$

C/3
03
If)

03
03

2. CD)
CO 03
TD TO

TO E

CO >

.E 3
TO §

UJ ."e

TD

TO

C

"O o

TO XD
TO _9
— TO

o .9-

O 00

c O

TO 05

o *-

TO 2
XD TO

IE ~
8 5
$ g>

is

03 .TO

TO 03
-TO 03
I— CO

0

-Q

=3

O

£

03

0

0

TO

0

— TD
TO a)
TO 03
CO 03
TD ^

TO E

CO >
% 03

.2 o

X -S
LU .E

0

TO

0

E

TO

C/D

TD CO

c c

TO X3

O

O

-- 0
c >
TO 0
9 - c

O 0

2-S

8 *
M5
to 8

0 _ro

TO 0
;TO 03
I — CO

TO

TD

TO 03

2 TO
CD • J3

3 1
TO o

0 ro

.X TO
C >
TO Q.

TO i-

03 TO

TO TD

1 =
E 0

c

TO

CL

-TO c
"O 03

0 =
TD E

8 to

— XD

-E TO

Zi TO
DD CD
CL O

-TO

ro

$

O TO

£ ^
0

TO >
O !>

TO^
-Q C
TD 03

3

o

$ TO

■81
8 TO

- XD

•E TO

3 TO
TO TO
CL ©

TO

-Q

3

O

* CT

0

to

-Q

TO

03

O TD
O TO
_ 3

E 52

2 to

Q.

c

TO

CL

-Q C
"O 03

0 =
■a E
8 to

— X 3
E TO
3 TO
3 E
CL O

TD

0

0

3 ^
TO 0

0 O

-to 9-
P3
o co

M

TD CD

8 E

o

0

If

CL E

03

0

TO
TD CD

E E

CD

if

CL E

c

03 .

TO- 0
O 0
0 O
.a CL

_ TO
12 3

3

C 0

*2

TD CD

8 J

CD 2

If

CL E

u; _cd

1 =
§■ ®
0 .E
3

TD 33
3 °-
O 0

5 £

TO '*r

td O

9 c

_0 o

~ 2
XD 0
TO Q-
CL O

TD

C TO
_0 _0

2 TO
-q 03 CD

0 .E 3

to -o 52

TO 3 3
O o CL
0 E CD
-Q - XD

^ i2 ^

111

0 TO 0

■TO .TO ro
TO -TO $
-2 CD %

• E £ £

S = £

X ® £

0

_c

C/3

o

5

i5

c

TD

0

c

Cl

CD

O

0)

_g

XD

3

TD

=3

=3

CL

o

0

£

_c

C/3

H —

TD

o

c

c

-0

o

g

0

XD

0

3

CL

X

o

g

I-

TD

C

0

i_

o

£

0

0

0

X

TD

0

2

o

o

0

0

03

0

0

3

3

■e

o

CL

CL

o

c

o

CD

0

V-

O

0

o

o

2

3

o

4 —

o

>>

3

0

TO '£
O -X
*•' 0
0 —)
TO) 0
CC3 0
TO C
ro 3
:> co

0

0

>

'4-4

O

0

Id

O

4-*

c

0

E

0

O)

ra

c

CD

CM

TO

-Q

0

i2

C

0

■g

'0

0

i_

3

o

o

0

0

0

3

TO

CL

CO

C

0

X

0

13

C

0

CO

c

0

TO

0

JZ

0

cd

0

c

o

0

0

L.

o

0

i_

TD

0

0

0

0

0

0

C

TD

0

CD

0

y=

0

0

CL

o

o

CD

TD

C

0

c

o

0

c

0

0

0

3

TD

C

0

0

0

_3

0

>

0

O

i_

3

O

0

0

o

x=

4=

c

o

o

0

CO

0

c

0

0

TD

c

0

0

CO

c

0

X

>*

.c

3

0

x

0

TD

i_

0

TD

C

0

CO

co

c

E

o

>4

0

0

4_

0

0

0

-X

0

_J

0

c

3

X

TO

E

0

1

ro

_i

0

x:

0

o

c

0

x:

c

0

TD

C

0

0~

i—

o

4—*

0

0

1—

g"

3

g

3

<

O

44

c

o

E

E

o

o

w

c

o

a

<

4-4

c

0

E

0

O)

ro

c

0

0

0

g

0

3

CO

CO

g

0

0

TD

C

3

O

i —

CO

CL

E

0

CD

TO

0

X

0

-X

0

o

3

4_

0

c

o

CD

0

X

0

TO

c

3

tr

o

CL

CL

o

c

0

0

0

&

CD

0

1

0

>

O

i—

CL

E

0

3

tJ

0

0

4_

3

C

0

TD

C

i5

0

3

0

3

X

0

0

TO

0

TD

C

0

E

0

TD

0

0

C

0

E

CL

o

0

>

0

TD

C

o

3

0

\

CD

0

0

.TO

C

3

-e

o

CL

CL

o

0

i_

3

0

3

0

l—

3

X

0

0

4—*

3

O

i—

TO

g

3

0

>

.TO

XD

0

4-

0

0

TD

C

3

0

0

0

0

CD

0

C

c

3

E

JD

O

0

X

0

TD

C

i5

0

co

c

0

X

>,

x:

3

0

X

0

TD

0

TD

C

0

CO

co

g

E

o

>-

0

0

4_

0

0

0

x:

0

_i

0

g

3

x

E

E

0

1

0

_j

0

x:

0

co

0

c

0

Rawlins RMP

Chapter 2-Recreation and Visitor Services Final EIS

111 TO

o

I—

< CM

111 d)

>*

n

0

c

o

o

<

+4

c

<D

E

0

D)

TO

E

ro

CD

■g
o >
o o
Q-

C- o

< TC
S CD

* R

CM

CL

CD

CO

C/D CD

.E E

£ CD
CL JC

0 ^

I!

to ^

—i CD
0 £
-E O
I— CD

7C 0
0 0
ro :-e

v C

5 g.

CD CL

§ O

>> 0
:= C
TO O
3

O' CD

A £

cd 9

Z £

0
■g
o >
o o

Q.

C- O

2 CD

DC £?

CO ? -s

CD

CM

Q.

CD

T3 0
0 0

0 CD

.E E

£ 0

CL -Q

0 ;g

I!

CD ^
— > 0
0 £

-C O
I— CD

V t

£ R

0 cl
$ o

>» to
= c
0 o

3 *=
O' TO

A 2

W CD

c n
0

si

e ®

z o

~ 0
” 6
^ 0

S 2

CJ 0

CD CD
CD C
CD g>

m 0
£ 0
.> TD

0

0

o3

?<s

II

0 £

CD w

« -o

-* 0

5 2

rS 73

U 0

<D 0
CD C
CD g>

0 z
£ 0
^ TD

o «
CD ©

■O 3
0 O

E 5

— g
0 Z
0 0

0 >

0 E

3 O

Z 13

5 ro

o o

CD q)
CD E
0 ~
9 9

£ X
«> 0

c

■a .o

0 JD
— 3

o .9-

O 00

c O

CD CO

0.-7

o ^

0 9

JD CD
T3 £

§'*

5 g>

s w

£ 0
0 _0
0 0
-C 0
I— CD

0

JC

Z

3

o

$

0

0

0

0

0

— 03
0 0
CD CD
CD CD
"O c

ro E

'°-5

CD >

£ M

£ 0
X

HI .E

c

-O .o
0 to

— 3

o .9-

O 00

c O
0 CO

CL —7

o
0
JC

]3
3
O

c

0

JC

1

CD

c

'0

0

0 .0

0 0
-C 0
I— CD

0

_Q

3

O

$

0

0

0

0

0

— 03
0 0
S. o)

CD to

■a 9
0 E

CD >

£ «
.2 0
x z
LU .E

0

CO

03
c
0

o

o

0

c >

0 0

&s

5-E

CD

C

Z

0 0

9 CD
TO -73

3
co

CD

0 W
£ 0

0 0

0 0
JC 0
I— CT>

O
0
0

IS

8,.te

0 03

1 c

E 0

_0

0

<;

o 0
0 z

-Q c

TD 0

85

0 •=
■0 E

0 jE

— JC

•E 0
Z 0
3 9

CL O

0

O 03
O 0
3

P 0

0

JC

3

O

^ C
. 0
> —

2 E

0 ■=

■0 E
0 u

— JC
o ro

JC 0
0 9
CL o

0

JC

0

0

O TC

o 0
— 3
P 0

0

CO

c

0

CL

-P c

"O 0

0
■0

0 a?

.0 E

Z 0

3 0

CL O

-0

0

0

-§ TO
0 V)

0 o

JC cl
_ 0
E =6

0

0 £
TC 0

II

o £

1|

cl E

-E -o

0

0

0
-*— <
"D TO

«= E

c

0

o ro
o 0

0 o
^ 0
?E

O 0

0 &
JJ 0

II

o £

CL E

"O ^

E ®

0 0

o w "0

£ CD 0

r- C 3

0 Z £

CL 3 3
O O CL

0 E 0

jc ' . JC
TC £ p

111
0 0 0
£ £ 0
P TC $

-£ 0 sj

.9 £ -0

1

CL £ ^

TC

C 0
_0 _0

£ 0 z

■Q CD CD

0 .E 9
0 -0 £
£00

o o Q-

0 E 0

JC _ -Q
^ ^

111
0 0 0
£ .£,0
9 T3 §
£ ® 0
.9 £ -0
£ 3 £

1 £ ^

0

0

0

E

0

co

0

-C

CO

0

_0

c

"D

0

c

0.

m

0

0

_g

JC

Z

-a

3

3

CL

0

0

$

x:

CO

M—

-a

O

c

c

_TO

0

g

0

JC

0

3

CL

CL

O

c/>

0

z

CO

c

Q

z

ro

0

!=,

a

0

QC

i_

O

t

0

0

0

K

C

0
+=<
0
h-

T3

C

TO

©

_l

1

<

2
K
CO

D)

C

!E

0

c/>

c

5

ro

o'

£

ro

o

<3

4-»

c

0

E

0

S)

ro

c

0

o

0

c

0

■g

’0

0

o

£

0

0

0

DC

c

o

0

z

■0

c

0

0

-X

0

_l

E

DC

"0

0

0

o

o

0

0

0

0

0

c

0

z

o

Q.

CL

O

c

o

0

0

5—

o

0

o

o

z

3

O

4—

o

>>

Z

0

'0

>

0

-O

0

3

C

c

o

o

0

1—

3

0

s s

S {g
© —
cd g

c o

0

0

_>

Ih

o

0

5*

O

*4

c

0

E

0

s>

ro

©

ro

0

JC

0

0

0

0

3

0

a.

Z

E

CD

c

0

X

0

z

c

0

0~

0

_3

0

>

0
0

1

o

o

2

3

O

T3

0

£

0

0
-I— *
0
$

0

T3

_3

O

£

0

£

0

0

0

O

C

0

J3

C

0

0
0
\ —
0
C

■O

0

o

0

y=

0

0

Q.

O

o

o

■0

c

0

c

o

0

c

0

0

0

3

■o

c

0

0

0

JC

0

>

0

o

3

o

0

0

0

0

c

o

o

0

CD

0

c

0

0

-0

c

_0

0

CD

c

0

DC

>N

"CD

0

X

0

T3

1

0

TD

C

0

CO

CD

c

E

o

>

0

0

E

o

0

0

0

l_

CD

<

cr

CO

CD

c

0

DC

0

o

c

0

-C

c

0

-0

c

0

0'

I—

o

0

0

c"

'0

c

'0

<

o

*■<

c

o

E

E

o

o

0

c

o

o

<

*■<

c

0

E

0

a>

ro

c

ro

CM

JC

0

0

0

1

o

TD

C

0

0

a

0

0

0

TD

C

0

0

0

0

o

o

0

0

>

o

Q.

E

o

£

0

0

0

X

c

o

0

c

o

o

3

i_

0

c

o

o

0

DC

2-50 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Recreation and Visitor Services

ill ro

< CM

Lii <D

0

CD

0

C

3

c

3

E

o

CD

0

c n
0
'•*—>
3

3

3
o
0
0
O
c n
CD

CD

CD

0

i-_

O

£

0

CD

0

C

0

CL

0

0

0

T3

C

ro

0

CD

■0

0

CD

c

'n

0

L.

01

-X

o

o

oo

0

>

■0

0

CD

O

o

0

0

0

0

O

o

£

0

CD

0

tr

c

o

0

cn

0

0

o

0

o

3

0

>

0

-Q

0

u

CD

0

-0

C

0

o

iz

0

cn

cn

0

o

0

c

c

0

_0

o

0

cc

cn

-0

c

_cd

0

0

c

0

oc

>.

0

"0

0

1

cn

•0

i

0

■0

c

0

CO

0

c

E

o

0

0

-t— >

0

0

E

CD

0

0

0

<

QC

CO

0

c

0

w

0

oc

0

0

0

c

0

0

0

cn

C

O

+-»

o

<

c

0

E

0

0

re

c

re

o 0
~ c
■0 o

0 -4=
0 0
0 0

O 0-
0 I —

0

0

0
TO .2
3 ^

CN

0

0

5 0 0

< 0

'c

3
0
O
0

_ 0

0 o

DC 0

co 0

2 3

O CD
~ C
0 O
0 *3
0 0
0 0

O L

0 CD

CN

0

0

DC 0

CO 2

i§

c

3
0
O
0
0
0 o

0

0

si

2^

II

0 >
0 5

0 0

S|

5 2

3> 0

0 0

0 C
CD go

m CD

4? 0
.> 0

0

0

sl

s%

cn
0
0
o

L.

0
0

cd Td

21 c
CD go

m 3
2 0
«> 0

n cd
2 0
0 3
0 O

E ®

— o
0 3
0 0
0 >
0

3 O

> OT
3 ^

5 ro
o o

0 £>
0 ~

2 w
2 ><
«> 0

c

0 .2

0 JD

— 3

o .9-
O 0

c O

0 co

0-7

o ^

<D £
_Q CD

0 £

0 w

E CD
0 _0

0 0
0 0
I— 0

3

o

$

0

0

0

0

0

— 0
0 0
2- CD
CD CD

0 £
0 E

0 >
2 0

.2 0
x -t
LU .2

c

0 .2

0 .CD
— 3

o .9-
o 0
c O

2 co
o. 7
o ^

0 m
_q 0

0 £

S'5
$ !>
E CD
0 0

0 0
0 0
1— 0

0

0

0

0

0 .
3 "o
0 0
CD CD
CD CD
0 £

0 E

0 >
= 0

.2 0

0

c

0

o

o

~ 0
c >
® 0

0 £
3 S'
O

0

c

0 OT
E 0
0 .9
0 0

0 CD
I— 0

0

C

0

0

CD 0
2 CD
0 ro

i|

0 o

o ro
Z, 0
c >

E %
0 *-
00 «
0 0

i?

cn

0

O CD

0 E

0 t
0 >
o :>

0 £
-O c
0 0

* £

0 E

0 2
— 0

2 2

0 0

3 2
CL 2

0

0

0

3

o

0

0

0

0

o 0
o 0

— 3

E E

2 3
it CL

0

0

0

3

O

cn

0

0
0 §

0

0 ~
0 >
o <S

£ £
-Q c

TO 0

8 2
£ ®

0 E

0 ®
— 0
.9 0

0 0
3 o
0. 2

0

0

0

0

o 0
o 0

3

E E

E 3

it 0

c

0

0

-Q c

TO 0

0

3
O

* £

0 E

0 ®
— 0
.2 0
0 0

3 2
CL O

0

0

w

o

o

0

cn

0 O

£ %
3^
o 0

*1
0 0

§!
o E

i|

CL E

0 CD

cn

0

0
3

O w

« S

0 0

S J

o E

1.1

CL E

0 .
o ro

o CD
0 O

0 2

3^

O CD

0

1

0

H

0 •

c w

_CD JD

2 CD 3

"Q Q) CD

0 .2 3

CD 0 E
o 3 3
O O Cl

0 2 0
0 _ 0
0 2 0

111
cn cn cn
■o -3 0
2 0 5
-2 0 %

.2 E 0
ft 2^

0

C 0
_0 ^0

2 0 3

-q O) CD

0 .2 5
CD 0 E
o 3 3
O o Q-

020
0 „ 0

0 2 0

o ® o
$ E $

c n cn cn
2 -S3
2 0 §

2 CD g

.2 E 0
0 3 2

ft 2^

t JD

o 2

0 .2
0
0 0
3 CL
o 0

5 2

CD n—

0 o

2 c
_0 o

2 0
0 0
co 0
ft o

K

W

C

«

c

□

o

>,

0)

L.

IE

to

_CD

re

o

O

4-1

c

0

£

0

DO

re

c

re

c

3

o

>1

0

CO

0

0

0

'c

3
0
O
0
0
o
c
o
"•+— *
0
0
l_

o

0

o

o

0

3

O

M—

o

>1

0

>

3

0

c

0

>i

0

2

’0

>

0

0

0

3

c

c

o

o

3

0

c

UJ

0

0

>

0

o

0

0

O

*—

c

0

E

0

DO

re

c

re

CN

2

0

0

0

0

3

3

c

0

-4— <
0
0

1

O

E

0

0

0

&—

0

0

0

3

0

c

0

do

c

c

3

CD

C

'0

E

0

o

cn

c

3

_3

O

c

0

0

o

0

0

0

o

"c

0

c

0

0

c

0

0

0'
0
L— ‘

3

3

0

o

0

0

o

3

c

o

0

0

o

0

o

>1

0

o

c

0

0

c

0

0

0

1—

0

c

0

0

to

tt

0

0

0

o

o

o

0

c

0

c

o

0

c

3

i—

o

o

o

0

0

0

3

0

c

0

0

0

_3

0

>

0

0

1

3

O

0

0

O

0

0

o

i+^

c

o

0

0

DO

0

c

0

Rawlins RMP 2-51

Chapter 2-Recreation and Visitor Services

2-52 Rawlins RMP

SOCIOECONOMICS

</>

o

E

o

c

o

o

(1)

o

o

o

<0

CN

L.

0)

Q.

TO

•c

O

CO

Uj

TO

.C

£

_co

0

o

0

■*->

c

03

0

05

CO

c

(0

<

CL

CL

QC

0

-C

0

T3

c

_co

"O

CD

1

CD

-t — t
0
'c

E

■o

CO

QQ
c
o
c n
0
o

i—

3

o

co

0

>>

CD

L_

0

c

0

"co

c

.o

ro

c

Q.

o

0

>

0

"O

O

0

0

"c

3

t

O

Q.

Q.

O

0

■g

>

o

CD

c

'n

CO

1

CD

CD

^CD

>

CD

i

0

C

0

0

0

o

i<

0 CL
0 Q_

Q. ^

o a:

0 0

0 £

■o C

o

•+— *

0 §
0

0

” c
0

c

3

-e

o "°

0 0
0 0
■g c

IS

01 0

■D

0 8
3 i_‘
O ®
c o

■“ CO
CO CO
-£ JZ

u

0

0 ro
0 >-
0 5

0 ^
O =3
O O

CL 0
> 0
> o

f

2 g

§1

-S2 o
o 0
0 _
"O 0
CD O
C CO

It
_
.a 0

0 o,

0 ~

c c

3 O

II

8 “■

° o

CO Q-
C *J-

o c

CD £

2 I

"O o

£ Q.

0 E

0 0
O -
O CD

Z .£

O 0

^8

:■= -c

■S CD
.55 c
> to
g _3

It

E «

0 C

a o

® I

c 5

E 0

0 -Q

1 ^
o m

0 4-

o

0 0

3 O
±Z 0
3 CL

° E

0 ~

£ .55
c c

0 B

o

3 Q-
w 0
s 8

0 ’3
0 0
■E >

c ‘t 0
3 ° 0
1C 0
° C =
Q. O
Cl

o 2

0 0

;g ;g 'o

(0

0

>

‘■p

o

0

n

O

•*->

c

0

E

0

03

CO

c

CO

c

0

0

'0

c

o

o

0

0

0

3

0

E

o

0

3

O

0

■g

>

o

Q.

O

C

0

E

c

L_

0

>

o

CD

0

O

o

~o

c

0

0

a.

3

O

i_

CD

>>

■4—*

'c

3

<

Q.

CL

QC

0

0

0

E

o

c

o

o

0

0

c

o

"-I— »
0
c

T3

c

0

"co

c

g

CD

0

0

0 >
> o

-t-i 1-

0 Q.

0 £

t*

Q C
'0
O 0
^ 8

0

o

o

0

"O

c

0

"co

g

CD

o

o

o

0

g"

E

o

c

o

o

0

"co

3

-*— *

3

O

0

O

E

o

i_

Q.

■o

c

0

c

0

c

0

CO

0

>

*->

ro

c

L=

0

<

<

o

*->

c

o

E

E

o

o

co

E

O

"■P

u

<

<*=»

E

0

E

©

03

CO

c

CO

0

>

*3

0

C

u

©

>,

JD

CO

E

O

o

<

>s=3

C

0

E

0

03

0

C

0

Rawlins RMP 2-53

CO

u]

"<5

c

iC

to

I

co

4

a

(O

■c

o

2-54 Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

Q.

ns

•c

o

CO

UJ

"<5

c

£

0

O

UJ

o

CD

CO

o

Cl

8

CL

CD

CO

O

-c

CO

c

0

CD

3

1

CD

CD

O

c

■fc

o

a

S

■Q

C

CD

CD

O

C

CD

CD

CD

■C

CO

<D

"O

"o

C

csj

csj

X

"6

c

CD

a

CL

co

<o

(D

O

s

a

c

o

CD

C

.05

CO

CD >

■o O

O a>

Uj -Q

0 co

^ 0

-CO --G

-J c

ca ^

cd Id

(D

<0 £
n .£

C

CD ^

E £

c CD

1 5

0 g

o
o

2
CD

0

0

"i

CL

o

Q.

Q.

CD

CD

(D

CO

O

UJ

o

<

CD

1—

©

>

O

"5

o

O

*■>

c

©

£

CD

05

CD

C

CD

CSJ

c\|

X

■s

c

CD
cl ■*-

a JS

c

3

■e

o

CL

CL

O

CD

■g

>

o

L-

CL

TD

C

CD

CD

U

c

CD

g

'c

05

CO

co

CD

_3

CD

>

CD

O

i-_

3

O

CO

CD

0

3

O"

'c

3

4—

o

>,

05

0

0

_C

■*-*

o

0

4-*

o

£

co

U

UJ

O

<

CD

0)

>

O

©

>

*3

O

CD

n

O

c

as

©

05

CD

C

CD

_0

_Q

CD

O

"5.

Q.

0

co

0

co~

TD

C

0

0

05

C

0

cr

> ■.
-C

Id

0

X

If)

td

0

“O
c
0
-*— <

c o

05

C

E

o

>*

0

0

E

o

</)

O

1X1

O

<

c

0

o

Q.

■o

c

0

c

0

3

o

0

o

c

0

sz

c

0

■O

c

0

0

1—

o

4 — I
0

CO

o

UJ

o

<

CD

1=

©

>

o

CO

©

>

*3

CD

c

©

<

<

O

E

o

E

E

o

o

co

c

©

o

<

c

©

E

©

05

CD

C

0

0

•O

c

_0

0

05

c

0

X

>

-C

-I — 1
0
0
X

0

•o

cd

TD

c

0

CO

05

C

o

>

0
x:
•*— •

0

0

E

0

O

1X1

O

<

0

05

0

c

0

O

UJ

o

<

it

3

ffi

o

E

o

o

_0

ro

o

O

4-<

c

0

E

0

O)

ro

c

0

0

0

"i_

Q.

0

1

CL

Q.

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

L

0

£

o

c

3

■c

o

CL

CL

o

0

■g

>

0

1

Cl

"O

c

0

0'

o

c

0

g

’c

05

If)

g
o
0
1 c
0
£
0
0

0

1

CL

0"

0

_3

0

>

0

O

1 —

3

0
0
0

1

"(D

g

'o>

o

o

c

o

0

0

Q-

4—

o

>*

c

05

0

o

0

0

1

CL

0

0

>

<3

O

0

S

o

4-4

c

0

E

0

05

0

C

0

0

o

c

0

g

'c

05

0

"0

g

i—

g

0

1c

0
-C
-* — ■

o

0

0

1

CL

"O

c

0

0

0

0

0

■O

0

0

CL

0

■g

>

o

If)

0

>

0

c

fc.

0

4=4>

<

<

o

4— '

E

O

E

E

o

a

C/5

C

o

o

<

*4

c

0

E

0

05

0

C

0

0

0

"i—

Q.

0

1

Q.

CL

0

■0

c

0

o

tfc

0

0

0

L_

0

>

-O

0

c

0

o

CL

0

c

E

0

0

U

g

0

■o

0

E

0

X5

g

3

o

a

0

0
>
-t— '

Cl

3

1

0

^O

■0

c

0

05

c

0

^ 0
8 o

0

t
3
0 0

■o S

© ^
0 i:

8. ©

Q- .E
>,.E
§ £

■o

0

"o.

CL

0

0 JD

0 ^
3

0
0
0

V C

^ o

-Q 'f=
0
0

0 ~

O E

Rawlins RMP 2-55

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

to

uj

"to

c

£

Q

to

t\l

L.

0)

Q.

to

■c

o

XJ

(/)

c

o

5

o

<

c

0

E

0)

O)

0

c

0

c 8
O -Q

is

O) O
CD ^

-81
o ro

LLI -q — i
O 0 Z
< ro z
K= c

CD

_ c

E ro

)r 0

O S 0

E o

0

O 2 0

0 =3 £

H I E

0

-Q

3

O

■o

c

CD

t5 =!
0 z
ro Z

E C

E 03
0 ro
0 "o
_o 0

2 8*
§ 8
£ E

CNJ

CL

TO

0

0

1—

o

0

§ 1

CD jP

C- TO
C 0
O

3= 0

0 _Q

0)2

0 E
0 §
-O 5

0 ®
Q. -

0 to

|I

3 £

1 5

5! -S'

Z CO
!J= CD
0

CD ro
o 05
E 1
O 0
0 o

£ O

CD E

- ^

-Q

0 2
T3 '5
0 0
E 0

11
0 o

*5 0

Z. <D

>

If
0 <-
0).!2
0 T3

I?

E 0

o

0

0

3 E
0 O
O

CL 0

X E
0 t
4 — O

o ll

0

0

0
0
0
CD tJ3

2 5

o c 0

5

0

all

0

>

c '»

° 0
0 ~
0 2

~ CD

> _Q

o -o

O 0

<r 0

^ r-r

CD X C

3 2

CD O
C §

■y 0

3 <D
2 0
_ _ 0 CD

O q .T3 2 T3

co ro

0 CD

E C

0 33

2 .0

O 0

Q.W 3 X

c

0

Q.

O

0

-Q

Z.S

7 0

^ 0
0= CD
3 —

3T 0

CD TO

o 01
E 1
o 0

0

0 0
CL >
O 0

ll

2 •—
3 £

| i

-I

7 0

0

5t= 0

CD E

X3

3 2
0 £
03

® 0
E CD
CD - —

il

* §
i -s

-X o

3T 0

QQ 0
O 05
E 1
O 0
0 'o

c

E 1
0 i-

CD 2
0 03

|?

0

0

3 0
0 O
O -p
Q_ 0

X E
0 t

4- O

O U-

0

o

0

t

c 3
03 W

0 cc

Li-

25 O

0 CO

E ^
0 ■£

X3

0 4-

c o

0 *-

CL 1
co~

r= 0

1 ^
i> 0

0 2

2 o

C O

0 o

—I 0

1 oT
0 «
C —
O 0
3= 3
0 0

O 8

8-s.
0 0
_ o

0 X
4- 0
0

1 s

0 E

II

0 ^

8 0

2 03

2 0 o o o

2 o

0 2

01 0
~ o
c £

E 8
0 o

CD0=

0 0

S 0
ro Q-

S O

0

0

0
c
0
-O

1

3

0

03

0

O

to 2

3 8

0 E

0 03

0 2

«■

CD J—

03

0

3

CD 0

2 3

03 Q.

— 0
-i5

CD
“O

0 2

— J3
2 £
S 0

3 L3

Q. 2

E =

3

0
$
_0
0

0

1

03

03

3 :

o. ;

£ 2
*— 0
o 0

0

o

0

t

C 3
03 0/5

0 a
t?u_

2 o

0 CO

E 'cr

0

03

2

3

o

0 1-
c o
0

0- 0

1—

cd •=;

1

C —
O 0
■03 3
0 0

o

g-cx

0 0

0

0
O
c
0
0 2
2 o

C O

0 o

_l 0

2 0 2oo

| 0

a 5
0 2
Ct 3
O

C $

E c
0 o

CD0=

0 0

0

0 — '

1 0

0 E

II

M ?

8 0

2 T3

0

0

0

c

0

_Q

1

3

0

T3

0

O

0 CD

1 °

0 c

Q.

0

O

X

0

0 TO
-Q *-

2 8

o E

$ 2
0 X3
C 0
2 "cD

2 8
0

&2

o 1
0 2
C 3
0 C T

Ql 2

m -B 0

C
0
E o

o w

2 0

2 0 2

" 0 E
-o 0

T3 05

C 2

0

X3

>

0

E

— 0

C 0
O 0
'3= 3
0 _

3 3

Q. 0
X 0

0 o

T3

0

JD

0

"O

0

c

E

o

c

0

Cl

0

12
2 8

1 8.

**
co _

p 0

0

0

T3
0

S|

0 °

0 ^

O o 0
— 0 0
2 0

0

o

Q.
0
3 T3

T3 T3
0 -5
0 2
2 | 0
O 5 C

0 ^2
to 2 0

0 C_ (—

0 E

CD —

0 to 2
0 0 0
°2 2
i= E E

0
0
0
E
0
c f. )

0 Q.

0 0

0

X3 0

O O

_ 0

0 0

0

T3 0
E 3 T3
0 O —

$ •?

0

0^2

to 2 0
0 E c
0 c

0

0 2 tp
0 0 0
o c c

£ E E

c

;1 O
• — 0

0 E

- 0
0 0
0 0

2 tD

to

0 O

2 0
-o

c c

3 0

as

O 03

0 Cq
< 0

T3
C
0
Cl
0 Q.

-a <

ii

§2
0 to

o T3
3 E
Q- 0
c 2
2 c

-5 o '

O O CD

c

-2 o

ss

to E
- 0
0 0
0 0

m 0

tO u.
0 O
tO tn

T3
C
0
Cl
0 Q_

-a <

is

$2
0 5

8 o

2 "O

tr —
o C
Q- 0

S- 0

O 0

0 TD
< 0

ro _
O 0

io "C

Q. 0

c 2
2 c

S o
o o

CD

O "O

° 0 -d
0 2 0

0 T3 O

-0 - tD

0 =

CD

0 0

0 ^
-x 2
0
0

3

o

$

E -

2 0 ^
0 0 0
O 0 0
V O 0
t (D 2

0 2 0

0

o 2 i

0

c

0 C 2

2 0 X3
2 0 -K

s C

-x 2
0

o .2

0

0

E fr.

I I S

O 0 0

V o 0
ip 0 2
0 2 0

0

c

o

T3

0

i—

0

-g

'0

c

o

o

0

X3 0

O

' 0
0
0 0
C O

9 $

LU o

E

O

'to

c

ro

o.

X

LU

£

O

E

ro

q:

ro

■E

E

0)

o

a.

•o

E

ro

O

LU

O

<

to

“O

E

ro

t/3

b "o

4=: 0

0 .

c

.S= 0
0 ‘p ^

3 0 >
DO
0 =

2 0

0
0

= _Q

-x 2
3
o

0

0

E b'X

2 0 ^
0 0 0
o 0 0
V O 0

tp 0 2
0 2 0

X3

0

x:

§

p

1

c

’0

-4—*

c

'CD

E

o

x"

2

CL

E

o

o

>*

'c

3

0

0

o

0

c

0

E

0

CD

0

C

0

o

o

c

o

0

-t— '

0

CD

0

>

0

3

g-

'c

3

0

2

o

0

o

CL

o

-I— *

O to
LU 2

< 3

^ o
X §:

T3 _0

8 tp

w o

0

_C CD
CD

.e b
0 0
O 0
3 O
o E
0 o
to !=:

i- CL
0 O

®i

S5 to
to

o E

Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

W

§

Q

C/>

l

CN

V.

0)

a

<TS

-C

o

<0

UJ

flj

.c

£

O

| 3
oE

0 0

2 To

Q. O

? °
CO 0
CD li=
05 E

CO o

x 0

o 0

C 3

£ 5

O 2

— > 3

® 3

£ o
oE

52 CO

2 lo
cl a

hs

co 0

o S

05 i_

c °

CO x: 0

c a 0

c x 0

o

CO

(/>

0

>

o
0
S’
o
■*— *
c
0
E
0
05
0
e
0

c

ro cd"
0 h-

0 5

X 0
o O

If

°i

0

0 1-

■0

c

0

c

o

0

0

Q.

0

x

a

0

0

^■5.
$ E
0 0

A- x

CL 0

XI

0

Q. •
_ X

c? o

X 0

= g

c -6

.E 0

5 3

0

X

o
c
0

a:

0

X —

o

> 52

£- Q_

0 c
0 C
0 0
a- X

Q. 0

■0

c

0

c

o

0

0

Q.

\

0

X

o

X

0

Cl ■
_ C

? o

x 0

= g

X -6

.E 0

i

X

X

0

’x

0

E

X

0

E

E

o

o

X

o

0

0

05

0

>

0

0

0"

'x

0

0

X

0

O

X

0

X

X

0

1—

0

0-

1

o

CO

0

i_

X

'0

X

'0

>

5?

0

Cl

0

X

0

05

0

X

0

E

0

x

X

0

o

$

0

0

o

0

H—

X

X

0

0"

0

0

0

X

0

E

Cl

O

0

>

0

O

0

05

X

X

O

0

0

05

0

>

O

0

05

0

E

0

x

X

o

>

0

X

0

X

0

0

X

05

'0

0

X

0

O

UJ

a

<

0

>

X

0

c

o

'X

o

<

c

0

E

0

05

0

c

0

2

0

_ X
05' X
CN1 3

Q- §

0 5

O 0
LU X

0 g>

<r 0

0

_0 -q

if "0

1 s-g

c/) O X

0

X 05

I- 1^

0

- 0

X S CD

0
X
05 £

0 -n

Si

m ■$
o
<

0

x

= E

x 0 ^

> 0
0 2

0 CO
CO-

^ £
0 0

c S’

0 0

0

E

CO X
0
o
$

0

0

X _
X 0

= is
o 0

5 X

0

X

X

0

o

X

o

0

X

05

0

0

X

0

0'S

O X

m ro

CJ) -4— <

K 2

X

X

0

O o
LU .E

05 0
. E x
0
X
0

0

c

^/T

(/)

0

CD

b

V—

O

0

CD

IS

O

0

h-

0

00

" —

CD

C

q

cm"

T —

.■tf

CD

0

'3

—

0 0

cl x

x o

<15 X

-s_ 0 0

1- x cr

X — L

o 05

0 CM
0 CL
CL 0
X ^
0 x.

x

0

o

$

0 p)

0 CJ

'i_ 3

0 0
X X
X — '
0 0
O X
X 0

O o

UJ .E

O o

«x

05 dj

.E x

-*-» r~
0 0
X Q.
0 X
0 15

X 0
h- X

0
0
l_

o
0
o

'vf

^ o

M- 00
^ CO
2 CN

0 O
0 *-
O" r£ •

0 -2 a?

X « CM

y 0 £-

2 CL 0
® X5

K 06

^ -o

_ 05 0

05
X
X

1

0
0
o x

X 0

0 2

CL 45
° 0
0 w

o £

0 0
>- 0

0 05

0 X
X C

I— 0

w 0
0 2
0 E

ro n
0 2

0 05 0

0 2, Ml

05 05 LU

Z. 0 O

42 X <

E 0

0X0

_ X x

o >»r

X 0 o

o .>

0 0
E >

> £=

O 0 X
0X0

0
0

0 0
^00
$ 0 0
(Dt-
X 0 05
O W ; 2

X 0
X E’ x

O.E m

0 0^

O 0 X

o 0 o
002

X CO .2
x 01 5
o x —

o E 2
^00

0 'S c _g 0

5 -
0 0
o 0
s: E

2 O

x m
0 O

05 <

s ®

0 £

E >•-
^ o

0

£'o
0 0

X ^

-= o

0 _ •-

02^

0 0-^
X 0

f= ^ X

0

05

X

x

S.i3

O C/) </)

X .

I1 § J

0 £ t ~
0 > 3 X
X > 0 o
X 05^ 0

3 .2 ^ 0
o 2 c >
>00*;
> 0 2 X
0 — t 3

0 0 0 Jjr
L- 0 05.0

0 05 0 X
0 X E X
X c 2 X
I— 0 C 0

Rawlins RMP 2-57

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

CO

III

to

c

i£

o.

-C

o

9 m

JD

03

3

O

5 0
0 JD
C 03

2 To
58

g- o

o ^

O ^
0 .i=
C 3

03 O'

FT P

CD.

CD

O

X

P_

0

C JC
CD X

E o

o' 0
2 w
0 0

£2
id 0
-o 03
c 2
TO ,

.1 C/3
TO .8

o 3

Q. 0
X 03
0 O

0

JD

>.

0

E

0

jc

w

0

1

o

03

■o

0

JD

0

03

0
C

E

o

id
0
0
_0
o

.2 0

2 0

§ ^

*€

CD

0 0

fi

i_ 0

o 0
o id

E 2

a g

0 E

0 _0

3 CL

0 C

o 2

O 0
— J D
TO

c 2

3
O

o
0
TO
0
0 0

0

E

CD -F

0

03 2 "O
rr) JC 0
~ 0 0
CO > C

0

ZZ

O 0
^ 0 03
0 .2 0

S p 5
-O o

75 0 3

S^0

0 - -CD
q C/3 3

■2 2o

It*

0 0 0
O 0 0
V O C/3
a= CD O

O 2 0

_c

o

c

0

0

O

^2 2
~0 3

= o

X £

0 —

0 -O
CD 0
P 0

O

o

03

c

0

" °

> LU

£ °

o <

-O
0
0

? 9) 0
0 0 _0

3 2

o x:
0

0 >
0 o §
•F 3 o
E 0 c
:= > 0

0
03

o

"O J±?

x: 0
ct 0

*5 0

u 0
0 O
Cl Q.

E 0

0 -Q
° 2

1 °

0 5
0 O

03 LU

9> O

S<

=3 2

O’ —

c X

3 03
C
0
C/)

0

0 0
2 CD

0 O

3^

J3

i

0

0

0

o

t 0
0 0 _
03 2 CD 1

0 0

O ‘4=

0 C

t CD

o >o

0 ■ 5 Q.

2 CD

CD O 2
0 0 2

CL 0 ^
O 2 0

Q. Q- 0
^3 ID
C C/) O

CO

o

0 2
0 0
Q_ 0

o 0

2 o

CL-C

CL

0 CD

> >*=■

0

0
C

0 o
£ 0

>1

0 -2

C 3
2 0
■ E 03

0

O D 3

r- C 0

o 0 E

E 3 3
x 2 o

P 03 >

C E
0 -E

2 p

o 3
£ 2
CD c

0 0
c/3 2
>- 0

P 03
13 3

0 E

0

o 0

I """ CL

-O o

0 T3

0 2

%l

CD £

-O c

"O CD

Is

5 0

0 0

2 "0
5 0

3 o

CL 2

-O

0

3

03 0
■E 3
03 CL

— 0
0X3

- 03
0' =3

£ i
0 >

13 2
C ro
0 £
O 2

sE

3 .t;
CD

£ 2
>4— 0

O 0

13

0

*1

0 0

*0 E
3-0 2
O o 0
_ 0 0
S 75 °

13 ID 0
0 3 T3

0 5 0

2 I 0

O > C
0 >>2
2 0 CD

2 0 E
0

0 2 2
0 0 0
o c c

£ E E

1- 0
O 0
O 13

E 2

a 5

0 E
0 _0
3 CL

0 c
o -E

O 0

c 2

3

o

0

JC

E -n 0
2 0*=
CD .E
^ 0 0
0

0
0 -O

o
0
0
0
0 0

2 0

1^1

> 13

O m 0

2 0 o
o

c

o

13

0

0

■g

0

c

o

o

0

-Q 0
0

6 2

x:

o

c

0

0

o

2 2
~0 3
= O

x ^

0 —
■g -o

CD 0
O 0

0

_Q

2 o

3 '3=
O 0
$ 0
0 03
0 0

O

LU

O 2

< ■£
03

0 F

> CD ~

0
E

CD -F

E ^

0

__

2 0

CD >,

rr

3 0
o ^

0 0
f— fl

03 0 ID

03 -C CD
~ 0 0
CD > c

~ c// ~ - —

0 0 0 -F
o 0 0 £-

V 0 0 S

it= <D 2 2

O F CD LU

o

CD 0
O 0
* 0
o

•2 j= X

03

13

C

0

0

'EP 0 0
0 2 2
13 3

O

O JC

-F 0
ID 2 >
0 o 5

•F £ o
E CD c
■—></)

o

0 0

03 0

f— '

-- o

_Q ^r
i- Q_

c n

T5 “O
0 2

O 2

CO CL

C

0 X
CO CD
0 lO
£ 0

M— >

CL 0

E S'

O 3
O 0

0

o

0

t

C 3
13 W

0 q:

03 X

^ O

0 CO

E ^

0 2

3 0

1 =
s 0

CO 2

2 o
c O
0 o

_l 0

o

0 <-
c 2
0 H_

IX

03
O S'

1 0

0 J3

01

0 2

X o
*_ o
c
0
E
0

03 4-
0 0

p

1 »

2 0 o
-^0 0
9- 0 CD

0 E c

3; Q. CD

2 0 -P

0 o

5 03
0
0 H-

!i

X
0
ic 2T

2 0

0

E

CL

o
0
>

is 0
2 13

0

3

0

o

0 0

0 1
0

2 o

4 0

2

0 O

3 0

<

0

0

0

E

0

cn

0

0

0

E

0

co

0

CO

£ 2
ID 0

S 0

5 2

0 J3
C 0

2 fo

2 8

p x

o 0

0 .L=
C 3
0 C T
FT P

CL

P

O

X

2

4- P
c x;
0 2
E *5

2 0
0 0

£2
ID 0
03
0

0

JD

>>

0

E

ID
C
0 .
C 0
O 0
3

0 _

° 5

Q. 0
X 0
0 O

c

0

0 Q-

JD °

0 0

0 —
O O 0
O 0 0
O
CL
ID 0

|o-

&S.S

0^2

o 2

0

E T3
E 0

0 $

■O o

s £

13

0

JD

3

0

‘id

0

0

0

0

3 "0
0 0 0
o .E .E
i= E E

0 _
_x 2

m 3

0 o

CD >,
0 ■

2 u; F
0 0 0

O 0 0

V 0 0

t P o
0 2 0

0

■O

0

O o
LU

O ^

< 0
0 c

03

X 0

■g-s

0 o

0 2

1 1

p 0
0 JD

c

0

CL

o

13

c

0

0 ^4

SZ 03

3 0

o 0
u 0

0

O

9- 0-
0

0

0 0
9 CD
0 O

o

O J3

2
3

o

0 0
2 2
3 0

P ’F

0

o

c

0

0

x:

0 O

03 LU

§J o

0<
3 OT
O" —

3 X

3 13
0 C
JC 0
I- CO

>.

JD

i

0

0

0

o

0

c
0
E
0 0

03 1=
0 >
c
0 o
E 0

8f
0 -2
C 3
0 0
• t: 3

0

O

3

3

0 .ti
ID ~
0 O
0 0

Q. 0
2

Q. Q-

>■ 2
C 0

c

0

0 P
0

P

c

E

1

p

0

^ 4—

<= o

P 2 0 X 0

CL

0

1

CL
CL

w 0
3 13

a 8

p 0

■g o

CD 0

E 3

p ®

JD P

13 2
3 0
O -O
^ 0

p

N

E

c

E

o

c

o

0

03

Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

w

§

Q

00

1

a>

'•m

a

TO

-c

O

V)

ui

IS

c

£

0 0

-a ;E

If

|1

.O ro

O W

2 S

w — 1
C 00

° o
o 2

0) TO
O CD
P N
0 C

5 £

^8

TO

0

E

CD

-0 C/0
TO TO
3 ™

1 C

CO £
CD CO

c ^

CD _J
00
CO ^
C C

1 2
x Z!
LLi O

CD

■° CO
TO TO

p 2 03

o

$

0
c
o

m CO
3 (D

CD o
CO £

CD ,0
!§
fg

O £

£ o

If

o 2>

I c

co £
CD co

c 2
0 — 1
t: m

CD „

.2 c
« 2
X 3

HI O
TO 2
N "3
■C £
o t
-C TO

CD

0)

CD

XO

If

1 1

.o ro

to w

2 ^

8m

8 2
CD TO
O <D

P N

II
® =
2 CD

2 o
ao h=

~ o

TO 0

0 Q.
E “
CD CO

CO

TO TO

3 CD

1 C

co 2
0 0

c ^

0 _l
**- 00
CO ^
£= c

'■S 2

x 3

HI CO

0

TO O
C c
CD 0 COO

0 i_ T_

~ 0 X

25d
> o c
5 0 3
2 «5 Ql
DO 2 <

=§ TO

? «■£
8 -O O
O CD 3

C u 8

228

CD W *“

O 0 0
O.^ fc

c 0

— SZ
CO *-

c x:
p co
3 c
0 p
0 E

0 ^

.11

82
^ c
C CD

8 E
E 0

3 CD
DO _

55 CD
£ 3

ro 0
2 >

00

2 8

0 ^
0 o

J= 8
P co

CD 2

^to
0
CO
' CD
0 c
£ CD

r e
° 0
>> -3

2 §
£ $

TO

c

CD

o

o

o

0

1

0.

0

2

65

_ cn
C .X

EE

|.a

0 Oo
£ CO

£|

£ 00

c 0
— xz

CO

C JC

£ co

3 C
81
0-
o 1

CO

0

CD
CD
*-* c
0 0

p E

E 0

2, 0
co _

2 CD

£ 3
ro 0

2 >

•£ 8

0 "2
0 o

£ 8

o CD

8 .2

TO

o 0

^ CO
TO

0 C
£ CD

£ E

° 0
>> -Q

£,■3

co —

TO

c

0

o

o

o

o

0.

0

TO

CO

•0 o
£ $

3 sz

£ x

eE

>* Q.

0 P>
£ 0
CL

£ 00

o

0 0

2 | CD

TO CNI .2

3 CD >

° TO CD

£ C £

0

-O

TO

3

O

0

0

TO

o

0

2 0 o

2 CO CD
0 £ c

0 TO O

o 3 N

ro -a §
“eE
P 0
0 p c
-P CD CD

I- Ct £

o E

DC

>

0

0

TO

0

0

c

CO

0

0

TO

c

o

O 2

“> o

0 0 -P

- 1 ro

0 V 3

TO CM £
3 CD >
° TO 3

£ c £

■s CD U.
£ CO 0
2 CO CD

0 £

0

-Q zz

TO 0
"3 0

o £

$ o

0 f

c

TO o
° 3 ^

CO -C --P
^Oto
0 p p
-P CD CD

1- a: £

p rz

CC

>

0

0

TO

0

0

C

D)

0

0

TO

TO

0

JD

0

C

0 CD
C« N

0 ~
CO jQ

£ 0
2 0
'3 0
xo xo

-P TO
P ■=:

>,

Ya

0 0
0 co
±Z 13
0 C
0 CD

2 £
o 3

3 (D

>> x:
p o
CO —
0 XO

£ §.

0 r

0

0

P "D
2 >
o o
1—

Q. Q.

TO
0

£

2 o

® a

0 ■■=
D) 3

£ 0
2 0
■3 0

J3 X I

x: to

81
0

q:

^ «
o 0

>

IS

0 0
0 w
— TO
0 C
CD CD
2 £

O 3
U 0
>1 x:

CO

o

0 -Q

£ g.

-p £

p-g
£ >
o o

Q. Q.

TO

0

£

CD "3

E 0

TO

c

0

0 —
CO CO
c
TO

2?
O £

to to
2 -p

TO P
0 0 —
xo o £

N

0

P 3

3 o
XO c

x: to

C =
r\

0 o
-3 C

TO O

$ 3 O
O 0
0 > £

0 > o •
■■p 0 2
£ £ “■ 0
° ,g> 0 £
£ co £ 8

E

0

coo

o

0

>

0

1—

Q.

0

c si
— o
c c
0 0
Q. 0^

2 O

> “>
0 0
Q £

OO TO
1- c
C 0 3

0 0
0—0
C 3) 0

-P £ 3
P XO 2

c -F

0 £ p

0

o

's:

0

>

x •-

0^3

P 0 £
0 co O

0 p
> 0

(/)

CD

0 >,
£■ 3
0 c
£ 0
£ co

£ 0

C

0 0
0 0
TO SZ
0 ■*■*

2 2

£ -c

2 3
00 O

f 2

o w
0 0
2 3
o o

(0

0)

c

0)

E

0

Q)

CD

c

CD

CD

+->

s

CD

X

Q

C

O

>

c

CD

o

a

0

O

Ui

o

<

c

o

c

CD

o

a

0

£

ro

o

O

4-*

c

0

E

0

00

ro

c

0

0

o

Q.

0

XO

0

x:

CO

c

to

0

c

TO

c

0

0

XO

0

SZ

0

c

o

0

o

CL

o

o

HI

o

<

c

o

>,

c

0

O

Q.

0

0

0

O

i_

3

0
0
0

1

0

0

CO

0

c

0

XO

0

SZ

c

0

E

0

ao

0

c

0

tr

0

CL

o

p

0

o

0

tf

0

0

CL

O

O

O

0

x:

Ot;

0

0

CO

0

0

_>

£

P

0

O

4-*

c

0

E

0

O)

ro

c

ro

0

XO

0

0

o

c

0

x:

c

0

TO

C

0

0

o

to

0

Rawlins RMP 2-59

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

CO

ui

15

c

£

Cl.

(0

•c

o

CD

X

X

CD

s_

CD

C

to

0

c

4—

o

>*

o

3

X

O

X

0

T 3
C
CD

X

0

x

03

c

to

0

c

L.

o

Q_

CD

0

O

c

CD

x

c

0

X

C

CO

0

c

o

t

0

X

O

C

0

o

0

X1

0

c

0

E

0

CD

0

C

0

0

CL

o

o

o

-O

c

0

0

c

tr

0

CL

co

0

'c

3

•e

o

CL

CL

O

0

0

0

i_

0

CL

0

0

>

0

c

4.

0

+4

<

<

o

*-»

c

o

E

E

o

o

cn

E

O

o

<

*•=»

E

0

E

0

03

0

c

0

>,

X

i

0

0

0

o

0

c

o

X

0

"x

CL

0

0

-O

0

o

c

0

E

0

CD .

c J5
0 -_q
.> 0
. x

2 2

-si

C 03
0 C
O 0

|S

03 =

'0 0

o 0
O CD

0 0
0
o

C 0
0 CD
> 0
£ E

X 0

o ■o

03
03 o
0 >
S’ 0

C O

0 ^
JC 03
E 0

>> CD
0 0

~ 0
0 E

0

X

2

0

o

0

0

c
0
c

0
X

0
o

5 _
0 :=
0 O
*3 0

O C
0 0

03 0-
> 0
|S

0 j/J
03 C

E E

0 CL

f!

■e 0

0 Q

T3 'DC

0 0
O X

0

>

0

E

i_

0

<

>»

X

0

E

O

o

<

s

0

E

j§ 03
0

CD

0

C

0

E

0

_Q

o

C
X
0
o
$

11
0 O *-
c $ 0

■^03 X
0 c 0
0 CD ^

q0>2

UJ c 0

gsi

0 ~

|£ 1

” $

0 4-

0 0

03

0

CD

-t— «

0

c

C

CD

0

E

E

0

0

CD

0

X3

c

03

0

3

E

O

5

0

03

X!

C

0

0

X

-n 03
03 4—

0 s

c p

2 5
.E 0 cp
0 0 2
c 0 0

T' 1

CM 0
g- c

si

o 0

_Q

LU

O !2
< =

c 1

O >

>. -V

_ C 0

0 0 03

CD O O

” x 0
0 o

0 00
-C CO

II

if

X 03
O 0
03 0
J0 ^

03 0

0 co

o

M>

0 0
0 .0
0 0

£ 0
I— CD

0

0

0 r- —

0 Ed

0 r*. 0

(11 P r

0 2
0 0
CD S’
0

2 C
E 0
0 E

o >
C 0
o >
0 0
0 s

•4— »

;> c
o 0

0 X

0

5 0
0 2
£ 0
4— r-

O g

0 C

^ 0
~ CD
O 0
0 C

S' g
o E

c

0 o
0 0
2 0

0

0

O CD

0 t *= 0

C 3 >

-q 03 0
O 2 0

0

l g
s-i

0 0
O 0
O 0
0 0 E
X CD .0
-q 03 "O
"5 X X

| s s

$ °.E
0 2-2
0 0-2
£00

i= 2 =5

E -0 03

2-g ro

c

T3 0 0

3 £ E

0 0
05

C 0

0
0
0
0

0 03
m 0

CD^
0 ^

0 0
E £

0

0

0

E

0

co

03

C

0

o

o

— 0
c >

0 CO
O o

2-E

12 £
3

o

CD

0 0
2 0
0 _0

0 0
-C CD
I— CD

CD

C

X2

L_

=3

00

ID

0 0
2 0

li

0 o

o ro
0

c >

E §■

0 ^
CD.0
0 03

| c

o ° °
2 0 03

c 0 2

O.Q. 3

o • ^
„ ^ 0
CD L- i_

-0 C 0
■Q 0 -0

"i

0 0

C —
O 0
3

0 0

o o

- 0

0 £

. 0 o

0 = 5

c

lls

.0 0 0

^ 0 0

3 O Q.

cl j2 o

E

CL

o

0

o 0

-0 03

0

03

0

O

0 0

= 1
0 C

0

O 0
— ' CL
03 O

0 03
(O 2

0 ET

-0 c

"O 0

0 ■=
03 E

0 0
— JD
.0 0
15 0

0 2

CL 0

03

0

3

CD 0
3

03 CL
-2 0
ox,

— 2
0' =3

5 i

_0 >

03 ^
C 0

0 5
o 2

— 03
X3 x:
3 .-t;

0

4- 0
O 0

o P

^ 0

2 0 -o
0 0 £

O.CL 3

O

0
X3

3

O

E aT
0 0

^ 0
o o

c

0

X

X

CD

0

0

0

X

X

0

0

0

0

X

O

C

m

>
-♦— >
0

L_

0

c

3

O

>

1—

0

c

0.

VU

_Q

13

c

4_

0

E

0

E

c

0

to

<

0

c

0

E

ID

0

X

0

0

0

X

0

X

0

0

O

more.

0

0

0

0

0

0

X

0

0

0

0

0

>

0

X

t

D

CO

E

0

co

o

0 0

c

0 0

0 FT

Cl D-

0! C
03 0

§ 2

* 2

21

0 0
— X3
.O ro

S 0

3 O

CL O

03
O C
4- CD
03 c
2 O
0 0
o o

*“ Q.
0 X
X3 0

2 0

O 0

M

Is
0 0
0 0
o. y

o 0

^ 0
0 p

§0

0 03 •

S E 0

0 3 2

8 c 2

X 0 w
03.-C 03

*-< 4— 0
C O X2

E 0 2

111

0 0

03 CD

2 £ 2

0

C

0

X

0

0

X

O

0

CO

0

0

0

X

X

(/)

3

X

O

5

0

0

c

0

0

E

0

"0

L_

0

0

c

c

E

E

0

■4—'

X

03

U )

0

0

0

X

C/)

0

0

(/)

0

0

0

X

X

0

3

X

O

5

0

0

-t— '

c

0

0

E

0

"0

5—

s—

a>

0

c

C

E

E

c

0

0 Cl

35 0
0 0

0 —

000

O 0 co

O 0 CL
03 0
0 3 03

03 O —

0- S 0
O =* -c:
0 ^ 03

Sc0

0Ec
4- 0 C
0

0 0 0
0 0 0
2 2 c

i= E E

c

•1 o

.0 0
3 ■

rr *—
O 0

0 E

- 0
0 0
0 0

2 0
0

0 o
,0 0
03
C C
3 0

■e —
o c

O- 0

9r 0
o 0
0 Cq
< 0

,1
12 <
3 ' '
O 03
> 0

0 0

11
CL C
E O
0 O CD

c

2 o

II

0 E

- 0

0 0
0 0
0

*1
2 <
3 ^
O 03
s: Q

0
0
0
o
o
0

.0 0 O

0
0

,0 0
03
C C
3 0
-E —
O E
o 0

9- °

o CD
0 03
< 0

0
_3
0
>

0
03
C

_ 0
O 03
CL 0

0 CD

II

CL C
E O ^
.= O CD3

2-60 Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

Q.

-C

O

CO

UJ

'<5

c

£

O

£ ® X

0 .E 0

8 $

-DO

Z^CD

S> *0 £

hr (O □

2 £ o

it*
rs 8 £

O 0 0

Vow

t H o

o=co

0

x

O "O

4=: 0

0 .E
= 1
5 S

0

c

o

X

0

o .y

0

co

CO

0

ro

£ co
CD CO
O 0

V o
a= 0
O F

0
x
0
c
o
o

2 0
o -Q co
c u co

11-2

O § CD

rr : n

=* co 0
^ c o
£.2 ^
8 Q.-9

CO o 0
O o CO

O UJ O

0

0

0

E

CO

CO

0

x

O "O

° ® 3
0 .E 0

211

Is;

f£|

O m 3
id CO o

CO

1/5

0 CO
0 0
O CO

0 o
£ CD

0

0

3

o

l—

0

2 -5

-D X
0 0
■tS >

E -D

— c
0 co
0
T3

0

o

X
X
D

o

$ -D

0

0

0 CO
D C
> -2>

X w

1 CD

O -D

0

>

o

o

T3

0 .
0 0
O 0

o o

-a x

C 0
TO >

0

0

3

o

2 i

x

0

>

-O

c

CO

0

-o

0

o

X

0

0

c

CTl

0

0

-o

0

>

o

o

"D

CD

0 0
O 0
O o

-D X
C 0
CO >

CO

0

0 TO
co 0
=3 O

o|

O ct
UJ 0
O 0
< -o

C O

H

CO ~

O E

c

0

X

O

-O

c

0

w co
0 _0
D O
O F

= 2 >

0

0 0
-3 -O
0 X

si

Z *
o 8

0

2 0

ro 2

x.y

D ■ —

0 O

CTl c

0

X

0

0

"D 0
0 >
CTl O

2 I

CD C
-Q 0
-O C

3 .9
o -!=:

Z 0

.52 c x
X — 0
..0-D
0 0 —
0—0

tl > CO
O O 0
CO 0 0

> -Q
co _

g 0 3
^ T3 O
0 CD 2

C 8 «

8.2 5

<2 g 0

< .E CD

=3

O

a ) $

> CD

Q_ .5?

0 §

® E

g E
0 8
S’ c

c

0

X

^2

_ CD
XI Q-
E co
2 co
.52 c

o 8
P s
X j2

<7) 0

g "S

2 CD

2 8

sc 0

2 E

CD

O

»!

is

0 co

0 2
1- c

0 2

X 0

X

c

0

c

o

I,
0 0
X o

0 3
0
0

E 0

o
c

0

^ CD
■ ^ 0

0

c
o

CT)

0 -E 1q

> E 5

0 0 2

C X 0
2 ® X

•-8 8
9 S 0

>, D
X 0

0

0

0 2
^ X
X 0

oi

5 c

0 X
0 CD

co w
° §■
x 2

0 X
0 ^
g «

E o

0

■x

Cl

| 2
X 0

?1

0

2 3

o ^
.2 0

0 0

CD 0
X 0

12

2 8
0 D
X X
X 0

o *-

a|

0 ^

X 0
® N

3.i
2 -i

0 E

8.9-
x x
E co
0 «-
-X 0
O C

8 5

0 C
2 2
c -o

■p CD
2

'$ E
0 0
E.e

0 u.

2 x
X o

£ o

0 c
2 ig

0 O

■g 3

TO P

,E 0 E

x 0 2

0 > D

CD X o
0 X >

II

0 2

X >

X

0

q: .2

0

!i.

$ 0 £

c

o

0

0

0

i—

X

X

D

0

^ 8

=3 ^
CD 03

0 0 J2 2 CN1

0
0
0
E
0
( S )

ct

c

0

X

2

0

c

CD 0
0 2

.52 O

0 co
E 0

X

X

D

0

cr

c

0

X

2

0

c

CTl

’0 0
0 0
x E

■52 c

O .2

UJ 0
r i co
U 0

< x

0 X

0

CO

c

0

0

0

0

0

X

O c
m °

O •£

< |

^ I

hr 0

x

o

o

E

0

CO

X

0

Cl

CL

0

E

S— t

o

c

2

0

0

c

o

0

o

o

0

0

c

o

O

Q.

0

Ct

0

O

0

o

CD

*■<

c

0

E

0

CT)

0

C

0

S

.2 « x

0 o ■=

0 -

2 8

X c

E °

.E o

0

o

C

0 o
-F 0

CD a,
2 £
0 O
M_ 0
CD 0

c _
0

X -X
0
0
c

0

0 2
c= F

0

0

X CO

0 co
0

P>o

.E 0

X X
0 0
0

X h

4 — 0

O X

0

& &
E 0 "C:
0 0 0

C CD c

III

111

tl 2 o

E co ‘p
-V 0 CO
X 0 CD
C O’ “

- 0 2

CO

0 x 03

O 9 o

0 5 CD
x-2 0
0X0

.2 “ X

0

0 2

2 8

X c

E °
.E o

F o

CT) CD
2 £

0 °
0

CD 0

c

0

.E CO

2 2

C CT)

I?

E 0

0

0

3 a>

0 o
0

0

0 CU

0§
I 0

0
0

0
0

P'o
.E 0

X X
0 0
0 ^

CD

- X

0

o O’

C O)
— 0

0 w
0 x

o 2

0 X

o

X

CD

c

o

0
CD
c
CD 0

^ CT
CD 2

O

0 £

o

o

s

E

0

is

CD
0
O

x_

D
0 <
2 :>
0 x

CD>
0 >
C 0

ro =
S X

0

ro CD

0' 2
0 X

_ o 3

g CD p
E X C

CO 0 ' .

CD ^ 10

E $ 2

x 0 o

0 X CD

ls-

°fl

C CD .

O ?

o m

>2
> o

E E
0 0

XX
0 C
0 ro
CD 0
0 0
0 3

X 2
0 CT)

O ®

CD

03 0
^3^-0

Cl CD cD
8-E ro
s si

o c $

2 a5

§ ®
o 2
E 05

gE

£ 0

c

o

X

CD

c

o

0

CD

c

0

...

CTl

C

o

E

0

0

>

X

2

c

o

0

1

E

0

X

CO

0 0

x x

.E o
0 2
0 o

2 fc.

82

0 o
UJ

® o

2,<

0

c 0
0 =
^ X

0

0

in

0

g 0

ro 0
CT)

£ $
x 0
0 X

2 0
X 3
M — O

o g

C CD

O E
0 0

l —

C CD
0 C
O J3
C 0
O d)
O C

CD
C 5

3 2

tj (5

c Q.
.b CD

CD g.

2 g5
8 w
0 o

2 o

X CL

1- c

x 2

O §

0 O
0 E

0 d)
^ X

0 E

§5

E CD
O C

x 2

C X
0

0 O
0

3 0
O CD

S’ 0
0

CD CD

ro 2
0 ID
1- '

2 to
0 0
0 .>»

CD 0

n

0 $

X

0

c

0

E

0

CD

0

C

0

E

>,

x

0

X

o

c

0

o

ra

x"

0

o

c

o

0

1

0

x

o

o

o

0

X

0

0

co

Rawlins RMP 2-61

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

CO

uj

to

c

iC

Q

c o

CSI

v,

TO

5'

TO

■C

o

2-62 Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

(0

Q

CO

CM

C

0)

a

CO

■c

o

to

UJ

TO

c

£

"O

o .9-

jD -C
>- 0

^ ©
o c
TO $

o£

CD C
SZ 03

C 03
•= 0
3 X

E

CO 0
"O *;

■a

c

03

0

2 2
-Q o

£ O

co

ro

0

E

05

05

0

TO

0

E

0

05

"O 0 2
0 > =3
Ol'C O
00.5

0 _c CC
E - 2
0 3 <C

S'* E
c 0
O o
0—0
£ 0 £
0 y 0

T3
C

T3 >

- - s s
• 0

0 0 2

0 — ■
0 03

2 CM

a:

c

0

TD

0

0

C

03 0
0 ^

— .1
03 ’CO
0 £
>- 0

Q.

Q_

0

0

o

UJ

o

<

-H

c

05

+■>

O

Q.

TO

0

<

O

s=

TO

Q)

V)

0

a

0

a.

a

0

+->

c n

jz

o)

3

w.

J2

0

OJ

TO

C/3

C

o

*->

*->

TO

i_

(/)

JO

(0

o

o

c

0

E

©

O)

0

c

03

>,
TD
0
-t— '
0

0

0

0

>

o

0

S’

o

-4— »

c

0

E

©

03

TO

C

re

03

c

o

0

x:

O)

c

o

0

o

Q.

0

0

0

'c

0

■e

o

Q.

Q.

O

0

■g

■>

o

c

o

E

E

o

O

0

C

o

"■TO

o

<

+■>

c

0

E

0

O)

TO

C

re

0

0

0

o

0

g

2

0

>

■o
c
CD
0
■o
03
O
■

"O

0

re

c

g3

"0

0

■o

o

-O

0

>»

JD

0

C

o

3

o

<

*■>

c

0

E

0

03

re

c

re

"O

c

03

0 CD
X 3 0
T3 CD
0 x:
o o

^ CD
CD TO

9 £

CD
U TO
0 0
0 03

Q. ~0
O TO
k ro

Q. 03
TO £

£ £

c

CD

0

03

T3

0

0

C

g>

'0

0

TO

0

-O

O

c

■o O
3 LU
o O
5 <

0

X3

0

O

£ O
CD LU

0 o

CD <C

TD TO
0 TO

O

g_ 2

O TO
>=- C
03

0 *0
£ TO
I— X3

"O

C

CD

0 03
_Q 0
^ TO
o x:
O O

^ CD
TO TO

2 0

0 0
0 03

§.■0

2 §3
Q- CD
TO E

i£ £

c

CD

0

CD

TD

0

TO

C

g3

'0

0

•o

0

X!

O

c

■o O
3 LU
o O
5 <

2.0
CX LU
TO O
CO <

SZ 03
CD 43
=3 C

.a 52
0 o
03 CL

w 3

O <

_SZ
CD O

S g

0 0
-TO TO

t- a:

0

-0 TO

3 E

is

^ "O
h- 0 •
1 03 -TO

™ re o
TO- TO 03
CD CD 0

^ E w
^0 0
^ TO c_
TO -TO >-

TO O £

0 Z TO
0 TO -©

g||

lo c E

in o to
0.QD

T3
C
CD

O |=?

2 5

1—

TD 0

TO to
0 .y
o -o
o 0

8

0

X3

0

o

ro

0
0

TO -TO

to a

3 05
o

S' ?

y CD

m TO
— 03 2

0 TO (p

X ra
0 5

r~ TO

03

03 ^3 ,-ti

0 0-^
-TO 0
I— 03

O

0^0
0 0 0
> >
0

0

( — o
0 .92,

X)

0 .5= O

0

xi

2

0

03 O

3 $

X3

0
0

.TO 0

■o
0

go®

TO 0 03

O

S 3 -B
3 05 ©

O ' r-
$

TO 'to CO
^ 0 TO
0 ® .t;

0 0'^
TO 0 O
— 03 0

0

0

£

o d

LU

TO 9

03 <

0

XT' 0
0 0
> >
’to 3
0 -TO

.E o

•o

S 0

TO ^3

3 5

o 2

C §

0 ©
to- y

O 2

0 TO

-TO 0 3
2 £--ro

0 O 0

0 • 0
5 TO3o

1 si

CD CD .1=

CO

O TO
0 ~
^ 0
6.®
-TO -9
TO 2

X3 TO

0 0
TO 0
I— 03

TO 2
TO 2
TO 0
o g
TO ©
TO tt
Q. 0

l|

TD TO
TO TO
■— 2
O" TO

TO 3

0 O
X3 ©

TD O

!!
5 2

■O c
TO O
CD

— —
I -I

0 o
0 ^

_Q 0

2 S

o $

0

>

’0

c

0

c

c
o
0
0 .y

03 TO
2 TO
0 g

0 0
-C 0
I— 03

3 0

.> X3
O TD

03 O
TO $

-0 0
0 TO

3 0
0 0

TD 3 TD

TO 03 ^
0
C
0
E

o
0

ll

0

10

0

03

TO ©

1—

0 0
E to
0

0 0
X3 *-

2 _c

!|
^ TO

2* 0

TO >
N *t

2 2

03 ^

O °

o ©

to 0

0

>

— I O

J ii 0

0

■O
0
03
0
C

0 k*

E o

CO

^ TO

3 'to
5 TO

1 -to

> o

2 -TO
.TO ©

N m
0 TO

2 0

03 TO

^ 2
TO

2 to f ,

TO TO O
© TO LU

>

3 2 <

0

05

"O

0

03

0

ro 9
E |

TO 3
-TO ©

2 S’

ZD O

2 0
•> 0

2 ?
.E g

N Q.
0 -x:

0)3

^ E

2 —
o ©

0 TO

> O
\ P

Rawlins RMP 2-63

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

co

S3

to

c

£

Q

co

4)

a

<0

■c

O

jc

o

CD

_ 0

•Si 0 CO
< JC £

QL

c ^
CD CD

T> E
0 P

"CD O
C — '

g> cd

if)

0

£ *

if)
0
>
0 ct
o

0

c S

.'ll o

0 to sz
0 to n
Sr a) -

o CD

g- 0 ro
P-00

if) 2 CD

C£

O

_ LLl

$ 0 o

< -C <

ro 0 _c

p E o

0

c

CD CD

if)
0

I to 2 fi

0

p S’
o o

CD 'to

0 tO Q

u m y

0

0 _
o to

P 0

I— co tc

0

ro

0

E

CD

C/5

a:

c

0

■o

0

-4— »

CD

C

CD CD

-0 £

-g ro

.to g

0 £

2 0

Q.
0 CL

i— 0

0

SZ

O "O

0

0 .E

§s

! j§

1 To

JC

Jr to

o TO

! t

_ CD

52 w

CD 0
O 0
V P
ijz 0

o =c

c
o
• •a

TD 0
0 <-
> 0

O ^

= 0
CD C

£ 8

^ 0

O SZ) if)

P "D to
- S 2
os®

> if)
=”0 0
C "

o

o

^ O

0 Q--9
0 0 0
o P CO

CD UJ o

o "a

CD

0 C

si

1 ss

1C

n to

E -

_ ro

T3 if)

0 if)
o 0
V p
St 0

c
o
■ "P

TD 0
0 *-
> 0

O 2

if)

0

S 8
^ 0
O -Q .co
P -0 if)
25"
0 o
9 $

s.i

0

0
if)
if) 0

if)

o

JD

CL
0 0 0
O P 0

CD UJ 8

0

C/5

O "P
“ ® 3
0 .p 0

g 0 $
■O o
to is

.p 0

0 = -Q

> v- TD

~ if)

o_ 0

CD o

e

080
o 0 0
V p tq

St CD o

O 3C CD

O

Lll

O

<

TO

+4

c

CD

•*=»

O

a.

CO

a>

_s£

CO

c

'<0

JC

o

_0

to

o

0

4-4

e

0

E

0

05

0

c

0

E

0

0

>>

a)

0

zs

_0

0

JD

-O

0

0

0

o

if)

if)

0

if)

0

_0

0

>

J0

0

sz

0

TD

c

0

E

0

0

>s

if)

0

zs.

_0

t

0

if)

0

TD

0

C

"0

0

0

i_

0

td

c

0

CD

0

0

0

g-

'c

D3

0

0

CD

0

C

0

JD

0

TD

C

0

0

o

sz

CD

c

o

0

CD

0

c

0

c

0

E

0

CD

0

C

0

E

>

-e

0

CL

O

o

c

o

0

i_

0

Cl

O

O

O

0

(A

0

>

4-*

U

0

S

o

4->

c

0

E

0

05

0

C

0

E

0

to

>

if)

0

zs.

jro

t

0

0

0

■o

0

c

S

0

0

i_

0

■O

c

0

CD

0

0

0

O'

'c

0

0

0

O

i_

CL

TD

c

0

0'

i_

o

to

0

tz

'0

ID

c

0

c

1

o

.c

CD

c

o

Cl

.O

JD

0

P

0

0

1

d

"O

c

0

0'

L_

0
to
0

1

c

'0

c

'0

E

0

to

>

if)

0

zs

i2

t

0

if)

0

■a

0

c

S

0

0

1

ro

U-

TD

C

0

o

if)

4— »

c

0

c

o

Q.

E

o

p

g*

c

0

"D

Q

LL

CD

3

o

05

c

T3

C

0

0

TD

C

3

H—

O

E

0

TD

C

0

i—

o

E

0

t

o

CL

CL

0

if)

0

TD

CD

C

c

o

E

TD

C

0

o

c

0

>

c

0

N

>«

X!

(0

E

O

*4

o

<

4-4

c

0

E

©

05

0

E

0

0

CO 0
TD £
05 P 0
CM 0

0 |

^ 0 D)
0 JD 0

C

0

E

0

if) JD
0 0
P P -P
0 0 0

O CD TD
0 Ln- >
J= O 5
I— CO 0

if)

0

TD

°0 2,

1 05

CM 0
CL P
0 JO

^ 0

0 JD

2 TD

to 3

if) o

p 5

zs.

p if)

— 1 0

p p ( 5
0 0 u
J= 0 U-1

O § O

0 UD <
JD O C
I— CO 0

If)

P CD
TD P

85^
0 3

0 05
JD 0

2 0

of

5 0

if) JD
0 0
O -C
0 0
o !=

CD TD
CD -

o =■

CO 0

c

0

£ &

!?

§- ro :

p t

-p c .

TD 0

if)

TD

0 P

— JD
P 0

^ 0
O P
D. O

E o

JD

DJ

Q. _0

0
if)

0

TD
O .P

c

.0

0

O 0
CL
TD O
P -n
if) P?

«|

P

-Q c
-a p —
3
o

TD

0

O

CD CO
P 3
TD CL

= 0
P^D

— TD
if)

if) =

TD E
0 P

— JD
P 0

3 0
o P
CL O

D

o

0 $

TD

C 0
0 $
0 2

sE

Z)

p .

if)

0

0

E

0

05

c

0

2 §•

SE

o ro ■

p ^
-P c
TD P

0

O

o

5 8

-O E

0 p

— JD

.P 0

^ 0 CD
JD 0
O P
CL O

TD

C

_0

g

5

0

Q. 0

■S S

1 =

&1

O .P

Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

(0

§

a

TO

■c

o

to

UJ

"<3

.c

£

C W
Q_ ro

° O
0 Q.
-Q 0

-o ^

3 0
° 2
5 '0
-o 0

o 2

— 0

"I

CL E

32

3

o

UJ-£

0 £

< 0
a? E

jd _

TO

|1

§ E

W O
T3

£ -D CO

La o g

JD O Q.

=3 0 .0

CL JD -O

0

TO

0

E

05

CO

C c/j

& 0

o 05
0 O
0 Q-

-Q 0
"O ^
3 «

9 .2

0 £

~o 0

If

O 2

?!

CL E

■O

c

0

o

o

~ 0

c >

0 CO

o 0

5 £
8

$ g>

0 w

2 ro

ro .0

0 0
-c ro

I— CD

CD

c

0

X3

9 <13

fl

0 o

*5 ro
^ 0

c >

E §■
0 *-

CD .0

ro td
c
ro

"D

E ro

0

JD

32

D

CD O
£ $
-2 0
0 0

CO

.0 ro

o "0 0

0 0 CD

8 |

0 0

5 W 0

° • I-

2 0 0
2 0 0
ro .0

0 0 —
c ro o
— 0> ro

0

0

E

o d
TL lu
0 O

CD <
2 0
ro £

C H-

c o
0

0 0
> >
'0 o

0 .2,

18

“O 0

c c

0 0

O

O

0
c >
0 'co

&£

8-e

.c

0

0

0 0

2 0

0 \rz

8|
0 o

-E ~ O

CD

g
'0
_ 0
0 .0

0 0

F ro

I— CD

C

II

8>.“

0 T3

i?

E 0

c

0 o

0 '-2
0 0

« 8
Q_ c/)
•p c/)

0 «j

$ 0

O CD
03 0
C C
0 0

-o ^
0 0
.X JD

E 2

® 8

0

>

Q.

8 c

0

r~ »—

0

£ E £ s:

QC

c

0

TD

0

0

C

CD 0

'0 2
0 ro

0 §

ro 2
0 0

0

O 03
0 .E <u
= 11
S <3 ”

- 0

- JD
0 ^
P

5 8 g
It*

■O 8 t
ro 0 ro
o 0 0
V 0 jo
t 0 o
O =F O

5 8

0 .0
•2 0

1 ^

ro 0
lu 0
CD 0
E ~o

JD 0
3 £
0 0

1*

o 0

>

0

>

'0

c

0

g

0

JD

-JD

3

o

”■§

CD

0

c

0

E -6

E -n 0
£ 8 ^
0 E °
3 0 ^

"O 0
0 -Q

0
o ro
.c

® 0

o
c

w _
2
D

0

ro

E ^

ro

TD 0

ro --

0 >*

0 0
0 0

V o 0

t 0 o

O F CD

0

c

o

TD

2

0

■g

’0

c

o

o

0

JD 0

"O 0
-= 0

O -°

* 8
0 ro
c o
.2 ^
0.-9
0 0

>< 2
* ro

LU O

O 03

°»T3
0 0 0

° I

03 O
0 "0
0

0
3

0
g 0
_c
0

^ "0

2 18
£ ti
T* I S’

O 0 0
v o 0
t 0 O

O F CD

0

JC

8

0 J2
•2 0

1 5

lu 0
CD 0
E 03

JD 0

0 0

O 0
0 =>
t .O-

W i

>

0

>

'0

c

0

g

0

JD

-o

3

o

s:

0

0

•4— 1

'c

D

E

E

o

o

TD

0

CD

0

C

0

E

O

LU

O

<

TO

c

03

o

a,

TO

03

a

0

E

TO

u.

TO

0

0

T3

_0

3

E

■o

c

0

£

0

Q.

0

0

JC

0

c

1

o

.c

D)

JD

JD

0

CL

O

O

LU

o

<

c

0

o

a

0

0

a

0

E

_0

0

o

O

4-*

c

0

E

0

05

0

C

0

0

0

0

1

3

o

0

0

i_

0

JC

0

CD

0

C

0

JD

0

0

-C

c

0

E

0

CD

0

C

0

E

>

■e

0

Q.

O

C

0

o

0

T?

0

0

CL

O

O

O

J*

0

0

CO

<0

<N

Management Objectives

Maintain, restore, or enhance crucial winter habitat for bighorn sheep, elk, and mule deer and seasonal habitats for bighorn sheep.

Utilize inventory and monitoring data to support vegetation management.

Utilize an integrated management approach (e.g., mechanical, chemical, biological, and prescribed fire) to enhance vegetation communities to achieve
objectives of the area.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

to

UJ

TO

c

il

Q

to

k.

TO

Q.

TO

•C

o

c

CD

E

CD

cd

CD

c

CD

JO

CD

I

CL

CD

0

JO

(f)

c

1

o

.c

05

in

CD

0

CL

0

E

CD

CD

C

0

E

0

CL

0

0

>

'■O

ro

c

l.

0

<

<

o

•*-»

c

o

£

E

o

o

0

c

o

’+=»

Q

<

+■»

c

0

E

0

OJ

ro

c

ro

o

_c

03

in

CD

c

E

o

>

o
0
so
o
-*— <

CD

0

C

0

E

E

o

o

0

1

0

p

0

p

'0

c

o

0

to co

jr!"

*s

S I
-2 I

ro ■£

C 0

1 ro
^ 0
0 CD
O 0
c E
CD ro

p 0
o 8
o ro

CD P

= 5

0 ro
0 CL

5 0

0 0
5 g

2 'to

CD 0

° E

01 o

C°

ro Q.

CL C3

0 o

® <5

0 CD
O C

HI

Is
0 £=
4- O

°3

c ro

c -2

0 —

S5 Q-
ro 0
ro ro
ro _c
S cn

0
0
s.

5
cr
0
i —

0

0

p

3

O

0

c

o

ro

i—

0

CL

o

4—

o

0

c

ro

CL

0

0

o

ro

0

>

<d

P |

"O c

c °

ro

CD

c

JO

i—

0
ro
0

0

~ ro

in

0

0 O

ro c
t £
ro P

Ltr (f)

o =6

C k-

0 O

E —
0 0
cd ro
ro _ro

ro ^
E 0

2 S

0 o

.E ^

0
CD E
C Cl
'0 _o

CD 0
0 >
““ 0
0 TO

ro

CD ^

0 ro

|.|
° ro

c cl

ro £

Q_ CD

0 "ro

% ro

!'l

O jD
5 JD
CD CD
^ CD
ro o
0 —

EJp

>*

0

0

c

o

'■5

O

<

*■»

c

0

E

0

m

ro

c

ro

0

srs £

cm cd ro
ro *-
cl c c
ro ro 0
^ E E

0

CD

CD

C

CD

CD

CD —

0 >

0 ~
ro 0 -S
'E ro j=
ro ro 0

a> 2

0

00 $

00 0
CM

CD

CD

Ql C

ro ro
^ E

0

JO

TO

3

o

ro
0

ro

JsC

ro =

0 s-

^ 0
0 0

E ro .

ro ro Q

o LU
^ O
®-<
® c
— ro

ro

0

ro 3

_ ro
0 0
0 ic

CD CD
CD ■*->
C C
CD 0

E E

0

CD

CD

C

CD

E

0.2
C JO

ro ro

O 0
LLJ P

¥>

CD CD

0

CD

P'S £

™ ro ®
CL C C
ro ro 0

2EE

TO C

o £

is

0 iro
>- ro

2 -ro
™ 0
O ±r

SI

00 j£

c

0

CL

Sir

-Q C

TD 0

§ 2

5 ®

0 E
ro 2

— JO

p ro
0 ro
o 0

CL P

0

JO

0
3

-5 I

p

ro

O CD

0 P
0 >

o !>
ro S'

-Q c

p 0
82
^ g

■0 E
ro P

— JO

p ro

5 ro
n o
CL P

ro

JO

ro

ro

o 0
o 0

ro

E ro

c:

0

CL

-Q c

TO 0

0 ■ =
0 E

ro P

— JO

p ro

5 ro
3 o
0. P

0 P
ro 0

| 8
> CL
CD P
0 TO

lu CD
0 0
JO 0

H

1 £

f!

2 O

CJ "

= c

0

0

03

o

uj!
o 0
< ro
0 £

^ _
ro

ii

> E

0 o
0 — ■
0:00
-2 2 ro

0

g o

]5 ro

ro 0

0

o

CL

0

CL JO TO

0

CD

0

£

ro

cn

0

0

0 P
"5 ro

1 o

> CL
CD P
0 TO

ro "ro
0 0

0 0

H

1 2

!■

■2 o

o ^

-Q CD

^ Q-

CL O

c

o

'0

£ §■
i ro

P cd

s |

ro P
— o

ro c

i 0

ro c
CL 0
E

ro ts

~ ro
ro 0
< ro

CD -J3
C= O
CD 0

x ro
0 -

o ro c
0" ro ro

C 03^
CD

C 0 CD

ro 0
ro _c

^ -4— »
CO -t-'
“D CD
C 0

P E

0 cn

ro x

M—

1 1

i a

0 9“

C

ip

— 0

i|

ro E

- 0
0 0
0 ro
0 ro
ro s_

0 o
P 0
to
c c

03 CD

-e —
o C
Q- 0

S- 0

o CD

0 ^
< ro

P o

0
0
0
o
o
0

,!P 0 p
Iq

05
CL

CD
p

ro
>
0

0
c
ro
0
0
0 0

2^

CL C

E 0
.E o

0

c

0

CL

CL

<

O

LU

o

<

0

cn

0

P I5

0 1

0 P
c o
ro P

0 -

ro P

P c
c 0

o 0

Cl ro

ro-0

0 CD

i§

1 £

O O
0" 0

C 2

0 0
E P

CD C/3

O
O

0
CD
0

0' _g

C 0
P 3
4— o
O $

i 03

P ro

03 jz
0 O
O X

ro 0

0

0

>

o

0

in’

o

0

0

01

P

p

3

E

0

cn

x

0

c

0

Q.

Q.

<

0

C CD
£ 2
$ ro

Q.

0 ;=

? 2
ro 0

2 I

0 o

03 0
0 C
0 2
£ 0
"E 0

ro x

° E
DC E
^ ro

< . E

c

■2 0
ro "ro

8 2

0 P
ro ro
E 0
0 "ro

0 E
0 ro

ro 0

8 I

0

0

jo P
0

£ fc
$ £

ro

cn

0

ro

0

E

ro

cn

QC

CO

CD

0

0

ro

c

0 ro
0 ro
ro cd

0 g

CD 0
0 0

0

0

O

0

O "TO

P CD

0 .E

ss

1 ro

| 0

Jr 0
P CD

E ^
^ ro
0 0
ro
o

c

o

• 0
0 0
0 >-
> 0

o 2

= 0

ro c

ro 8

„ 0

O-Q.0

ro to 0

o § ro

> 0 ro
T~: ro o
£\Q -L
ro

8 8 ro i

rTs O rn

tt= CD

5 S S3

ofoiDS

O "TO
P CD
0 .E

si

s ss

r»

^ oic

o 0

P ro

!|

ro

0 0
ro 0
o 0
V o

ttz 0

O 2

c

o

• 0
0 0
0 >-
> 0

o 2

= 0

ro c

ro 8

^ 0
o 0 .0
ro -q 0

25®
3 o
o $ ro

> 0

> 0 ro

C O
^■2 ^
S 0.-9

0 ro 0

o 9 0

(3 UJ 8

0

CD

0

E

ro

cn

O "TO

P 0

C ^

0

0

TO P

0 "ro
ro

0

s 0
0

JL 0
0 3

ro 0

o
•*—> 1

E |-i

sir

o 0 0
V ro 0
prop
O F CD

Rawlins RMP

a

n>

■c

O

(/)

<

LU

£ CO

(/)

a)

=3

o

si

X X

0 0
>

E X

'— C

0 ro

-Q 0
"O
TO
O

=5

o

$ X

0

0

0 as
=s c

>

x 05

1 to

O X

CO

as

0

E

as

as

os

c

X .
0 0
■X 0

E 3
— o
0

_Q _0

X 2

0?
“ TO

> X

I 2
O 2

0

0

3

O

L_

0

2 TJ
X X
0 0
.■ts >

E x
— c
0 CD

X

3
O
5 X

0

0

0 0
3 C

>

X

A 0

O -D

o

LU

o

<

TO

■+3

C

as

-*->

o

0.

>>

as

TO

Q

■

£

£

~o

to

O'

X

as

x

cr>

c

0

0

c

X

c

as

c

0

o

CL

>,

_0

TO

Q

E

DC

X

0

DC

0

X

>

x

0

CL

o

c

0

TO

1

0

CL

O

O

O

0

x

-t— >

0

0

CO

c

1—

o

X

as

c

o

■_

CL

CL

TO

i—

as

c

0

0

c

M—

o

>

o

3

■a

o

L_

CL

0

O

Q.

TO

i —

OS

c

0

0

c

0

a

c

TO

x

c

0

•a

c

TO

o

0

x

c

0

E

_0

CL

E

X

TO

x

•e

o

Ql

Cl

3

0

O

TO

TO

■a

as

c

c

o

E

•a

c

TO

O

c

0

>

.c

0

N

C

o
■+— *
TO

0

as

0

>

0

o

c

TO

x

c

0

O

as

c

'n

as

i—

css

o

o

0

0

>

■a

c

TO

§

X

0'

TO

O

'as

o

o

X!

"to

o

E

0

x

o

"to

o

'c

TO

X

o

0

as

& TO
X 2
O TO

O ®
s— X
Cl — '
cl^

TO

C 0
0 >
E ■■§
0 0
05 S'

So

TO 0

E!
TO o
TO CD
as O

2 0
C 0

0

TO

0

>

Q.

3

1

0

X

X

C

TO

as

c

X

as

c

'0

TO

0

0

TO

as

■a

c

TO

<5

O

c

0

CL

o

0

X

X

3

O

X

TO

X

as

c

0

0

c

CL

as

c

'to

c

'as

E

o

X

0

as

as

c

TO

E

>

0

>

'0

c

TO

C

0

X

X

3

o

0

TO

0

>

a.

3

i_

0

x

x

c

TO

as

c

X

i_

3

0

X

0

a

as

t

3

CO

0

as' ro co
X TO

0

TO

CL OS
TO TO

TO E „
0 0 as

as 2

>,2 ro

0 3 c
TO O

c

0

E

0

vv X

Q £

I —

E
QC

TO

0~ X
0 TO
O -£=
X TO 0
TO o ^
DC o x

I— 1- as

0

as'

CM 0
Q_ OS
TO TO

Eto
TO E

TO 0
TO -O

>,2
TO 3
TO §

Q

£ w
0

DC - .

X TO O

0 o UJ
DC § O

TO

to ro

X TO
® TO

c

0

CL

-Q c

X TO

0 ■=
x E

TO 2
— X
2 To
X TO
a TO
CL o

0

X

X

3

o

0 as
x ro
c

0 x
0 TO

b

ro 0
o ^
o 2

i

TO

X
0
0
O
O
0

X _
X TO

8 5
* 8
x E
ro 2

— X

2 TO

X TO

3 O
0. 2

X $

^ c
. 0

5 E

2

x

as

ro

o x
o 0
— 3

E 2

2 =>
2 CL

c

0

CL

-TO C
X TO

TO

3

o

3= 8

x E

8 2
— x

2 TO

X TO

3 O
CL 2

LD

% 5
2 I
o E

5 0
0 x
C TO

2 ro

2 8

TO T

§■£

O ■§
0 ,h=
C 3
TO X
CL 2

o

0 TO
TO o

E C

Q. TO

2 -0

TO 3

0 ,S2
x x

?£

O 0 TO

3 >-
TO _ O

O 2 0
CL 0 2

x ro o
0 o ro

0

LO

0 03
X 1-

^ I

o E

$ TO
0 X
C TO
2 TO
O
O
0 T

ro

to ro
0

c 3
ro x
FT 0

o

ro TO
TO o

E c

X TO

2 -£

TO 3

0 2
x x

”~S

TO CIS C

O 0 to

TO ^ O

b ® 10

S 0 2

X TO TO
0 O TO

Rawlins RMP 2-67

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

CO

Ul

to

c

Q.

O

0)

x:

o

0

y

o X3

0 i

X2 .0

I1

> CL
CO tr
X O
£ C

_ro o

~ 2
X <D
O-
Q- O

x

_ro _0

2 co -d
-q CD 0
CD .E 2
W -a (2
o j 3

a o ci

CD E CD
X . X

x iD x

111

co co co

■o .2.15

£ X $
TO >

.2 2 x

5 = £

£

CO

CD

CD

E

CD

C/D

o .
co

n

o -o
0 c
xi .0
^ o

11

> CL

co ‘t;
-Q O
C C
JD o

~ 2
xi cu
/■?

0- o

CD

o

c

0

a.

o

0

X

o

0

(/)

C/)

0

o

X

03

(f)

3

X

O

$

0

SD

0

c

CD

0

E

"0

"0

L_

0

0

c

c

E

E

o

03

ao

o

o

0

X

(A

o

0

C/)

if)

0

o

Cl

X

if)

D

X

o

0

0

c

0

0

E

Id

"0

i_

0

0

c

C

£

E

0)

X
CD CD

C

0

CL

O

X _.

0 CD
CO CO

o

CL

co
3 03

1 0

o

+■' X
c
0
CL
O

2 c ro
0 E c
s- 0 fc
CD

052
co <D 0
o c c

i— E E

c

•1 o
« 0

11

CD E

- CD
0 0
0 CD

CD U.
0 O
® 0
.■t x
c c
3 0

<5 c

&8
O CD
0 "O
< 0

CO

X

03

C

0

CL

CL

M<

X '
3 03
X CD

0 0

11

CL C

E °
.E a

o "o

^ 0

0 .E

“I

S 0

8> Ew £

t> 8 g*
0 0 0
O 0 0
Vow
t 0

O F

o

CD

o

H=C 0

0 .E
0 *—

|=0
^ -X

O 1/3
° 0

£ £
_ 0

^ CO
0 0
O 0

V o

it 0

O F

0

c

o

-d 0
0 d-
$ 0
o S

^ 0

O X co

c T3 <0

55m

3 O

0
0
0 0

ED O

o

0 -V .o'
w £- i
0 CD 0
O O 0

CD LU o

0

0

0

E

0

CO

0

x

.o "5

£x

ci ®

0 5
X _0

CO "CD
0

0

o CD

® 0 ^
3

E

_ 0
^ co V
0 0 0
O 0 0
Vow

it 0 o

O -c CD

$

X

0

c .X

£ 2
w .E
x

£ CD
— 2
to o

1 |

CL P

.t 0

V °
£

a: o
^ <D

0

0 2 c
^ x 0

ill

5 | »

CO m ?
0 .E E
0 oil

CD 0 2
Cl W 0
lc ro w
w .E X3

0 X £

C 0 CD
S 0)0

° CD ra
■a c ™
c 0 x
i?Ea

cn

c

0

■a

0

■+—>

0

c

g>

'0 cd
0 0

X t
■52 c
O .2

LLI 0

f) co

U 0

< Q.
0 CL

i— 0

0

0

0

E

0

co

cr

c

0

T3

0

0

C

CD 0
0 2
O CD

.2 o
CD £

CD W

0

0

e

0

E

0

O)

re

c

0

0

°E

0

1

0

2

1

c

0

<->

s

□

o

a

o

c

c

©

a.

_w

0

o

CD

c

0

E

0

a>

ro

c

ro

0

0

"O

0

3

E

T3

C

0

0

X3

0

0

O

3

O
0
-»— »
o
1—
CL

o

I

£

c

-0

c

3

o

a

o

c

c

0

CL

0

CD

0

c

0

X2

0

JC

C

0

E

0

CD

0

c

0

E

•e

0

CL

O

c

0

o

0

03

0

0

C

$

o

4—

o

c

o

0
i —
0
CL

o

o

o

0

-X

0

0

CO

(0

0

>

o

0

S'

O

4—*

c

0

E

0

G)

0

C

0

0

0

03

0

3

E

03

C

0

0

X3

0

0

O

C

0

x;

c

0

03

C

0

0

o

"co

0

c"

B

c

'0

Q

LL

CD

Z)

O

0

Q.

C

o

0

0

CD

0

>

0

to

c

0

x:

c

0

o

O)
c
'n
0
t

CD

-X

O

o

"co

0

>

03

c

0

c

0

E

0

CD

0

C

0

E

X3

0

x:

t

o

Q.

Cl

3

0

O

0

0

03

CD

C

c

o

E

03

C

0

>>

03

0

-Q

'i—

O

0

0

0

O

cn

o

o

la

0

o

E

0

0

to

'c

0

x:

o

0

E

CD

2. CD
X 2
O CD

O ®

i— _c
Cl

0 O

4- 0

C 0
0 >
E '•§

0 0
03 "o'

So

0 0

E!

O o

0 CD
0)0
2 0

C 0

o

o

2-68 Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

•2

Q.

<0

•c

O

CO

uj

"5

c

£

<

o

E

O

E

E

o

o

t/5

E

O

o

<

E

0

E

a>

05

0

E

(0

C/5

a>

o

x:

a>

>

$

0
c

05

CD

JO

1

CD

>

O

05

C

d

_3

o

c

<D

05

3

O

O

d

05

>

TO

0

N

i__

O

O

E

o

TO

0

0

o

o

0

JO

T3

3

O

£

oT

0

L.

a

0

o

N-

h-

rd

0

0

c

0

E

0

05

TO

C

0

E

X 5
0
-E

^ d

c 00

0 r=
C Q.

5 <

LT)
O 1-
O

C ©
C _Q
0 C

^ g

JO o

>

.Q

0

E

O

o

<

*■>

E

0

£

0

o>

ra

E

0

O

s. k

2; I'-'

> 0
^ 0
i 0

TO

0

05

0 __
c c
0 0
E E
0 0

X2 05

o
o
c
c
0
Q- to

0 j5
-e 0

^ 0

00 .t±
T- JO

Q- 0
0 t

© ^ -

0 0 0

O C/5 2

0 0 0

0

0

0

E

0

co

0

0

■a

0

-t— '

0

.9^ 0
0

© JO

■a 0
0 -c

JO .0

0-0 0
E = 0

^ 0

0

$ O 0

0O E

2^ 05

0 o ra

0 < C
x: c ®
I— 0 E

o

h-

h-

id

Sn £

m -O

TO

0

05

1 C
0 0

E
0 0

~ 05

= 0

0

0 T3
^ 3

O

E $

0 ^
Eo-t;
0 v 2

®>C\I jS
2 cx ©

E ^ to

0

0

5 2 ro g

0 O C/5 E

x: 0 0 0

o o

C "I

o ©'

~ 05

0 c
5 Jo

-I

ro £

05

TO E

_0 _3
0

-1 E

0

3

Q.

C 0
0 0
>E m
>00’
~ 3 -o
O x> 9
< 0 J5

c

0

E

0

05

0

E <X5
CO w

E -

C TO
0 E
0 0
3 CL

it

±1 if)

=3 a)
E £

o

0 0
0 'FT

0

CO

o o
c

0

0

c

05

0

’d

cr

0

C

0

XI

0

E

0

05

CD

X

0

, — L

0

C

CX5

O)

cr

l—

0

0

X

m ^

0 _g

0 3
3 .9
2 0

—5

O C UJ
a 0 (D

>• E “

9 0 0

~ 3 TO

O XJ E

< 0 J5

*- TO
0 E
0 0
3 CL

it

±1 CO
3 CD

E £

o

0 0
? S'
E o

c

0

CL

-O c
to 05

0 -=
TO E

0 05

— JO

.9 to
x5 0
o o

CL O

_0

0

§

o o

e ^
0
0 >

o :>

0 ^
jo ■

33
3
o

1/3 c

to E

0 05
— JO

.0 CO

0

X5

;g

3

o

£ £T

JO 0
O O
CL O

0

X2

0

0

O TO
O 0
— 3

E “

o 3
CL

0

CO

c

0

CL

O

0

X5 '
T3
3 ‘
O

0
C
0 =
TO E

0 05
— X5

o ©

Iq 0
3 o

Q- o

c .
0 0

o ro
© o

JO CL

o
s:

0

0

T_
0
-6 0

c

_0 _
O 2

1|

CL E

TO

0

!I

0 O

0 35 .
o -Q 0
O o 0

_ 0 c/5

£ 0 O

TO TO 0
CD —5 -q

o ! 0

o > c
0 ®

0 E r-

ti 0 E
0

0 2 5
0 0 0

° .9 .9
K E E

0

CO

c

0 0

o ro
o w

0 o

x -

3^
o 0

5 '0
0 ~
TO 0

S J

o 2

s |

a E

O TH

^ ® xi
0 .9 ©

$

TO O

© s X2
> X5
O m 3

■2 iS O

i&*

0^0
O 0 0
V o «5
t 0 o

O F CD

O TO

0 .9
0 *•—

% «
.9 0

E d
■o 0
0 0
o 0
Y o

U= 0

O 2

0

c

o

• TO
TO ©

0 >-
> 0

o 2

— 0
0 c

5 8

0

O -Q 0

c x <s>

O § 05
=■0 0
CO E O
^•2 ^
8 Q--9

0 05 ©

oO «
Out o

0

0

0

E

0

CO

ro

a>

E

a

E

0

OJ

TO

C

TO

TO

+■>

5

TO

X

0

0

0

£

□

©

m

A

o

O TO

° ® Xi
0 .9 ©

w % $
TO O
0

■S©

= X5
OT

jt: to
0
0

3

o

0 >,
^ 0 9
000
o © 0
Y O c/5
t 0 o

0=c(3

_0

0

o

O

•*-»

c

0

E

0

O)

ro

c

0

0

3

1

.0

JO

0

x:

TO

C

3

O

0

0

>

TO

C

0

0

X5

0

O

0

O

i—

CL

O

0

0

E

3

0

DO

o

0

sz

0

0

o

3

o
0
0
\

0

xr

0

05

0

C

0

JO

0

c

0

E

0

05

0

C

0

>>

E

0

CL

O

c

0

o

0

S

0

L—

o

0

L.

0

c

o

M—

o

c

.0

0

k

0

Q.

O

O

O

0

JZ

j*:

0

0

CO

0

0

_>

*3

O

0

'n

O

■*-*

c

0

E

0

O)

0

c

0

§

TO

JO

0

TO

C

3

O

0

0

>>

TO

C

0

0

JO

0

J3

0

C

5

"0

O

3

0

O

c

0

JO

c

0

TO

c

0

0'

t—

o

w

Rawlins RMP 2-69

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

CO

u]

TO

c

£

Q

to

<N

w

0)

Q.

TO

-C

o

Q

LL

CD

Z>

o

0

sz

0

CL

C

0

E

0

CD

0

c

0

E

X2

TO

SZ

tZ

o

Q.

CL

3

0

TO

T3

CD

C

C

o

E

33

c

TO

>

O

c

0

>

c

0

N

c

_o

0

0

CD

0

>

0

o

c

0

x:

c

0

CD

C

N

0

i_

CD

o

o

0

0

>

33

C

0

0

o

CD

O

O

'sz

"0

o

'E

0

CD

2- 0
-C 2

O CD
O <5

t- _C
Q.

c 0
0 >
E '•§
0 0

CD-=p

2 O
0 0

E.l

5 o
0 CD

0)0
52 0

C 0

<

o

c

o

E

E

o

o

0

c

o

O

<

■w

C

0

E

©

CD

re

c

re

0 -c
0 CL

0

— o

C

0 in
E -
0 q
cd re
0 -o
re E
0 0

^ o
0 z

x5 E
0 o
JC 4=

2 0
= 0
2 o
2

0 >
0 >
ro o

33 C
0 0

0

CD

0 i
E a>

0 o

CD
32 g

§ -
> o

^ c
o —

T 0

CM 0
CL

0 2
S 2

re n
o '

CO

CM O

re E
0 o

< z
-q 0
re 0
0 _o
E a

I-

C “O

re 3
2E o

re

Z

0

1

2 o

? 2
§ re
<D g5
| 2

0 2

OD C

2 £
re ^

0 0
£ 'o
C E
Z o
~ 0
$ 0
■o E

c 3
0 0
— CQ
o .

L= S.

sz o

0 0 .
sz SZ o
I- I- CO

>

sz

V)

C

Q

■4—*

o

<

■4-4

E

0

E

0

03

re

E

re

21 0

I?
§• ”
0 .2
-O -Q
;g

3

o
£

0
■o
c
0

3

CL

0

-| g*

2 0 Z
-q 0 -=5
O O- g
Q- o .2

-2 $
"o 15

0 -n
0 2

0 .2
-o Z
■o re
3 o-
o 0
§; £
0 >4-

■0 o
q c
_0 o

2 0
XD 0
2 O-
CL O

0

SZ

33

3

O

$

_0

0

_0

0

0

g>Z
~ 0

33 =3
re 0

.2 CL

X)

3

CL

0

SZ

.zs 0

0

0

CD

c

03

3

o .2

c

0

CL

Sir

-Q c
03 CD

0 -=
03 E

0 2

— JQ

•2 re
Z re
re q
CL O

J0

0

$

o re

^ E

0 2
o S

-O c
2 CD

re m

0

X)

T3

3

o

o

$ re

■o E

0 2
— sz

■— 2
Z 0

3 q

CL 2

2

sz

£

0

O 03
O 0
~ 3

E 52

2 o

2 cl

c

0

CL

-Q c

03 0

0 ■=
03 E

0 2

— X3

o re

Z 0

3 q

CL 2

c

0 0

o ro
o w

0 o
o.
0

-= 03

0

O 2
= 0

^ 2
000

r X3 0

o o §.

^ 2 0
2 re ^

0 03 —
0.-= 0
° 5 re
o | 2
0

0 E

0 5
0^0
O 03 0

0 2c
0 o

m = O
0 0"
0 re 03

0 Q_ 0
O 0
x: 0 o

I- £ o

c .
0 0

n ro
o 0

0 o
£ 8-
z^

O CD
$

0 2
03 0

1 E

o 2

if

CL E

03

c

0

o

o

CD

c

Z

i

3

0

0:

c

0

Q.

>

\n

c

0

O

0

C/j

_Q)

O

0

0

c

Z

3

>

X3

if)

b

"O

_c

4—

O

0

O

c

0

>

$

CD

CD

_c

0

E

"o.

3

CD

i_

(/)

CD

0

CD

5—

if)

0

_0

0

z

0

C

T3

X.

0

c

1-

CD

E

0

C^)

33

33

CD

(f)

C

C

0

CD

0

0

0

o - ^
2 Z 2

03 3

0 to

0

O 03
O 0
O

CD 03
C 0

2 01
X c
0 0
c E

X2 £

15 >

D)

C

0

0

>

o

0

Z1

o

2 0

— X3

0 2
0 0
-C 0
I— CD

11

0 o

0
0

0 0

sz ^

2 ro
0 ”5

ii

03

c

0

o

o

0

c >

0 0

o re

JJ-E
2 £

^ I*

re rn

2 re
0 2
0 0

£ ro
I— CD

CD

c

z

i_

3

0

z

® 0
^ <13

CD -rz

ii

0 o

o ro
-I re

c >

E 5
0 s-
0)2
0 03

I?

E 0

0

xc

O "O

£ ® Z
0 2 re

s||

ls«

!-»!

o q 3

2 2 o

re 0 cD
0 0 0
o re 0
V o 0

t= re

"D C

O

CD

o "re
2 re
0 2

z w
2 0

xc
0

, 0
zs
q 0
2 re

I £

_ 0
re3 re
0 0
o 0
V re
tt 0
O 2

0

c

o

■ 03
03 0
0 >-
> 0
o 2
= 0
0 c

« 8

0

0X3 0
re -q 0

11s
o $ re
> ^ 0
=■00
CO c o
^2
ro o -re
0 re 0
0 re 0

CD LU o

o 33
^ re ^

Q) ^

(/) M—

Z3 0)

CD

$

re73 J

2 {§ re

0 0 ^
> ^ 33

q 0
2 0

3

o

5

E .

■o 8 ^
0 0 0
O 0 0
V re 0
it 0 2
O F CD

Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

</>

<N

0)

■w

a

<0

■c

o

to

LU

,c

£

3

o

CD 5
> 0
a. .2

S'E

« 3

73 E

E E
§ 8
CD C
CD
CL

C

to

>- CO

3 3

.52 c

fS $

o ~

CD 'T
t ^
3 o
CO CD

to

0

CD

CD

C

CD

>

0

>

0

c

0

3

O

0 ^
> C/5
Q..2

11

■o E

■o £

as 8

05 c

0

c

TO

>- CO

5 ra

0 3

8 |

t £

3 ti
CO CD

CD

CO

3

o

0 5

> CO
Q.

2-1

0 3

^ E

■3 E

o 8

°> c

£ 0

to

0

05

CD

c

re

E

3 CD ~

CO c

0 0

o ~

t b

CO CD

LU

>

<

O

I-

<

OQ

D

0

>”

LU

_J

E

1
(O

§

o

a:

LL.

LU

0
z
<

1

o

LU

O

LU

(_>

<

re

+3

C

o

o

a.

a

>

re

O

0

0

u.

o

0

>

re

O

jo

CD

o

O

■*-*

c

0

E

0

05

CO

c

CD

0

>

CD

O

o*:

0

0

L_

O

0

>

CD

o

TO

0

re

o

_o

0

0

'o

0

CL

0

re

TO

3

O

CD

C

i_

0

.Q

1c

0

0

re

E

"O

c

CD

E

_3

3

O

CD

C

0

_Q

t:

CD

C

o

0

0

1

CL

C

0

0

'0

c

o

o

0

0

"c

3

t

o

CL

Q.

O

"CD
c
o
-♦— <
CD
0
L_

o
0
1 —

0

■g

>

o

0

c

g

to

c

o

o

05

.c

L— i

0

0

c

3

O

o

o

CD

-Q

c

're

c

CD

0

0

>

O

0

S’
O
-*— *
c
0
E
0

05

CD

C

CD

O

0

-4—*

O

i__

CL

to

c

CD

CL

0

jo

5

05

C

>

CD

C_>

-O

c

CD

E

0

TO

C

o

re
0
■

c

0

T 5
3
CL

"TO

05

0

3

O"

O

<

0

0

>

b

CD

C

1_

0

<

<

o

c

o

E

E

o

o

0

c

o

+3

O

<

c

0

E

0

05

CD

C

CD

0

>

CD

O

0

J=

05

C

0

c

0

l_

0

re

$

4—

o

0

1—

3

re

0

CL

E

0

CD

>

o

E

0

i—

o

3

TO

o

3

0

0

CD

O
•*— *

0

•*—>

O

3

•a

o

to

o

o

0

0

CD

0

0

05

CD

C

CD

-Q

0

C

o

b

o

<

c

0

E

0

05

CD

C

CD

2

. — . C
0 CD

£ 0
O CD
CD -jj

O 0
05
CM CD
^ C
CD CD

£ E

CD a;

0 -3

> TO
CD —

U O

^ 05

Oc<i0

0 a.h-1

> cd LU

CD (J

O “3 <

^ C
0 CD

£ 0
O CD
CD -q

O 0
CM 05
CD CD
' — ' C
CD CD

£ E

CD a)

0 -3

^ §

$

3 „

2 00
O cm d
0 o.^

> CD lu
CD ^ CJ

o e<

3

O

^ O
CD LU

0 a
re <

/ 5 0

O ro

TO

0 0

3 05

o 8

0 CD

re E

0 3
0

i— °

0

0 o

L_ -*-J

3 TO
ro 0
O 05
CD

CM C
CD

CD E
0

}= 0
CD jd

0 "O

re|

O |

^ _

0

c

0

E

>»

t!

"o
c 0
CD =

§ 3=

0

^ o

o ^

Q. 0
0

O CM

0 Q_
> CD
CD ^

o e-

>
CD
0 O
0
> JZ

o

l— <+—

CL O

0
0
0
3

0
o
3 3

° O
0 2
3 -9
!c CD

T3

c

3

O

i—

05

0

>

CD

O

0 "SC
^ -3
O 0
C JZ

-O z

3°^

0 3-?,
> c 0

05 E 1-

C O

r- 3

9J Z 3

3 cb ( 5

CD

-1^

E

— o

CD O

-Q 5

E o

0

>

CD

O

O 0
C £

■o

3 0^
O 3

> C 0
05 E Jr
C sn O

3 SJ

3 3

~ o

0
0
£
ro

-3 > X

i- ^3 0

0 0 -b
-8^3

~ = O
I— re a

^ >
F CD

E o
^ re

T~^ -p. ^

— a)
E

> 0 b.

05 05 x
C CD 0
■*= c
“ 3 “■

^ | O

CD 21 o

-3 3 0

i- .> >

3 0 0
X5 c O
E 3 (y
i= 3 £

>

"CD

0

^ 0
TO 3
C >
3 o

C .®
0 JD

E °
0 0

05 >

C 3
CD

TO

0

$

o

"re

0

JD

T3

3

o

Z o

05 LL

~ ^

0 £
3 ^

£

CD

0

3

JZl

re

0

0 £

0 w_

o °
LJ- 3
0 -2

£ 3
~ 0
0 0
0

0 c
0

E
0
£ D>

O 3

TO

_ro 3

£3-0

■Q Q) CD

3 £ 3

0 TO E
O o 3

O o CL
0 3 0
-O . -O

£ £ 12

III
0 0 0
-3 .2,76

3 TO >
£ 3 >

.2 £ -o

S 3 £

f? 3 ^

TO

0

0

0 2

-3 S

TO O
3 °-
O 0
^ £
0 'tr

TO O
3 C

_ro o
£ re

J3 0

i? 3-

CL O

0

TO

TO

3

O

$

_0

CD

$

CD

L_

13

CD

c n

8* TO
.2 0
30 =J
=5 0
3 3
.3 Q.

0

CD

0

E

CD

C/5

b _ro

! =
§■ ”
0 .2
5
3

CL

0

3 o I5
.2 re "o
-3 0
3 CL °

O .2

Rawlins RMP 2-71

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

co

LU

TO

C

iC

</)

Q

CO

Q.

TO

•C

o

0

CD

2 b

TO

0 O
CO

O CM

■Q c

TO CD

to I

8 2
— TO
.CO CD

CD

i

0

C

E

0

TO

2 to

ro 0

3

0

i_

3

CL

CD

TO

T3

3

O

15 0|£

0

0

2 b

TO

0 O
0 CM
O 13

St

TO

i

0

C

E

2

xo

2 to

0 0

| -g 0 —

8 2
5 ®

| to E

0 2
— _o

2 CD
Iq "cd

3 o
Q. 2

3

0

3

CL

CD

-Q

3

o

0

0

2 b

to ro
0 o
0 ■'j
O CM

0 £

-Q c

"O C^

8 2
$ ®
0 ■ =
to E

ro 2

— XO

■- 2
Iq "cd
a o
CL 2

0

c

E

2

-Q

2 TO

ro 0

3
0
i

3

Q.

0

J3

TO

3

O

5

c

0

Q.

-Q c

"O CD

0 • =
TO E

TO 2
— TO
O 0

5 0

3 o

Cl 2

o

2

CD

_0 TO

2 3
CD o

CO 0>
O ^
O 0
— 0
o >-
~ o
TO CD
CD o

n ^
2 CM

O

0 ^
0 -44

0 c
>T 0
0 _

0 2
0 0
o c

CD

‘i_

0

CO

E

Id

i_

0

c

E

o

TO 0

8 2

I— E TO TO

O

_0

0

_0 TO

2 3
CD o

5 3

O 0
71 CD

o »-
->=■ o

TO CD
0 O

O ™
2 13
O
0

0 r-
0 c

£ ®
CD

0 2
0 0

ill

0

0

0 CD
O CA

2 o

O CL

0 .CO

TO TO

0 o m

TO

O

_0

0

0 ^
3

o

- $
o .

O 0

71 ®

O i-
TO CD
0 O
® TT

2 CM

O

0 ct

0 c
ir 0
ro _

0 2
0 0

TO 0

$2

2 o

o a
0 .CO
TO TO

0 0
o ro

o c/)
CD O

(/)

° .9

0 2
TO 0

0

5—

0

TO

C

ro ao

!.E>

„T0 0

2 0 >

tt ;r»

(D

o a) E

2 3 TO

3 C/D 3
o ■ o

5 £>i

5 0 CO
2 0 51

0 _0 .t;

0 0-^
SZ 0 o
I— 0) 0

TO o
0 LLI
DO O
0 <

0 0

TO
C
0

o ^

2 15

i—

TO 3

0 0
0 —

2 13

o 0

0 2
3

0

TO

2

3

O

TO 3

3 C/D
o

* ?

0 2 o

— LLI

•=5 co<
0 CD 0
0 <—

m co
2 0
0 _0

0 0
-c 0
I — coo

0

c E o
0^0
0 0 0
0 > >

3 c 3
~ 0 .®
O 3 TO

0 2 o

0

0

0

E

0

c/D

TO
C
0

o

o

0
C >
0 0

2 c
O 0

no co
2 0
0 0

0 0
2 CD
I— coo

ao

c

TO

0 (A

2 <u

1|
0 to
o ro

*1 CD

c >

E §-
0 >-
ao 2

0 TO

|?

LL £

0 o
0 E

i_ 4—

o >.

® g

ro 2.

o 3

0 co
cy o
2 o

4— f—

0 0

2 E

3 a

0 sz

2 o

o

0

1 E

3

l_

O =3
4= CO
O ™
CO 2
— 0
q.2

< f

TI 0

ao to

0

,2 0

C/D o

c

o

to

0

o

■

Q_

0

0

0

E

0

w

0

0

0

E

0

OD

^ E
0 n
0 2

o E
^ 2
T- 3
CO o
TO «

o E

0 _g

2 i

t:

ao 0

3 TO

2 0

2 O

— 0

,® 0

C/D co

O
0 c

TO O

E to

0 0

! o

Z CL

O 03

£ ® -d

0 2 0

5 0 $

TO O

3 co 3

^Sao

^ s0 f?

> TO

0 CA 3

2 CD o

1 g-i

« I s-

o 0 0
V co 0

3 0 2
0 2 0

0

TI

O 03
3 0

0 2

■§ w

2 0

c

o

TO

0

i_

0

■g

'0

c

o

o

0

O TO

0
Lti
0
0

?>

0

_ 0
0 0
O 0
V co

3 0

O 2

c- TO

2 3

3 O

I *

>00

^ C O
£\2 >,
ro 3 to
0 2- 1
0 0 0
o co 0

O LLI o

0

0

0

E

0

C/D

O ^3
° ® TO
0 2 0

TO O
-7T !2 0

2 0

x: — 2

0 = TO
> TO
~ 0 3
2 2 8

it*
"S 8 I-

O 0 0
V co 0
3 0 2
0 2 0

0

a: c ■

p Is

■^3 2
c cr ro
0 0 0

>£
>

4- 0 C

0 0 “
c x 13
go. 2
'0 0 3
0 0 E

0

0 ro 0
— C TO

0 2-0
LU 0 3
M 0 3

U 0 o

o.

0 Q. 0
T I 0 0
— 03

CM

0

>

0

C

0

0

0

E

0

C/D

0 c
,h= 0

^ CD

£.20

^ 3 m
< CT ro
0 0

0 >>2
08-

S— • 4— <
O) 0 f-

'0 2 •—

5 ro 0

08^

ro

0 0
0

TO

i— 8

oc

c

0

TO

0

0

C

ao 0
'0 E
0 no

0 g

ro ^
2 8

ro Q.
0 Q.

H 0

O

HI

o

<

"-5

£

<D

*=•

O

OL

tf)

j*:

TO

_J

(/)

C

jo

CL

0

1

0

s_

0

3
O

0 _

0 CL 0
— 0

3

2

ro

o

0

4—*

c

0

E

0

O)

0

c

0

TO

0

O

OO

c

E

o

>

TO

0

4.

0

ao

c

0

TO

C

0

TO

0

C

0

o

Q.

0

ao

0

c

0

TO

0

c

0

E

0

ao

0

c

0

E

>

t

0

CL

o

!

CL

c

0

o

2,

0

c

o

0

0

CL

o

o

0

0

LiC

0

0

OD

(A

0

>

3

O

0

Iq

O

4-4

c

0

E

0

oo

ro

E

0

TO

0

O

-4—*

ao

c

o

>4

TO

0

i_

0

ao

c

0

TO

C

0

0

x:

TO

0

SZ

c

0

o

Q.

4— »

o

0

o

0

c

$

o

>

3

0

Q.

O

Q.

C

0

O

0

tT

0

c

0

E

0

00

0

c

0

E

0

>

0

CL

O

o

0

TO

c

0

x:

0

i_

0

c

3

0

Q.

0

2

c

3

3

O

Q.

CL

O

0

3

0

3

Q.

2-72 Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

CO

lu

.c

£

CL

03

0! CD

-O ^

0 -o
-* 3
o
$

0
•— co

CD 0

— i

o
0
o
o

2 03

$ 2

CL

0

E

0 to

CD r-'
_l .

0 «

t— CM

ro

w c
ro 0
TD E
0 0
03 03
CD 0
C C
0 0
E E

1 ®

0 0
0 w -d
2 03 0
<- c =>
0 3 2

0-3 3
O O o.
0 0 0
_Q . -Q
0 -n

111
0 0 0
2 -2 3

9 TD ^
ro CD ^

5 3 £

0

0

TD

C

JD

0

0

0

M —

0

O

0

c

0

CD

0

CD

0

C

0

3

JD

O’

C

0

0

0

O

0

3

0

0

0

3

CL

0

> 0
0 0
> CD =

m CO

l x

■o ^

C 0 0
0 -c 2

Q- S’

0 o <

0

O 0 0

3 ■£ 2

C O 0

0 0*^

c

o _
2 0

E

0

03
0
_ C
0 0

-C I

Q. E E

JO

0

$

O CD

^ E

0 ±3
0 >
o S

-Q c

TD CD

Is
$ ®

td E

0 2

— JD

.cd ro

3 0

=3 CD

CL o

0

O "O
O 0
— 3

E 2

2 3

2 CL

■0

0

o -J2
O S

0 o

jd 9-

3 I?
o 0

*'s
0 0

!§ E

o

0

If

CL E

c=

0 o

c '-L3
0 _0
= o
o .9-
o 0

c O
0 c n

CL -7

O ^

0 9

_Q 0

0 2

® 0
0 0
0 0

0 CD
I— 03

0

0

0

=5

o

§

0

0

0

0

0

— 0
0 0

2, 1:35

03 CD

0 9

0 E

°3

03 >

.9 0

.2 g

i£.9

QC

c

0

0

0

0

c

03 0

0 2

•- -I

0 co

2 g

ro Q.

0 CL

i— 0

0

0

O "O

0

0 .9

si

1 s

(/)

CO
CD
«♦— *

0

_ 0
0 0
O 0

V o

t 0

o o

0
c
o

0 "0
0 >-
> 0

o 2
= 0
0 c

2 8
._ 0
O 0 .0

0 TD CO

115

O $ CD

=”0 0
cr c o
£2 ^

0 Q--9
0 CD CD
O O 0

O UJ O

0 0
2 03
' — 0

TO 2
0 ro

0

0 ®
0 -O

-* ■o

0 0

0

.® 8d

E o LLJ
0 o O
0 <° <

0

c
- CD
°? 0
CM 0

0

JD

TD

O

o

$

JO

0

0

i_

TD

0 ^
-O O

9 C

JD o
2 0
-Q 0
2

CL O

0

0

0

£>3

~ 0

TD =3

=3 0

g 3

.9 cl

co

3 _
O’ c
o 0
0 ^
0 2

9 CO
0 ~

o

CL

0

_>> 0
0 0
> 0

0

-■£ O

-9 LLI

_£o

td <t-

c 0

0 -£C
CL ~

x 3
0 O

.0
3

c
0
0
"O
c
0

0

JD

TD

=3

o

0 >
o ^

r ' \

CD

X

3

c

0

CL

CL

-Q

3 C <

ate

0 _

-O C
TD CD

1 2
^ g

-o E

0 2

— JD

O TO

3 0

=3 CD

CL 2

0

JD

0

0

O TD
O 0
3

E 2

2 3
J= CL

td
0
0
o
o

0
JD

TD
D
O
£

0
"O 0
9 E

jo

0

0

o

Cl

0

3

"0

L

0

0

— 0

CL E

TD
c
0

3 j?

2 3

L_

■O =3

0 0

O -O

O 0

CD 2
o CD
JD t

■o 0

3 05

o

<: |>

0 m
2 CD

0 _0

0 0

JO 0
(— 03

— 0 CD

3 ro
0
^O
D

o t: ro

0 3

0 ® ro
0
0
0

o §

?■§!
^ 03 >
0 CD 0

X m 2

CD | ^

r- C o

CO

c/) 0 a)
0 > >

3 3 *3
^ § .9

CD JD

0 .9 O

DC

c

0

-O

0

0

c

03

'0 CD
0 0
■o J=

0 ro
— c

O .2
LU co
f 3 W

0 §;
3 0

0

JD

O 3:3
vir 0

0 .9

si

5 s

i-r

9 0

2 CD

E ^

_ 0

OD 0
0 0
O 0
V CD
3= 0

O F

c
o

3 "0
0 >-
> 0

o 2
= 0
0 c

® 8

0

O -Q .0
c "O C/3

- S -Q

=3 0
O $ CD
> > 0
=■0 0
-c: c cd
£\2 ^
CD -9 JD
0 O- ,
0 0 0
2 2 2
O LLI o

c

0

E

0

03

0

C

0

JD

0

-C

r

o

CL

CL

D

0

O

0

0

■o

03

c

c

o

E

■a

c

0

£r

o

3

0

>

c

0

N

>»

A

V)

C

o

’5

O

<
•*— *
c
0
E
0

03

0

C

re

0

0

0

E

0

05

o
0

2 -o

E c

0 0
0 —
0 CD

® 3

o Q.

■o 2

0 co
0

M- 0
% 8
o ro

•j= 0

0

JD

O

C

o

o

$

0

3

CD
C

_ 0

cr sz

2 c
< 0

■O

c

0

CL

X

0 "O
1- 0
O =3

3 2

C D
0 Q.

0

0

0

E

0

05

0

0

0

E

0

05

0

0

0

E

0

05

0

05

0

0

0

E

0

05

TD

3

O

TD

C

0 0
JD .

I LU
!<
i”

0 CD

cd -a

o 0

ro 0

0 2
o 03

CD '0
’ 0

"O

0

m CD
0 0

0

T3 C
0 0
03 C
m * —

C/)

2 |
P

o’ —

0 .2
-Q 3

2 5

3 °-
o 0
£20

2 n co

TD O ^
0 § 03

.2 3 3

.a o 2
Q. 0.9

0

3 _
O’ C
2 CD

Ss

Si

CD

X

3

c

0

CL

CL

3

CL

0

_>^ 03
0 0

T3

C 0
0 J=

CL "
y •+-

0 CD <

u. 0 ^

O00

3 ■% 2
C o 0
0 0
0 3

TD O
C

c

0

CL

-O c

TD CD

C

0 0
Q- m

0

0

— -C

.2 2

- (I) n CD

0 0

o a. E E

0 •=

■o E

0 2

— JD

.2 0

Iq 0
3 o
a. o

0

0

o

a.

0

0

‘1—

0
0
E

3
1—
— CD

■if

CL E

TD

c

0

6

o

0

c >
0 0

&s

2

5 g3

0 W
2 O

0 0

0 0
J= 0
I— 03

03

C

Q3 0
CD 0
0 ~

3 ■£
0 o

3 ro

^ CD
C >

E %

0 >-

03.2
0 TD

I?

QC

c

0

TD

0

3

C

03 0
0 CD

O "O
^ ® TD

0 .9 0
0 ‘t- ==c

0

- .2
ro 2
2 g

0 £

TD O

S 3

0

— 0
- JD
CCD -T-,
-X ^

S o

0 O

I

-o g
0 0 0
O 0 0

V O 00

tt 0 2

0 2 0

Rawlins RMP 2-73

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

CO

uj

"<5

c

£

w

I

CO

Q.

TO

■C

o

CD

_Q O
CO

32 =3
CD 3

S E

CD 2 .

v; -n W

O ^ ®

2

to CD O
© c 0)
> <S S'
_j E o

.2 §

2 T3

1 S’
> o

03 Q>
^2

? CD
CD

E

g
N
CD

O) 2 -

"O O
O (D UJ

o o>o

W CD ^

© C
> CD CD

□ E 2

<

to

CD

CD

E

CD

C/5

03

_Q CD
_ CO

2 3

Si

g .9-

03 3

S E

03 3

.9 CD
£ E
O) 2 .

v- -n CO

2 o)~

to CD O

03 C CD

> <S S
_i E o

O

UJ

o

<

ro

"•*3

C

0

o

Q.

'o'

TO

£

CO

CD

+-> CD

o S

UL <

O ^

| <3

s. ^

■o t:

C 0
CD "g

CO 3
0)2
O) 8?
CD

m

5

CD

BC O

- ~D

"5 ^

E x;

m I—

o 2
> o
O s

0~

0

Js£

o

0

sz

o

m

CD

O

'C

o

+->

CO

X

CD

O

O

+-►

c

©

E

©

03

CD

C

CD

to

c

0

ro

1

03

C

©

CD

©

3

3

4—

~o

c

TO

3

©

©

©

>,

J3

©

©

©

3

©

co

Q.

O

s

Q-

CL

TO

>

©

SZ

o

©

o

4-

CL

■o

c

©

©

£

©

©

©

3

©

o

CL

©

T3

X3

©

W

3

©

0

1

c

ro

E

3

C

©

C

E

E

©

©

3

"O

©

a:

c

o

ro

0
©

1

Cl

ta-

ro

■o

c

ro

c

o

ro

£

©

©

c

o

o

©

©

>

’■3

o

©

J3

O

■*=»

C

©

E

©

03

CD

E

CD

-X

©

SZ

03

1c

c

©

E

CL

o

©

>

©

T3

-X

©

CD

CD

O

©

CL

w

©

c

_ro

o.

c

©

E

©

CD

CD

C

CD

E

CL

o

©

>

©

Q

_©

o

o

-t— ‘

c

©

E

©

03

CD

C

CD

E

■O

©

SZ

w

$

©

>

CD

c

>»

33

O

©

CL

W

CD

3

CD

•c

o

Q.

E

3

ro

w

c

o

■■e

o

CL

CD

g

3

-Q

'i—

C

o

o

©

©

o

SZ

CD

c

-t— *
©
©

g

'ro

g

'ro

c

©

E

CL

o

©

>

©

■O

©

c

o

t

o

CL

03

g

3

-Q

•4—*

c

o

o

©

3

ro

©

03

g

3

-Q

‘i—

c

o

o

c

o

c

03

g

3

-9

' i-_

c

o

o

-a

©

ro

'o

o

©

©

ro

-o

c

ro

©

c

©

E

CD

©

W

©

ro

_3

CD

>

©

■o

c

ro

o

c

©

>

g

c

ro

c

'ro

g

'ro

o
ro
©
-i— >

3

O

g

S

3

Q.

"O

C

CD

©

©

'c

3

■e

o

Q.

CL

O

"ro

c

o

ro

o

3

•o

©

©

■g

>

0

1

Q_

SZ

3

Q.

SZ

03

c

g

L— *

ro

©

—

Cl

i

©

g

g

'ro

g

'ro

E

"O

c

ro

CL

o

©

>

©

a

©

03

ro

'3

©

SZ

o

tfc

©

©

©

©

>

■O

ro

3

©

©

3

o

g

o

-t— '

(fi

X

c

o

3

O

o

3

©

©

©

i—

CL

"O

©

£:

©

©

03 ©

o_ '©

CL CD
© -Q

03 03
O ©
CD CD

E ©

CD

5 C

O

c3 "O
ro 0

3 CD
— 3

2 ra
> ©
© ©
CD ^

-b 2

3

O

5

LO

X

"O

3

©

Q.

CL

<

©

X

CD

©

O

3

CD

"O

!_

o

o

o

ro

-o

©

CD

ro

3

CD

E

©

SZ

"O

3

CD

W

CD

©

■o

©

-Q

3

©

"O

>

©

3

g

>

©

L—

Q.

_g

3

O

o

o

T3

3

O

Si

L — ©

O CL

© Q-

3 <
O ^
+= ©
o O
© ro
05 i=

O

>4

'3

CD

©

g

©

ro

SZ

3

©

E

©

©

ro

Isf

3

— T3
03 C
3 ©
■S= Q.
3 Q-
© <
© ^
>- w
© D.

SI

8?

3

© o

E 9
© 2
S5 o

CD s-
C Q_

3 2
_ ro

^05

= 03

-9 g

2>'E
© o

x ^

% M

o

©

CD

g

'©

©

o

03

_g

3

©

©

5—

©

3

O

O

<

© $

2 03

3 O
-Q 3
'3 CD

C 2
8 8
|> ro

“S

2 CD

! 8

' CD

•3 E
O ©

© -Q

3 2

4- 3

O O
>4 5

-t— '

'3 CD
03 3
© ^
3 ©
— W

O3 ©
2 ">,
© 2

3 0)
© Q.

-C o

Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

(0

Q

CO

L

0)

'W

Q.

«5

■c

O

CO

u]

TO

c

i

0

£ ^ z
-d c §
CD Z A-

S S J

^ 0 _
— r CD co
Z ro
CD ^
CQ >

CD

O

h-

n

CD Q)

CD _a
.E Z
P 3

•i I

CO ^

c ^

ll

E CD

CO —

$ 2

■ E CD

CD 0

Z £ CD

i- 2 q:

3

Z

C

o

0

2:

CD

CO

CD

i_

Z

CD

£ CO
CD

O 3

*4—

z ^

8>.o

C o
CD CO

E Z

c

z

Z "S

E §

0 o

^ "CD
"O 0

E -Q
CD

CO O
C C

Z Z

jl

co

0 CD
O ~

z z

CO CD

0

co

O 00
O

3 0 CM
i- CL
E 0 CD
° > ^
0 0 e.

lro^

£

0

3 w

.0 i_
> 0

0

2 -C
>_ O

o Z
0

E P
^ 2
•E 0

> o

CD c
£ O
CD .N
1—

5 °

< -C

0

ro

co

c c

ra .2

— CD

o 3
o .2-
«

5 £

Q W

o W

0 z
Z C
Z> 00
3 £

i*

S'f
0 0
O 0

o 2

0

J3

l!

§-*
c: co
co 0

* 8
Z 0
C —
0 CO

z-E

c

0

CL

CQ

O

CO

c

.E 0 P

3 0

IS

8 I

0 -=r

z z

ro o
c o 0

o

O

S“>

?§.

0 Q-

E <

0

>

0

0 -£=
z o

o >
p _0
E 2

^ 0

c S

Z 4-

.t; o

>

c

o

0

$

0

o —
z
Z c
0 0

8 o

o JO

3

Cl

Z CD

0

Z

4—

O

0

c

o

z

o

CL

co

c

0

>

0

o 1

0 0-

^ 0

g £

Z 4-

±; o

c
o

0

i—

0

CL

O C

o __

0 i

° 1
0 —
-Q -o

Z E
— 0

CO

0

£ z
0 0
0 E

=. o

CO

o

O H- P

0

O

"O

N

5 ° £

z

N

c

_CD

Z

O

z § o

c

p

o

z

0 P o

sz

O

3

8 £ -E

CO

g

"5

15

3

T5 a) -Cl

z

3

13

0

Q. ~

'5

3

CO

Q_

>

ro O ^

L_

CL

>

o

^ JO
Z 3
0 CL

8 ®

o z

.0 o

a

0

E

co

0

0

CO

c

3

Z

Z

C

o

O 0

C —
O 0
c Z

0 3

Z z
0 z

Z c

o

Z O

0

z

o

z

0

O TD
0
CO

0

E

2 0

P JO

0 3
C O

3 $

c

0 -
>
c

0 5
£ 0

E c
8 ro
0 "O
>- c

0 ro
p 0

3 O
O 3
_ Z
■J= c

c o

3 O

0

c

1

0

CC

o

h-

z <P
C CD
0 CD

2 "a
5 0
2 °
od cn

O)

0

m 0
o 0

0^
.E Z

3 °
> ll

q ; o

O

LU

o

<

c

0

z

0

0

c

gi

'0

0

z

0

JD

Z

I?

- — ^ CN
CO Q_

£ 0
0 z

CL

0

Z ^

o o
$ LLI

0^
0 <c

CD
> _c

2 c
0 z

CO .tz;

z

0

o

3
0
z
0 0
o (0

£ .o p

C/5 C CM

2 c
2 °
0

= 0
O 3
p .9-
c «
2.0
o CO

02
z c

z ro
3 £
o Z

O

LU 0

O 0

< 0

z
CL>

S5 10
c.x

-DC

.9 E s

~ 0 Q.
.> Z Z

O Z <
3

^ 9 0
5

-Q 0
3 CL)

Z 0

0 CD

z P z>

0 co —
O C Z

p ^

O £
LU 0

0 0
$ -O

0 Z

1 1

0 >

0

o —
3 CD
^ $
0

3

z

CQ

o

Z CD ■ =

0 0
Z CD
h- Z

L.0 o

2 X °
C/5 0 0

z
E 3
z 0
.■tj o

§ P

0 o
z

c Z
0 0
0

p o

Z O

2 cu

Q- z

n m Z

0
Z :£=

r|

o >

C Cli

P 0

0 «

0 c’z
Z-= 0
O "O 3

z

>- c E
0 .E

3*

Z

0

e

o

z

o

<

c

0

E

0

o>

ro

c

re

<

0

0

0

E

0

C/5

0

CO

0

0

0

E

0

CO

0

0

0

E

0

CO

0

h?Z
z 0 §

ro 3 ^

|- 0 CD
0 O ~
> -

O CD

u 0 z

Z w

■~z.p
0 ^

cq|
P o

0

o

N-

co

CD 0
CD ^

.E Z

2 3

■5 I

CO ^

c ^

ll

E 0

z —

0 CD
0 iZ
0

C 13

■E 0

o

c

o

0

E

0

0

0

i_

z

0

z

LL CO

^ 0
n cd E
u a: =

0 0

2 a:

5

P o
Z 0
C 0
O h

6 0

0

0 .0
> i-
0 ®
P 0

O P

E

^ 2

.E 0

0 £
0 .>

z

3

0

0 _

O 0

z z

> ro
ro z^j.

c E CD
0 z M"

0 3 CM
0 Z

z =i 0

0

3 0
0 p
■> 0

0
0 £

z

o

z >
8)0

CP
0 0
E z

> o
ro c
£ o
0 .N

5 °

< Z

z

3

o

0
o
0

a3 ro
0 0
° E
o 2

o Z

0 $

1 P

^ £
-c — '

■E 0

z z

> V*_

> o
0 c
£ o
0 .h!

V—

5 °

< z

c

Z 0

c z
ro 'o
- >
O 0

o c
0

0

° p

0 3
Z O

P ^

3 Z
O C
0

Z

c

0

z

c

o

0 0

z -D

■ I CD

$

z g5

0 0 ro

o ro
a P

3

.0 co
"TO P
0 —
O >

P O

3

0 0

Z
3

£ 9

0 z

c
0
z
^ o

'$ 0 .

z

0 L

Z P 3

ro 3 o
P o _
0

o

3^2

ro cd •=

Q. 3 E

Rawlins RMP 2-75

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

co

UJ

"<5

c

iE

Q

co

CM

k.

o

Q.

(0

■C

O

2-76 Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

<0

Q

co

a

<XJ

■c

o

CO

uj

"to

c

£

ro

CD
X> CO
(U CD

O

0.2
O CD
C
X
CD CO
£ CD
I— X

C

_CD

X

X

CD

t

CD

X .
ro

■o C\j

CD Q-

C 2
CO ^

0 5S

"8 0
ro 2
0 ro

x

CD

CO

o

o 0
*■' "a
c c jo
CD CD
S’ CO
0^0

sll

?T»1

CD

O 0 X
^ C CD

O Eg

LD 0 t

Q. 03 "CD
< CD >-

0 CO 0

_C O 2

i= 2 E

5 2

"O CD

3?

O

$ 0

0 X
C CD
.9 03

2 8

0 —

o ‘g

CO .b:

C 3

ro cr

x

0

o

X

03^

~ 0
c x

g r

£ o

o w
2 0

0 0

£2

X 0
n CD

ro .

0

XI

>

ro

E

0 8
0 .8
o g

X 0
x ro
0 a

x

0

X

1

3

co

X

0

c
o

TD CO

2 co

3 0

o o

5 8
(/) (/)
.9? >,

■4— » -—

> ro
o 05

2 0

03 .0

c

X O
Q_

3 X
0 0
0 • ^ =
^ J5

Li_ =5 CL

c

o

GO

£&
3 o
C CD
0 CD

-i

TO 2
— o
0 c

irf

3 C

Q- 0
ib E
> w

2 3

0 X
< TO

0

2 TO
- O
0 03
CD ^

C C
CD 0

It

0 03

- C
° TO

2 £

| uj _

mZ 0

D (D “■
C 0 Q-
CD E <

O 03
2 CD

0 c 2

g % 0

n5 03 0
0 0 ^

CD

C

o

X

0

1—

0

o 2

0
c
o
o

2 CD ~

2 ro

1*
^ co
O ro

l|

_ ro
ro: co
ro 0
o 0
V o

tt CD

0

o x 0
X co

— m

o

0
0
0 ro

£\o

a

O

ro q^-q'

(/) T~ I

000
o 0 0

O LU o

0 ~o

-D C
"O CO

3 o

o LU

£ o

ro <
2 c
TO CD
X CO
TO CD

O 03
0.2
o ro

C

CD

0 0
X TO
t— -o

c

_ro

x

-o

0

u.

0

03 .

ro °o

■D C\J
0 CL
C 2

ro ^

^ E

0 n

x .0

n 0

2 0

3 0
O O

5 8
0 0
0 >,

> CD
2 CD

3 2
O CD
S- C

« s

■g {5

ro |
0 ro

O 0

LU 0

O X

< ro

TO CD
X O

_0

ro

0

o

x .

CO TD
TD 0
_ 3
CD 0

2 a.
ro to
E x

2 0
ro 0

c:

2 c =

0 0 3
0 E £
x o E

x ■*- o
3x0
0 0 ^

0 = S

2 -43 2

X 3 X

o

c

o

■4— ’
[(0

2 X

3 a

C CD
0 X

?l

ro 2

3 •-
0 0'
0 c
Q. TO

^ E

It

< TO

0

2 ro

- o

TO X
X

C C
TO 0

1|

0 03

- C
° TO

2 E
0 uj ^
8^?

0~ Z 0

x 0 g-

C CD
CD E O-

0

X

o

2 TO

0 2

= 1

1 0
0 =0
b 0

ro

i|

CD

X co
TO 0
O 0

V o
yz 0

O F

ro
c
o

-r^ 03

X TO
0 >-
> 0

o 2

= 0

ro c
0 8
^ 0 .

o X! 0
c X 0

115

O $ 0
> ^ 0
=■ 0 CD
^ c o
^2 ^
0 o X

0 S" 1

0CD0

o “ »

O LU o

><

X

0

E

O

O

<

4-»

E

0

E

0

o>

TO

E

TO

0

CD

0

E

ro

C/5

0

CD

0

E

ro

05

0

CD

0

E

ro

05

0

CD

0

E

ro

05

0

CD

0

E

CD

05

0

X

0 b

c LU

2 O

1 =
> ro

0 £

0 ro
o 03

CD 0
O CD
LO 0
O

|C 0

b 0

X

0

X —

ro ro

n's

o ro
o E

c 2
0 0
X c

° E
0 c
x x

2 §
o ^

^ c
ro cd 0

0 — ro
cp 0
0 0 o
0 <~ x
X •§ 0

I— E x

0
o
CD
t
c 3

X W
0 CC

X LL

0 O

ro co

E *

0 2
x 5

o

0 »-
E O
CD H_

Q- "8

0

! »
2 ra'S

2 ^ 0
9- CD 0
0 0 c

3 _

3 0

$ CD
0 2
X o
c O
ro o
x ro

2 TO

|to

=3 X

0 2
CC 3
o

II

0 o

X '■*->

ro cd
S o

2 0

g S
•| 0
si

0 E

03 x

2 o'

TO 0

2 0

0 x

8 Y

o ro

TO

O

CD 0

cr

c

ro

x

0

-t— '

ro

c

x ro
'0 2?
0 CD

0

2 0

- 0

0 2
0 o
3 CD

C

o

0 £
0 £
1_ TO

•1 0

.co ^

2 5-x

3 o o
C CD X
0 X 0
X ~ O

ro 2 0'
— o ro

S-s »

o c CO
C-1- 0 CD

>£ 0
^0 0'
~ 3 X

0 x E
< ro 2

c

0

E

0

x

0 ^
ro 05
E3
§ 8
3 2
° 2-
0 <
0 -

*- 0
0 0

X >

0 0
0 X

E o

o 03
^ 0 x
0 .E TO
^*05$

X o

0 0 3

ro

2 ro

x — 0

TO - X
> ^ X

s | §
it*
^ S E-

CD 0 CD
O TO 0

V o 0
t 0 o
0 2 0

Rawlins RMP 2-77

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

CO

uj

"(5

c

£

Q

«M

V.

Q.

(0

■c

O

Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

a

■c

o

CO

Ui

TO

.c

£

o

c

o

o

0

o

S3.

CD

-C

T5

CD

CD

CD

C

CD

CD

-S3

ID

3

O

CD

co

3

CD

C

'n

CD

i_

CD

JX

O

o

0

0

>

0

-S3

o
1 —

Cl

g

'o

0 "O
S3. 0

^ 0
c c
~ 05
3 '0
O 0
"O

T3
0 0

E |

0 &
o <

® ^
-Q -r

3

O 0
$ £

$-5

CD >
0 !_

CD Qj

■a

0

"O

CD

g> °

-O 2

«4— M—

o o

SI

15 E
~ 0

ra ^
g cd

0 c

a: 0

>.

n

V)

c

o

*3

O

<

+■«

c

0

E

0

G)

ro

c

CO

X, -o 2

£ 0 ro

ro CD -

ro

CD c

'0 g

0 E
^ 0

0 _Q

fs

O 3

c o
15 ^

3 T5
O C
£ CD

ro O

0 LU
CD O
0 ^
-SC c
I— 0

c

0

0 «

CD v

0 CM

1 &

0

0

i—

o

0

o

CM

N-

CD

LSD

0 O
E LU
O O
0 <

§S

8 ”

"O

0 g>

0

c

05

0

0

"O

0
1—

0
•o
0
0
o

CL 0 00

2 CM

^12 Q.
0 0 0

£ ii.

o

CM
h-
05
in

0

CD

000
c

-X ' —
0 0

O CD
>, >*
■0 N
-O N
3 C

2 LD

0 "§

Q-.sc

Q. (0

=5 0
® 0

0 m
0 ^

0 ■£

73 CD

E
0

CD

E 0
0 E

J3

5 -2
30^
O 0 T_

5 J= V

, — . 0 CM
£ 1 0
£11.

0

jQ

3
O
$

'U)
0
o
0
.x o

0 '3-
0 CO

c
g
t
o

CL

c
0
E

o o CD

>. ^
5 CD
3 2

i-

0 N
S3. N
CL ’C

3 O

-Q CM
Q.
0

.0 -5

32 0

i 2

CD ^
0 C
0 0
•0 E
0 0

CD CD

0 0
c c
0 0
E E

0

0

0 .>
c o
o 0

£ ?
s|

-2 3
° 0
2=5
0
o

- CD

o t

~~ 3

CO

T3

3

0

.S3

33

3

i ^

> 0
0 05
0 0
0 C
0 0
£ E

CD >,

CD C •><

0

0 g
0
0

O .2

-O £>

S|

° 3
° 0

-n CD

32 o

3 jp
O t

S d)

0 c

0 g
.c co
t <L>

0

.S3

3

1

> 0
0 CD
0 0
0 C
0 0

^ E

CD >,

0 • >
x g

0 0
§.E

0
0
0
E
0
c / )

"O CD

C C

0 'o

O

O

*- 0
c >
0 \n

o 0

5-E

15 £
$ g

0 w

E 0

0 g)
0 0

£ CD
I— CD

0

T3

2 CD

n

if) o

*5 ro

CD

C >

E §-

0 E

CD .5

0 TD

1 =
E 0

c

0

CL

2£

-o c

T3 CD

0

3
O

5 ®
-o E
£

— JD

.g ro
S 0
0 g
0. o

0

-Q

3

o

S ^

2 E

0
c
0 ■=

■o E

0 £
— -Q
.5 CD

0

-Q

0

0

o -o

O 0
— 3

e g

2 35
CL

c

0

CL

s ^

-Q c

T3 0

0 ■ =
*o E

0 £

— D)

g ro
!q 0
o g
cl o

0

o

0

t

C 3

■o w
0 oc

CD u_

^ O

0 CO

E

0 -£

3 CD

1 s

5 0

0 "E
-g o
c o
0 o

_J 0

0

c 1-

0 O

CL T3j
• 0
0 L.

.5 I
35 Si-
cs 0

CD _Q

tr ^

c o
0 $
E c
0 o

CD'^
0 0

p

0

0
0
C3 O

0 E

3

0 0
0

O

o

cl sc
x Q- o
000
x c°

0^^
.5-^0
E 0 g
0 E c
o cl 0
0 o ^
rap
g 0 .5
.5 xs X3

0

0

o

0

t

C 3

■o W
0 QC
S^LL

8 o

0 CO

E

0 £

-Q

0

C

0 o

CL -o
• 0
0 ■

.2 O-

.1 0
0

S 5

S3. 0
X 0

0 o

3 CD

2

3

o

0
o
c
0
0 "E
-g o
c o
0 u
—i 0

3 0

05 JD

a: 12

C O
0 5
E c
0 o

05'^=
0 0

p

S o

CL

0 8 ■
C 2 CD

eIS1

g; -p 2

-Q 0 8

0 S3, o

8-2 0
-2 (3 0

cd >

.2 -8 -E
»-0 §5
S £ 2

0

0

0

E

0

w

■a -o

2 c

0

—)

c r g
0 o

'^3

0

0

0
0
=s o

0 E

3 !-

0 o
o w

L-' n-5

CD

.5 |

2 E

0 0

o" ^
H- 3
o 0

£8

0 i_

E £

S3- O
0 0

x 10

i-s

I 05
0 0

E c

S3. 0

.2 -e

0 3
>

0 .2

■O "O

X5

0

u> 0

0 o
-D S3.

£%

o 0

M

"O 0

S J

o 2

IS

cl E

"O

0

Si

0 0
Id cd

8 J3 0

o o co
0 0

sts a

T3 "O 0
CO 3 33

O I 0

o > c
0 ^ ®
2 0 CD

2 0 E

0

0 2 2
0 0 0
o .5 .5
h£E

0

0

0

E

0

co

c

0

Cl

O

0 0
-S3

O CD
0 0

0-8-

TD 0

pb

0 O —
O 5 '3

0 cT"

2 0 CD

0 b

(D

<q\ CD CD
CD i_ i_

g 0 0
o c c

H E E

<15 .
£ «
O 0

I-

o ^

0 .2
5
■O cs
3 CL

0

JZ

0

T3 O

2 c
JD o

~ 2
-Q 0

£ CL

CL O

"O

0 gi

2 « -o
-q Q) CD
02 o
0 -o 2
o zs 3

o o CL

0 g 0

-Q . lQ

D £5

111

co 0 0

g xs $

2 CD g

.9 2-0

1 i|

CL 3 ^

0

0

0

E

0

CO

0

-C

CO

g

$

JO

c

T3

0

c

Q_

CD

0

0

g>

J3

15

■O

=3

=3

S3.

0

0

<:

JZ

c n

M—

-0

O

c

c~

JO

0

g

0

X)

0

13

S3.

CL

O

0

X5

3

o

$

c

0

05 >,
g

c c
O 0
C X5

c -o
— 0
zz o

3

0 ^
0 0-—

■g ^ c
g o o

S3. " -^3
0 T3 O
C CD 3
CO 05 “O
2=0 0

880

Rawlins RMP 2-79

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

to

S3

TO

c

£

Q.

TO

■C

O

0

£ ® T3
CD .E 0

80S

"DO

5 32s

Bso

1

^ 8 £
O 0 0
V o <o

t(= tD o

O F CD

o

£ Q.

to co

CO M—
-D O
tO 0
O <u

5_

“O 13

52 o

c O

CT) •
DC CO
0

CO

C

T3

_3

O d)

.E _Q

co"2

co

CD

-Q

O

"D -E
CD O

E 0

= >

0 ^
^ 0
O C.
• F =5

|S

03^

£ CD

to C
CO o
TD CO

0 S

O CD
ii co

co

co

co

-Q

CD CD

CO 9-
co Q-
OD (D

^o|

8 §>£
S| N

03 CD fi-)

c -s' 22

o ° 0

D CD 0

2£q

-§ 0 >>
~ (D TD

c E ■§

8 si

TD

C

0

0

TD

0

^D

0

0

1

O

TD

52

O

0

$

C

0

O)

0

‘0

-*—•

0

CO

TD •

^ U_ </>

Q- CD

E

O

0

"O O

0

0 >-

0

~ 0

0

0

i s

0

0 -c

0

0

CL >

c / )

if

o .£-

5 o
CO o
0

{5

~ CD

O >.

to &
CO o
C T-

■P TD

CO

TO

CD

™ 0

| 0

>- E

CO CD
Cljz
Q.
-0 CD

M

JO CD
CD 52
$ O
!_ O
O t-

TD "D
C C
CO CO

0

.Q

D

O

$

CO

c
(0
c
o

_C "O

O CO
CO

co -Q

13

Q. co
8 0
x -£

jo

CD "CO

c 0

£ C

to CO

c

0

52

'0 .9

'0

.2>£

TD

C

0

to

TD C

.to

c 0

'0

0 ’43

0

05 0

c

■O 0

0

0 0

0 O

jo

C -£=

c

/13

E 0

c CD

O *•=

• h= o
> 0
C Q_
CO 0 CO

g $

0 "9 0

0 .£ -D

S’? a

2 2.0

~ CL £

O =5 ^

^ N
C TD N
O TD TI

0 Z J ^5

~ jd td
c o 9 0

£ Q.- W
o 0 .E 0
5 m ro

oi S 8^ ®
>

co <o
c 0
J0 0
CL TO

^ o 0 -

(3 w £ n

£ £ O 0

0

jC

£

0

0 c

0 dr
D 0
_0 "O
O 0

Z 3

0 =

> 0
i_ -x
O 0

"5 2
E ^

TD 0

ro E

O w

tt=

O

■ T D
T3 0
0 «-
> 0

o 2
= 0
0 c

_g 8

*_ 0

O -Q 0

c ‘O 0

115

O§0
> ^ 0
>00
C- c o
£\2 ^
0 -K JD

8 0 0 0

0 O 0 CO

F CD UJ 8

-r-i 0

0

0

o ■£

0

0 "O

_ D
0 9

03

c

T3

_0

0 0

.E -Q

co 2

0 D
3 §
O >

0

0 O

0 LU

-0 o

0 <

co ^

o £

iT o

0 0 rr

o c O
~ co •
-0^0
8 0 52
£"0 0

0 o £

•£ TD 0

o 0 .0

5 1 0

s = >

0

o
Z
0
>

TD
C
0
0

TD _

co S

o ^

Ii c/)

2 8
8 e
8 a

0

E 8

0 -Q

O) -Q

0)3

* |

0 >

> 0
0 0

*- CL

2 E
0 o
8 0
> 0

X 0

o 8

TD

C

0

0

TD

0

0

1

TD

0

0

C

O)

‘0

0

■0 o

0 >-

11
2"8
Cl >

0

i_ 0

0 JD

E -o

£ 3

Q- §

0 >

'tr 0

0 E

£00

Eg"

II

1 2

0 s.

ro 57

0 TD
> C
< 0

c

0

E

CL

3 0

0

> Ol

0 -C

0 ~
0 ^
2 o
0 0

0

0 E TD
>- > 0
3 0 =
0 0 9-
0 0 9-
>*l -j; 0

J= -- 0

0 > S

0 TD
C 0 TD

-25
E o o

2 8 i

8-2 |
c -s t

0 9 tD
JD c -

.2 o 8

TD O t

CO

0
0
0
E
0
( / )

0

0

0

E

0

O)

0

OD

0
0
0
£
0
c n

o

0

x;

o

^ ®T)

0 .E 0

511

- S ”

c ' " 0

15 = -Q

5 to o

2 to o

it*

sir

D 0 0

1 80

LcO

0

o

8 1

2 -o
o C
O co
$ 0

ll

.0 CO

<J .E

0^

0
-X o

0 x,

If

CO 0
CO "x
3 ®

> 9 —

0 o •

> 0 0

0 TD 0

c 0 -tr

1 1

0

0

TD 0

52 £
1 1

2 0 it!
0 0 .9

00T
D 0
>

§ C
$ 0

0

X3

O

o

■E -o

c
, .9
0 '

TD

C

0 "9 0

3 £ o

” 2 to o
3 Q. « -O

o o s
_ E
o

c
0
TD '0
0

3 ^
o o
> o

0 UD

TD

9 ~

JO 0
0 2
$ o
1- o

O T-

■O TD
C C
0 0

CL CQ

g 0>

JO -0
0 TD
C CD
9 c
9 0

_C 1—
O CO

0 •= 0

'0 .E5

c E

0 -tj

0 C

‘0 to
o
0 C
c o
0 0
_ 0

2 ■-
C O)

0 c
E ®

c o

9"^
ro ,

o M=
.i= O
> 0
C CL
0 0

TD

i 0

5 TD

0 o
0 >
0 0

o 0

0 JD

0 g

E i

i: 0
>> °

O £

0 0
c 0
JO 0
CL 0

TD

0 9

CL §
CL ^

o

>> N
TD N
TD '3

*== TD
0

0

0

CL *-

0 -E 0
£00
>

2 ^

X" o CD
0 0 CD

8^9

0

o 0

Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

</)

Q

co

<5

Q.

ns

•c

o

<0

u]

"co

.c

£

Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

c/j

S3

"<5

c

£

w

!

CO

a

(B

•c

o

0

o

>

o

0

S’

O

c

0

E

0

a)

ro

c

ro

0

0

to

0

0

E

■a

c

TO

0

-Q

TO

0

O

C

0

jd

c

0

■a

c

ro

3

O

0

i_

oo

0

0

ra

a

to

c

0

0

CO

0

0

0

0

0

TO

0

>

0

1

Q_

E

c

0

E

0

co

0

c

0

E

to

o

Q.

CL

0

0

o

0

TO

CO

c

■0

c

0

3

o

0

0

>

c

0

o

0

CO

0

>

0

N

0

>

0

3

0

0

o

o

c

o

0

0

0)

0

>

0

o

c

0

jd

c

0

TO

0

-Q

•s_

0

0

0

■0

c

0

"0

0

'0

o

o

JD

0

0

E

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

cx

0

0

0

0

E

0

0

0

c

0

0 3

& z

0 o
' 0

£ 9

0 >
0 3
^ 0

~ S’
3 o

c

o

E

E

o

o

0

c

o

'4->*

U

<

4-a

c

0

E

0

0

ro

c

0

c

0

0

0;

'c

0 .0
0 jS
o S

0

0

— E

0 TO
0
>

0

■a

c

0

c

o

0

0

0

0

>

0

0

0

E

0

-0

0

N

0
>2
T 3
C
0

0*

0

0

0

0

0

E

Cl

O

0

>

0

a

0

0

0

c

0

>

0

0

it

0

cc

0

0

TO

0

0

c

0

'0

0

■0

JD

0

S

2

*3

o

<

*oa

c

0

E

0

0

ro

c

ro

-O
0
-t— »
0
c

0 0
9 '0
0 0

0 ^
JD CO

TO V

2 5 cm

> o CL

<: $ 0

0

±s 0 3-

= 2 <

CD 0 3

0 p >
°[o>
0 05 ro

jd 2 0
1- S 0

TO

0

0

0

0 0
2 '0

0 -g

0 ^
JD cm

TO V

3 <N

I ro

0^

CD

LU O

O o

O

LO „

0
0
0
E
0
C /. )

CM

CL

0 0
TO ^

ig

s?

0 0
0 0
0 TO
0 ^
o ro

in .00

m 0

ql.s:
0

TO
0 C
JD 0

■a c
3 .9

0
3

TO
cz

0 o
0 c

.9 0
0

0
E
E
o

0 iz
TO 0

0

0

0 0

h- 0

3 ro
« c
■° 0
8 .9?

t

£ to

CO 0

0 0
0 0 2
0 0 E

0 o «
<-- 0
3 -2 0

(D -q CD

200
o 0 >
>00

0 C k
0

E.i

0
o
0 i>

> 0

3.9

s-1

« 0
to E

■o £

ro 8
0 c
.9 0

-Q 0
0

3 <0
« c

0 8
o ~

E E

<E 0

c

0

0

0

t s

5 •“

si

1 1
0 0
0 -o

0 3

JD 0

0

>

o

1—

CL

E

TO

0

0

c

o

h

0 0

TO O

0 3
0
0
0 m

0

0

£ CD

.9 0

c

0

0 >,
0 —
0 0

.9 ^75

0 s

9; c
> —

EE

*T0

fl

£ 0
0 0
3 •=

CO 0

TO

0

CO

0

c

0

E

0

£ TO

TO

0

0

0

5 _Q
0 0
■a 3

TO C/3

S-§

03^

0 0
TO C

0

0 _Q

Si

M

0

0 TO

0 c .9

0 0
O ~
0 T

t £
t o
co 0

0

>

o

CL

E

TO

C

0

c

o

1,
0 3
3 o

0 3
0

0

c
0

E
E

8 <C .9 0

0

>

0

E JD
0 3

■o 0

TO 0

||

|1

3 £
- .9

0 8
o ~

t ^

W 0

TO

c

0

c

o

0

0

00
0 ^

i!

0 >

0 0
*- 0
0 c
0 0

2 “ 0

0

3 0
0 0

0 *i

0 C
O 0

> 0
0 <r
0

it: 3

c 0

II

o f

o 0

£ £
o 0
c _
— 0

° 8
"O w
0 0

CO >

0 o

” I

s .1

— 0
0 0
0

■e c
> 0 TO
M3 C 0

O 9 03
0 E 0

nj O ^

9 o 0
S ^ E

£ 3 ^
0
>
‘0
c
0
c

0 0
TO g

9 ’0

o

0

-3 p UJ

co E jd

5 1

3 »
o "2

.1 |
o to

5 S
8m
80

0 TO
O 0
C N
0 '0

§ |

TO

O

E

0

-0 0
TO TO

1 C

0 3

0 0

8 ^
CO ^

C c

1 £
x 0

LU o

0

■° 0
TO TO

2 3 CD

ie

S |

O s

£ w

0 O
0 c

0 0

E t

§3!
■2»o
-Q c

to c
ao o

II

0 0

c S
.9 — 1
Leo

C03 ^

.£ C

0 £
X 3
LU o

3 2

N TO

•C .9

O it=
JD TO

3 2
0 E

0

JD

It

|f

.0 ro
a to

ts|

c CO

80

0 TO
O 0
c N
0 0

5 |

^ 8

TO o

.9 it

~ o

TO 0
O Q.
E “
0 0
0

TO TO

IE

0

_ 0

TO O
C 0 ^

0 0 03

.9 s_ 't—
0 x

2 2 3
I ~ "

o 0

O 0

0

E<

0 -J-J

0 CD
C ^

CO ^

c 0

0 9

X 5

LU o

o

o 0

0 0

TO O

c CD

cd

■2 8 E 2 8

0 t_ 0

O 0 0

s-

o .>

= 0

i

2-82 Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

0)

a

(0

■c

O

CO

Uj

c

£

0 O) CD
> £ C

1 -e

C 3

CO

_ X
CO CD

5 o §

(0 o CO

o® ®

° 3

0 co Jb
-Q . o
-rj CD 0

CD

(D » m
i- CD _
CD CD "D

D "D D
zz C c
I— CD CD

>

CD

>

CO

c

0

c

0

ZD

TD

3

§ -a
> 0

£ 0 CD
CD 0
CO
CD
0

TO

E

0

-C

CO

0

$

_0

d

TD

CD

c

Q-

CD

O

0

_g

ZD

3

ZD

3

3

CL

O

0

$

-C

CO

*+—

-0

0

c

c

_0

0

0

0

ZD

0

13

CL

CL

0

"CD

c

0

0

0

CD

CO

TD

CD

0

c

CO

-0

0

3

0

O

0

C

ZD

ZD

CO

3

O

c

0

$

E

CO

CO

•CD

3

c

-o'

_0

0

0

2

3

3

Z3

c

CL

CD

c

0

Q.

O

0

ZD

0

3
O
$ ®

-a I

ro £

— J3

o ro
3 0

3 o
CL £

0

o

CD

3

C 3

■a w
0 QC
CD u_

£ O

0 CO

E ^
0 £

-Q ^

zd

i_ C

O 0

O
0
c
_0

“c’S.i

§ 3S
.9 O" o
0 2 Q-
C3 0 CD
CDjD _

0 td 0

(V 2 *-
_ 0 ®

0 $ E
E c a,
0 o -£

CD'4= -Q
0 0 0

0 a3 0
CL 5
O £

0 0

w 2

0 o

0 E

3 >-
0 O
0

O

0

CL O

0 0

X «
21 O

c 0
0 0
0 o
E c

Q- 0
£ -2
0 0

0 .0

TD TD

6 £
0 0
0 o

£ 0

3E
o 0

M

TD 0
£ E

o

0

?!

Q- E

0 "O
-Q C
ZD ro
— c CO

o "S
> o
0 ““

0 TD
0 0
0 0
o 0

CD

O CD

t C

0 3

s. =

0 0 0
M- .E -Q

S«2
£§ 3

8 £ S

o | 2

0 -E 0

0 0 _o

3 _ 0

o-o-

*- O 0

0 0C
£-8 0
S § 8

> E 0

0 <
0 2

^ I

0 ^

0 m
0 0

V ^

0 8
0 0

0 £

° o

0 0

C ^0

O o

"O 0
0 £
0

£ 8
8 E
82

0

o

2

3 CD

ll

C 3
O 0

£ ^

0 0
0 o

O 0
° 3

0 w

"O 03
3 £
o 0

^0

0 m
i- 0

® DID ci 0

C —

o 0

0 CO
0 8
£ 0

> c

o

0 0
0

> T3

3

i "o

> 0

0 O)

3
0
1 —
3
CL

0

zd

33

3

o

0 TD

-C C

I— 0

0 C
?00
0 0 E

_0

0

§

O 0

£ E

0 £

0 >
o s

0 £

-O c

TO 0

1 5
^ 8
-O E
0 0

— _Q
O 0

3 0
3 o
a. o

0

ZD

T3

3

o

$

0

o

0

t

3

C

M- O

O 'Z=

0

ZD

0

0

O TD
O 0
— 3

E 2

2 3
£ Q-

TD

CO

0 QC

CD

LL

CD

C

O

0

CO

E

0

ZD

ZD

1

3

O

0

0

c

$

0

CO

“O

i—

TD

0

C

C5

0

O

_J

0

0

c 5-
_0 o

Q- -D

0

0

.1 O"

£ 0
_0 c

3 0
CD) _Q

O' £

c o
0 5
E c
0 o

03 '

CD CD

p

.> o

0 _

O 0 0

X" 0 CD

0 O tu

+j in

- 2
0
c

ZD 0

£ E

0 Q.

o o
£ 0
g3 0

• = T3

0 -a

X C
0 0

-L 0
0 O

§ I

-o

0

I O
0 O

0 ^
o-Q jfl

^00

00

° 0 a
"0-0 0
0 3 "0

0 o

O | 0

O > c

0 ^0

0 C- r-

iC 0 E

0

0 0 0
0 0 0
0.0 c

H E E

0 -a

ZD c
-7-1 0

3 0
o ^
§ 0
> o
0

0 ~o

3 0

£ O

O CD

jE o
0 3

0 3

0 o 0

v .£ D

° CO 2

2^ 8

^ O ^

0 <
0 S

0 T

-Q 3-

^ O

0 0

1.1
0 0
iS 0
"O
O

— 0 0

o| 2

0 3 0

0 0 _o
0-^0

o ^ _
>- c 0

0 0C

75 0 0

£ TD 0

-C 0 0

0 O 0
> b: 0

0 0

0 0

0 3
0 o
0 .0,

c 3

o o

"O 0

0 £

£ I

2 E

8 £

0

-Q 1-

£ °

3 £
o 0
£ ™ >,
3 0 '0
o c c
$00

^ c ^
c c -a
— 0

S—o

o 3 >-
-i= 0 c
00-

r ■

as =

0-00
0 0 3
ro CD ID

£ 0 0

E 0 0

3 E £

c

o

0

co

T3 CD

C C

0 'o

O

O

0

C >
0 '0

O 0

5-E

0

3

0 0
5 0

11

0 O

£ *z O

3
o

$ I3

0 0

2 0
0 .0
0 0

£ ro

3 CD

C .>
0 Q.

0 b

CD .0
0 -o

i?

£ _0

1 =
§■ ®
0 .0

-O 3

£ 5

3 °-
o 0
5 £
0

TD O

5 «=

_0 o

£ 2
-Q CD
£ CL
0- O

c
0
CL

o
0
ZD

T3
3
O
£

0

■CD t

0 £
— ZD

.0 ro

3 0
3 o
0. £

"O TO

2 O

3 ro

0 o

i_ '^3

0 2
-Q O

0

5 E

0 0

II

o 0

8 8
0 >_
K £

0
0
o o

0 E
3 1-
0 o
o 0

0 Q-

3 0

0 0

0 0
o

CL O
0 0

X

^ o

0

TD

CL
0
3 3
P 0

c 0
5 0

0 o

E c

Q_ 0

O -2

0 3
> ■*-'
0 £
"O X3

O > -

0

O £ 0

2 0 E

0

0 2 2
0 0 0
E £ £

3 E E

_0

o

Si

£ -o
3 c

o 0
$ 0

ll

J) CD
O C

3 to

0 £

0

o

"o 0

0 o

1 1

Rawlins RMP 2-83

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

C/J

u]

13

c

i£

Q

co

CM

&

a

TO

*

o

o

©

J =

c

"O

CD

c

2

©

M—

CD

$

“D

0

CO

3

©

s

JO

(/)

Zk

-0

C/)

3

ro

Z'

0

$

re

>,

©

©

CD

©

c n

0

c n

©

0

3

O

CD

.3

0 "a

^ CD

CD .9

=1

1 S8

IS

ri w

o re

l|

_ re

^ CO

re co

o CD

V 0

ijz CD

O F

CD
3

o
• TD
33 CD
<D >-
> ©

O 2
= co
CD C

® 8

^ ©

O -Q .co
c "D CO

18*
O § 0
> ^ ©
=* © CD
co re o
£\2
re o_j3
co sr 1
© 0 ©
O CD CO

CD LU o

©

CD

©

E

TO

( /)

©

.3

O "O
^ ® 33
© .E o

3 ® S

-DO

9T« £

q JO D

2 re 0

Ij^i
13 8 £

o © ©

V O CO

it © °
ro re

CD

O

LU

O

<

re

c

a?

+■>

o

CL

05

o

Q

0

Z

re

l_

Q.

T3

Q)

re

*7

0

k

5

©

©

o

©

Q.

©

©

C

o

-t— *
©
>
©
Jc:

re

Z

CD

JO

CD

O

-o

CD

Q.

•o

©

CD

•*—>

i

©

Z

§

o

©

o

1—

Q.

O

©

CD

CD

3

CD

JO

CD

.C

CD

O

-D

©

'i—

CD

CL

-o

©

re

©

>»

n

(/>

c

o

4J

o

<

4-»

c

©

E

©

o

re

c

re

2

©

CD

£ 0

CD CD

CD co
O CD
33 -D
© 0
CD

'CD C
©

"D ©

_© 33

3 %

©

o

Z re .

§ -D O
© = LU
jo o CD
I- $ <

©

CD CO
0 CD

™ 0
D) CD
O 0
33 c
0 CD
it E

re 0
0.-0

-O 2
© 3

IS

2 oo

1^
> Q.
© CD
/ —

D)

O

T3

©

*i_

CD

L-

Q.

4—

o

3

o

o

©

0

1

Cl

O CD
LU Z
O 0
< jo

<

w

CD

©

E

CD

c r. )

c

CD

©

CD

-o

©

Id

c

g>

©

©

-o

©

JO

O

C

-o O
3 LU
o O
$ <

©

CD CD

£ a-d

Q- -Q 0

w -

3 3

0 "O

o

©

o ®
CdZ -Q

C £ 33

■e .e

3 JO

•4— « 4— <

=§*

© 0

4= O

o

f -5 c
0 ° °
C/D 0 "D

0 ~

© '0

fc.

S" "O X3

E © z

© s
=5 -2

o 3

?!

Z 3

3 .re

■4— < -»— •

8 |

t ’>

=: 4-*

E ©

C/) CD

0
Q.

TD 53
3 0

1 E

o “2.

LU 4_j
o ©
< 2
CD

O CO
-O t-

3

0 co
2 o
•Z o
Q- O co

c

$

o

© ■©

^ ©

D O O)

c = o

0 CD 3

O) © ©
c 3 r
Z -o 're

— i—

© E

|S_
© —
re © re

"O

©

o

3
C/D CD

©

o

© '0

z

"O 0
_0 "O

s'5

© 03
~ ©
JZ XD

5 2

C 3

li

$ C/)

g a> I
gf 2

O)

,E o °

C/D CD -O

c

©

a.

s ^

-Q Z
■o 0

CD

3
O

5 «

-o E

0 0
— JD

~ re

Z re
o o
Q. o

o re

©

JD

3

o

■o
©

«
o
o

0 _
-0 C
2 0
3

o

3 ^

2 E

© ■=

-o E

re 2

— JO
O 0

Z re

o 0

CL O

0

JO

re

re

o "D
o ©
— 3

E «

9 =>

4= Q-

c

©

Q.

-0 z

"D ©
8 2
3= 8
© -=
TO E

re ©

— JO
.0 0

Z re

3 o

0. O

c

© ©

o ro
o ©

© o
jo 0-
©

o E
3 ©

© S
-0 -a
re ©

re 55 •

o o 0

000

o\ CO

2^o
~o "O ©
© 3 "O

0 3 0
o | re

© Z’ 2
2 Z ro
2 © E
re

©EE
© © ©
° 0 c

hEE

©

re

©

E

re

CO

c

© w
o 0

o ©

w O

^ -
3^

O 0

© 2

"o re

I!

o E
^ 0
^ 0

©

c

© r- 2

2 | C3

jz 2 °

j ^ ■o

' © c

0 0 're

© C i_

sp

-a q. -v

1 o 2

° c "i

0) 0 s
0 Q-'o
o o 2

5 X c

< © E

© o

Q--3

.9- ©

3 -0
©

© • p

5 E

o ©

C Q.

I2

8 &

©

© TO .0
JO © .ti

^ 0
3 *?
O ©

^ Z

8 3

.— 4—

~ o
'o ©
21

8.0

o>£

2 0

re $
o 2
2 re

o

re

4—

^2

Q.

^ 0
0 2
c Z

3 0

© 2 ©
$ s 0

0 TO >
^ © ©
CT> Q. 03

8f g

1 ® 5

0 0m
■_ ■_ CO

area

55

O

li
^ ©
© 0
© C

'o ©

«!
u co-
re 4-
3 O
2 c

CD O

o5 0

■O J=

2 I .

re -o 0

Q-o.1
-O .9- ©
0 3 -D

m 3” r-p

CD

©

0 ©
.2 JO

!?
0 19
© 3

1 1

2-84 Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

<o

u3

"<5

c

£

CD

-Q

% O
c c
0 TD
3

o o
$

0

co

0

03

I E -§

to 0
3,:g
td 0

ro Q.

2 td

3 0

I | 0

kis

ro ■> ^
—I $ CL

O

2 c

ii ®

0 g5
E 0--C

1 8 g

« g»2
0-0
C X3 _
0 _2 0
CO O c

0 .g 0

Jem
b 0 03

Q. E ®

0- 00 CO

o p -a

0 ^ g

<£ 0 J5

0

0 E.

E <o

o *

*■' TD
TD C
0 0
3 CL
CO CL

3 <

^0
0 CD
-Q >

2 ' O
0 0
O S’

$ o

co

0

0

E

0

CO

0

.a

0 o
0 c
0 TD

o o

0 5

1 o

E td

to 0

0 'C

TD

C

0

0

j{T§

-0 O
TD *“
0 "0
O 0

§ ro

8.§

3 $
0 -g

O i_

Z 0
0 ■£
> 0
0 o

c "0

O 0

S'E

TD
TD C
C 0
0 —

«i
0 c
O o

o CO

03 O
CD 03

0 .2

S,.s®-s

X (D - 0
0 CL c 0
^ J) t =

O TD 0 0

1 1 Ii

o o .9-1 a!

i — r~ v*

0 0 52 £ 0
o o 0>§ a.
jz Lc E 0 E

0 0 5 CL O
> > O 0 O

O a;
~ _Q

■0 0 2
Q_ 3

co s

CO M- >

■D O >
CD (/) C/)
O 0 0)

£ 0 g
5 o 2
ro n ®

c O 0
03 ■ ■ =

8 S|

■D3_

O 2 C
td 2 ro
£ £ -o

|| p

0 •
'0 o
0 LD
-0 O
0 <
co cn

8|

i'o

w a
0 0,
c -o
o o

T3 0
0 £

0

— » '0
0 0
-Q _q

2 0

0 £
o 0

$ V

/ — ^3

O^?
■■8 8
p 0
-b o

£ 0

O c
o o

TD TD
0 CD
O 0
>- 0
> 0
$ w
0 0
Z 0

0

0

0

E

0

CO

0

o

& f

2 -o

3 C
O 0
$ 0

ll

.2 03
C

0

X3 CO
0 CD

-o

C

0

■0 0 —
c g td
> 0

^ 0 |
Z. w =2

_q c 03
03-2 0

g o _
c 0 o

O 0- C
0 0 _Z
0-2

Si o

O 0 ^

"O 0 •—

CD X CO

:g ^ x

0 0 0-

CL a. 5.

"8 Z'
■0 0 2
C 0

0 0 0

0 g td

C O c

$ E 0

O CD _C
■*"" TD ±±
03 CD

O O 0
TD ^ -O
0

CL C
0 0
O C
X ^
CL 0 _0

0 '*z

0 0 O
X 0
0 c

0

0

0

S O

$ o

CL O
0
0
0

TD

C

0

0 0 —
P g td
> 0

^ 0 1
tr co =

JD C 0
m .2 0

E *
^ 0 2
c 2 0
0 0 0

0 g TD

C O C

5 E 0

O 0 SZ
TD i=L
03 ^ 0
O O 0
TD x:

o .g

0 _

C ,!r

0 CL C
_ 0 0
P ^ E

x
CL 0

O 0 5
TD 0 CD

0 I 22
:g -£ x
0 0 0-

oIE<

0

TD

.g 0

!s 0

0 CL O

c 0

$82

03 ^
O 0
0 TD CD

111
=> 0 g
o >— o

> CL O
0

0 «

DS c
0 0

0

c

§00
8.i 2

05 ^

o .g

^ TD

g o 0 g

.b $ C ’-K

2 o 5 -5
£ 0 2 x

I s

0 03

0

0 C
O 0

O E

CD

03
0
E
0
0 TD

O

LU

o

<

0

+j

c

a)

+-*

o

0.

E

0

Q

<D

>
0
c n

O)

TO

o

O

■*-»

c

0

E

®

03

re

c

re

0

co

s_

o

£

0

0

0

a:

TD

C

0

E

0

Q

0

>

0
CO
.c

03

1

0

o

0

0

1

CL

0

03

0

C

0

O

cr

o

0

c

0

£

CL

2

0

>

0

TD

-e

o

CL

CL

=3

0

0

03

0

C

0

0

0

0

0

CL

1

3

CL

C

o

0

0

1—

o

0

0

03

0

c

0

0

0

_>

"-J3

O

0

5*

O

+j

c

0

E

0

03

re

c

re

TD

C

0

0

c

-e

0

CL

0

0

'c

3

■E

O

CL

CL

o

0

3

0

i-_

3

CL

TD

C

0

0

TD

C

0

0

0
--- *
0
M—

o

CL

o

TD

03

C

>

0

-C

>

a

c

0

03 0

0 i-

b ><
o -c
o 0
£ o

“ £

0

1 0

Ii

I-

0 £

0

E

0

03

0

c

0

£

0

>

0

0

CL
CL O

E °

-5 o

O

oc:

o

c

o

0

0

0

TZ

CL

E

0

n

0

-C

TD

C

2

CL

3

TD

C

0

c

0

J

0

Q.

1

0

O

c

0

-C

c

0

TD

C

0

c

0

c

‘0

0

c

0

-Q

TD

C

0

0

0

'c

3

■E

O

CL

CL

O

0

c

o

0

0

1—

o

0

0

o

c

0

sz

c

0

0

3.S

51

52 -2-

to

0

©

>

re

c

i—

o

<

<

o

■4—*

E

o

£

E

o

o

in

c

o

o

<

c

0

E

0

03

re

c

re

CM Q

0 co
§ ^
—> 0

0 jz
jc *;

••b 03

$ .g

0

C 0

0 2
to —
0 2

5 0

o c

e'E

0 O

1 c
> 0
C o.

o o

0

03^
E TD

■5= 3

0 ^

0 8

® b
> 0

o 0

.® jE

JD

O ^

0 CM
0 ^

3 X

0 "O

9- 0
Cl
3 CL

E <

1 2

S-g

•2 0

0 O
o Q
0 ^

td g
0 g

03 0
0 0

0 £

1 1

0^

> c

2 |
0 Q.
O —

o 0
o >
0

TD 0

a

0 03

0 .2
0 E
0 >,

Rawlins RMP 2-85

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

CO

S3

TO

C

£

V.

TO

a

TO

•C

o

:

2-86 Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

03

$

a

to

■c

O

<0

uj

TO

.C

i

CO

o

O

*->

c

0

E

o

O)

re

c

re

0

>%

CO

k—

0

>

be

g

'c

0

o

CO

TD

C

03

TD

03

C

3

.Q

C

o

o

0

0

_3

CD

>

0

-Q

CD

DC

i—

CD

E

0

>

03

c

TD

c

re

"w

-t— <

3

o

0

0

o

c

03

-C

c

0

-o

c

03

O
0
-4— »

O

L_

CL

o

0

03

CD

c

CD

(/)

0

>

*->

O

0

lo1

O

+->

c

0

E

0

03

re

C

re

_0

SD

re

'5

0

o

0

DD

03

0

JD

td

0

C

0

0

TD

c

0

0

-Q

0

>

CD

C

0

E

03

0

0

0

>

0
0
0
_g
03
>

0

.Q

03

DC

1

03

E

0

>.

03

C

^O

c

re

0

o

o

o

0

o
■

CL

03

c

0

0

0

>

Q.

03

0

0

c

o

t

o

CL

CL

o

c

o

re

0

\

a

0

i_

o

o

o

3

o

TD
0
-t— '

re

0

0

>

1

0

■g

>

o

0

TD

C

J0

0

03

C

CD

DC

>

-C

0

0

X

0

TD

i—

CD

TD

C

re

CO

03

c

E

o

>-

0

>

be

g

'c

0

O

CO

•0

c

CD

TD

0

O

C

CD

-C

c

0

TD

C

CD

0

O

0

C/>

0

>

'^3

re

£

L_

0

*-»

<

<

O

*->

£

O

E

E

o

(_>

</>

£

©

o

<

+=>

£

0

E

0

03

re

£

re

0

TD

C

_ro

0

03

c

CD

DC

>

.c

"CD

0

X

0

TD

i_

03

TD

C

re

CO

03

c

E

o

>*

0

.C

Q)

0

E

0

>

DC

g

'c

0

o

co

TD

C

CD

TD

0

03

CD

C

03

0

>

'■H

re

£

0

•*->

<

>k

JD

(/)

C

o

o

<

+■>

c

0

E

0

o>

re

£

re

re g

® CD
0 03 o

03

£ 0 O
C 0 4-

i- <D

g |S
12 '5

0 c w

IIS

TD C 0

1 l=i

I c E

1 0 ^
m £ £S

0

>

ix

g

'c

0

a

CO

TD >

C '-£3

cd 0

DC?

— 0 >

0

TD 0

c

CL i_ 0
CL 0 F

ra re Q-

« £ E

§4 s

-*— » CD (—

LU

O 0 Q)

£££

03

CD

z E£

000
£00
>* CD
£ CO o

CL O o

c £ re

0 'E £
£ t 0

0 m* -C
03 <D
CD C 03
C ^ 0

re ±; c

2 <= O

c

(D ■ •

F ®
E td

03 3
0 75
“ 8

> £
c 3

^0
0 >
. 4-<

0 s
> c
DC £

O o
o o

TD TD
0 0
0 0
O O

o o

f!

si

£ o

£ 2

■o

re o

CD c

8 I

o 2
0

TD CL
0 O

£ E

O CD

TD

D3

O

$

_0

CD

$

CD

\

TD

x:

0

X3

D3

O

TD 0
C ~

re >

CD O
^ CD

CD

O

lu -n
1/1 CD
03 3
C 0
—

TD 3
£ CL

2 0

£ _Q

3

o -

C' o
re o

|§1

!1=e

I— CL CD

03

C

03

TD

0

TO

0

0

O

O

0

> 0

re ro re

E

0

c ^ X

0

if)

£

£

£ 5 0

0

E

-n ° -O

>

? 0 £

CO

E

in

0 -Q £

1—

a)

>

T_

£

0 td c

r-.

— ■

c £ £

s

0

$

0 0 0

0

s—

0 03 0
TD 0 c
TD W ©
O £ CO

o -Q o

5 03 £

^ = 0
^00

— i = £
CD CD o

o c

C 0

o w

£^

^2 CD

re -Q

re

0 re

O o

03 0

CO re

^ o

T~ 0

O CD

!_ CD

re ^

O

c '-S
3 CD

co re

o

CM 0

0

£

I

"nT

l£^

3c:

0

0

O

0 ^

o

O c

^ 0

8

0

0

TD —

^ E

<f) LO

£ Csj

-n g

S2
• I

o

0

Q.

E

O <D
=3 C

a lu ^

TT 0

0

£

E

"Tf

3<C

0

0

L_

O

-]3

re

L—

0

CD

0

£

E

io

Lai

0

0

>> c

S-2

O CD

^ re

C\J

CNJ

in

0

>

DC

0

£

0.

n

t

o

in

N-

,:T;

CM

c

3

DU

0

^ 0
0
C

o

*3 3

CD 3£

0 CO

o

o —
0 00

0 03

0
0
TD

0

.Q

3

o

£ n, £

c

0

0 o

0

1_

_c

0)

>

_c

DC

c

0

0

C

(/)

0

13

0

0

CO

c

TD

C

0

0

M—

TD

0

-Q

$

0

*03

1 3

C

(/)

0

C

‘£3

0

0

c

X

0

0

n

0

0

0

CL

0

TD

O

£

z

■q.

CL

cr

0

CO

0

-Q

i

0

3

M —

O

c

0

£

"4— '

0

0

c

1

0

0

4—*

;o

O

0

re

c

0

0

0

Cl

C

0

E

03

0

g

'c

0

o

CO

TD

C

03

03

C

TD

\

03

03

0

i—

0

C

o
0
o
re ;

TD (

0

CD £

03

a- 0

4 §
8 -S’

CM 0

i

■=- 0

CO

>

03
CD
C
0

n E

TD TD

£ 3

O o

£ ^
■re S

0 —I
< CO

0

£

1

o

_>s

t- 03

£

0 TD

1 I

E uC

X

0

1

CL

0

£ t3

S -2

E 2

03 CL

re o
0 £

c

o

°3 ~

II

O 0
s*- 0

cb £
0 o
£ 0
CO £

re ro
re re

0 TD

0 re
t£ 0'

E -5

0 re

CD O
"O =
0 £
c 0
0 0
E 0

8^

0 ^3

re ~

> 03

DC 0

t^-

in

-X „

re t=

0 o
E c
O g

Q co'
re

re E

3C-. o

03 Id § re

m re qq 0

o

o

0 cm 0

0

£

E

'Tf

LO

D*.

0

0

6

U—

0

jc o
O c
^ 0
00 o
in 0

0

^ 0

TD =

I |

0 in
£ CM^

I I

DC
0
0
1

o

c

0

E

CL

0

£

E

■Tt

DC

0

0

i_

o

re

C4—

£

£

u o

3 c

t in j cd

Rawlins RMP 2-87

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

CO

uj

15

c

£

Q

co

CM

L.

0>

a

to

c

O

o

'0

? |

CO CO

CD -C

•I §

-g c o

3 <A

w 0

03 2

a> 2
© ©

2 co

3 ©

co .>
O Q.

il

CO 03

CD CD

? 2
i .2

co co

c 2

CD O

E £
a. >_
o o
0 2

£ e

co ©
£ ^
o o
£ a

CO
1

03

C 03
5 CD

»!

CO CO

-£= 0

o _Q

0 2

CO o

s *

E ©

8-23

0 05
> 03
0 C
03 TO

© w
Si

.2 o

co co

0 !_
> 0
■ 03

c
0
E

Q.

0 m a

c o

0 -C

E o

03 0
03 © ©
0 © O

8 R-fc
o.l £

>

0

■a

o

0

X3

E

*4— *

"ro

'o

0

E

E

o

o

o

H — '

03 "co

0 0

8 £
O j=

E *5

-o CO
2 0 0
o c x:
O —

£ © -c

2 "5

C CD .
0 <T> T-

E E £

> c °o

2 JC 0
Q.~ =3
E 5 C

© 0 I

2*|5

0 2 _j

Dd 0 CD

CD

c

N

0

03

C

0

0

0

0

0

1

o

c

0 ©
S £

0

0

_0

O

>
0
0
-O
0
CD
0
c
0
Q. S

ad

© 0
0 CD

0

03 §

$•£

0 0

c 0

•2>aL

8 §•

a 0

3

§ °
0 2

•| E

:> ^

© c

0 -

03 ~

2 <S
■2 -o

3 %
co 2
t5 3

0 ©
© 0
*© jd

O O

CO c

o

0

■g

"0

x:

© *-
0 c

0 0

© E

O CD

© £

0

0 0
0 0
^

0 >

*1
O) J?
x: 0

0

c ■©

© 0
2 $

O O co —

© 8
o 8

CL O
X 0

© 4_

— o
0 o
g 3

"0 o

2 ■©
Q- 0
O .t;
0 c

CD =

X2 0

Q. ®
©- -Q

>,

C

o

0

0

X2

0

o

0

03
0
O
0 0

0

o

0 t

M — 3
O 0

0

0
X3

03
3
O

^ 0

0 to

c 2

0 o

E T3

1 1

= S c

o -a o

0-2 0
0-2 2

0 © CL

2 >

0

4— 1 O

0 2

!'!
03
0 *"
c c

*1

8 TJ

2 0

2 'a.
E CL
0 0

0 £
0 O

(D O
03 ©
© ©
3 Q.

© _>. CD

0

3 > 3

0 2 ©
x: -2 2

0 0 2

0 3

_ 0 O

C g

° CD -

C E 2

= CD>

!_ © S
0©-
■t; !- 0
© 0 0

1 C "O

jc ‘r 0

XT JD "0
0 2> 8
2 0 0

>

X

O

o

CD

c

"0

0

0

0

0

CD

•a

c

0

o

o

■0 T3
0 0
0 0
o _o

O O

2?
0 ©
2 o
E
0

X2
0

X2 ■
3
CL :

-o a
0 o

2 -©
O 0

0

XD

T3

3

O

2

© -n

O) 3

C 0

— I—

■o =S

2 o.
© 0
2 X2

■0 0
C *3
ro >

0 o
^ 0

T ©

o 2

c1 o

0

o

«=■§

o

o _

©- O

E 2 o

00 =
— 0.0

Q)

•§>1
■§ ©

I.E
0 2

c 3

o 2
0

8 ^
© o
£ ©

3
0

o

• ii, _ 0

© © Vr

E E C

■O
0 .
0

2

O 0

0 © ~
000

2 c £
© 0 ©
0 c 0
0 C !_
. CL
0 o o
0 Qj c

-- > "p
> 0 c

'© E 8

ro © c

8

Q. © 0

E £ S*
0 © o
-o £ cr

CD

c -a
2 ©

0!
0 0
jc 0

© X3
3 _

0 2

0" o

s ^

E ©

0 ©
> 0
0 c
0 0

0

fOffl

£ 0 E
o c =
^ 2 o

0

E

CL

0 ro

0

0

Ie. 1

0 0 a.

0 c o

■0 © 2
o E o
3 -0 _o
■o © 0
0 5 o

8 R-fe

o,IE

■0 0
0 0

8 £
oE

E o

-n ©

2 0 0
ocx:

S'® i

2 '5 ^

C CD .
0 ©^

E
0
> c

O)

c

"n

0

■_

CD

C

0

0

0

0

0

k_

o

c

CL.-^ 3

E ^ ©
0 0 1
£*§5

0 2 _j
X 0 CQ

w 0
c o
o c
■4= 0

0 ©

8 2 -
0 Q. 3

0

0

2

O

Cd

>

0

0

0i

0

CD

0

c

0

Dd

8 8
0 ”

"S o

■p ©
0 0

C 0
•2>

© 3
Q 0

c

x:

^00

3- ^4-

| 0‘S
© M -g

0 c 73

■4— '

>

4- 4

o
0

CD :

C
X2
3
0

03 _ ^
CD © 0

© 0 ^
CD _q 1
t “ -c
o o 05
CO

2 >

03
0

"0

O

0

0

c

o

0

c

0 ©3 2 0

c !o

0 ©

2 0

CN

CM

LO

1

0

>

ad

0

LO

0
0

6-

c

03 O — w
03-^3 t +3
O CO O 0

^ 2 —
X ©
o

LO

!■"-

"st"

CM

c

3

0

0

1—

o

3

0 CO

o

0 M 0 ® 's

l_

2 ©

lo "©

co ©

CX3 E

0 ©

O -©

r~ ^

0^0
ro 2

m

2 d 0

"i co o
> co 2

2-0 1
0 © E
© O 0

CM

. 03

2 3
c o
0 $

ro

u. 2
0 X3

0- ©

0

0

2 "6)2 S -o

o © ©
0^0

O 0 0

Q. C 3

o <- 0

03 2^

0 03 CD

CD 2 2
0 03 ^
C C
0 0
E 0

_0 0

2 E
’cd"0

1 E
0 ®

3 03

_l

r—

0

x:

-t— '

03

0

CQ

-i —

c

c

2

C

0

'I

0

03

0

■0

0

3

0
-S— '

c

"O.

Q.

0

■ _
0
0

0

0

C

2

0

sz

E

0

d

0

c

5

03

0

1

c

0

c

0

c

3

O

U/

"O

>? 0

0

Q.

03

CD ,-tc

.© ■§ X3

O
0
03

0 03
O - © C

CD ©

C • 5 ©

0

^ O
O o
>, $
C 5.
© 0

2? o

0 >3 03

O ti=

C CO

0

-= v C 03

0

X3

3
0 ©

8 S ®

CD

0 3

E 0 ^ _

0 E 3 0
a a 0 03

0

0

03

0

0

0

© o
0 =

0 ©
E -i

O 0 CD

0 x: —
020

i- 4- 4_

Q- o O
c 2 0
0 "E 2
£ © 0
0 x:

CD o

0 c co

c 2 ©

m.t; c
^ $ o

0

0

0

0

>> 0
0 03
> JD
O
C

0

0

0 ^
3
O

s.5

E 2

03 cd
0 <
0 :

>

x

O

o

03

0

0

O

f 1

ll

2 0

Ez

03 2 g.
0 n

O

O

03

0

0

O

2qo

0

8 3

o £

0

03 CL
0 O

© ^4
2 ^
O 0

2

© 03

© 0

03 3
C 0

03 3
3 cl
© 0
2 X2

0

X3

3

o

0

03 0
C 4=
ro >
0 O
3 ©
3 ©

o 2

>4 ©3
C' O
0

I?

o _

Q. O

E 2 o

00 =
l— q. 0

CD

c

"CD

03

0

03

0

0

O

O

Rawlins RMP

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

(0

Q

CO

<N

V.

s

a

<0

■c

O

<0

S3

"5

c

£

CD 0
-Q co
-O 13

3 P

o £

^ -D
c C

o 0

2 0

E 5 8

CL o

o ™
S O

C/D O
>%

-£= "o

Q- 0

!S> 8 E

0 CD J

-2 5

o o

0

CD

-Q

C

0

CD

CD

0

i—

CD

>

'l.

0

_Q

_Q
3
CL
C

o
0
0
.a

0 CT

O 2

"O 55
0 -g
o 0
0 0

„ 0

- ® g-

■

0

0 "O
-Z 3 —
0 O CO
C '' •~
0

O
i+—

a

'0

0 Z

M- 3
O 0

^ 0
£ 0
c >-
0 o

E ~o

p p
p _c

c

o

T3 0
0 C

Q. "Z

Q. 0

0 g

C ? >
O -3 *-
= 01 0
.g-Z Z

O 0 CD
0 _3 —

0 z 0

C 2

g> •■§ ■§ £

£ 0 ~ 0

£ p -8:8

£ CD ~ CL

o ■£ 0 g-

>4— 1— CD

CL O O

c £ P
0 f £
£ t 0

0 ^ sz

CD O
0 C 0

c F 0
5 ■« c
S $ o

0

0

T3

0

*4—

*C/D

(/)

jd

o 0
*•?
11

fi
0 ^
-2 O

0 5
0 £

l§

8,8

CD 5
C 5
'0 2
0 "a
0 j=

4—'

% >
05 o

X3 “-

0 0
— T3
O
O

■a

c

0

.q

3

CL

3
0
E
E

U< o
o °
O Dd

c

O _0

■fn 0

2 0

>, ® D)

£ g-.E

c

0

0 "D

0 •
0

-o

c

0

CD

c

Z

L-

3

0

~o 0
0 0
o ;-e

Z =

8 8

O 0

*■' >

"0 Q.
0 0

£ 0

E O £ O Z>

-Q 0
0 £

~CL i_

CL 0
^ 0 0
s *i

o r 1-

'■H O) 0

'3 ^ £
O 0 CD
0 _C —
0^0
4— i4_

0 O o

3 P 0
0 F £
£00

0 ^ _c

CD O

0 c ro

c 'F 0
0 .ti c
^ $ o

0

0

"O

0

£ 0
0 "O

0 O
O C

ll
0 $
c =
0 0

0 o

c "F

0 2
E 2

CD O
0 0
0 s

?i
0 2
0 T3
0 .3

0 g

0 ^

CD £ ^

TD ^ -p!
3 T3 g
0 0 0

= 1 0
° 0 0
2 E 0

■O E E
0 o _
0 o E
o 0 o

O DCt

o
‘aT
td E
0 0
0 0

0 0

JD 0
1- 0

£ 0
0 0
tj £

0

0 o
£ 0
3 0
0 >

O Q_

il

0 "O

c *=
0 .2
0 0
c 2
0 o

E 2

CL

o o
0 £
5 £

"O 0

® e

-I »
0 £
Eg

0 O

2 q:

CD

C -o
£ 0

0!
0 0
-C 0

0 X3
0 £

to o
C $
0 .
E »

O .2>

0 1/5

> TD
0 C

■a 0

0

1 o 0

I 0-2

o c ~
■tf .2 0
0 E £

3 0 1—

F .> 0

S13. 1

0 0 Q_

0 0 0
-O 0

o 0 0
£ -0 0
■0 0 0
0 5 o

S 8.-5

o .i ^

0

JD

E

4— »

0

o

0

E

E

o

o

o

■O 0
0 0
0 >

8s

So

-n ^

2 0 0

3 C _C

o —

0 F

| 0
E .3
0

> 3

P F

0 $

fi

0 "S ^
8*15

0 £ _i
a: 0 cq

CD

3

'N

0

l—

CD

_C

(f)

CD

(/)

CD

0

i—

O

_c

*4—

° 0

3 O
O 3

•4= 0
§-£
0 CL

0

0

£

O

cr

>

0

0

■O

0

CD

0

3

0

a:

E ro

0 0

0 ro
■O o

s-i

0 0

C 0

-2>

0

0 3

Q 0

£ J~

IS

| E
:> ^
O 3

0 j-

CD *;
£ ^
-£ "o

£ |

0 CD

2 0

^ -Q
O O
CD C

0

£

H—

o

0

■g

'0

sz

o ^
0 3
0 0
C E

O CD

® g
11

Z 0

0 0

-Q 0

■o 13
3 ©
o £

^ -o
3 c
o 0

0

0
0
0

cl8

s ™

0 o
2 '*:-
'0 o

£ "p

CL 0
O *;
0 3

o ~

0

3 -O

2 0
-0^0
£ £

■O 0 "cc

2 0 c

_Q 0

° 0 M=

E 0

£- 0

0 Q_
0 0

P 0

0 .t;
sz 0
_ ° CD
0 0 3

Z O >

3 0 >
0 Z £

M- 3 -5

o 0 £

0

SD

3 —
O 0

^ 0
£ 0
C

0 O

E -a

||
3 5

2 T3

0

£ t3

0 3

03

0 0

<, 0

0

1 0

1 =

CD 0

°-z s

■o

0

"o.

CL

0

0

c

o

0 CD
£ 0

O o

_0 0

E 1

*■5

c 0
Z p

'1 o

0

0

"D

0

U—

0

0

£

o 0

CD —

£ 8
0 ■“

1!

0 $

0 £

l|
8, 8

Rawlins RMP 2-89

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT

w)

to

(1)

o

o

■O

c

nj

c

o

v.

Cl>

Q.

to

■c

O

to

S3

"iS

,c

£

w

ro

o

0

+■»

C

©

E

©

05

rc

c

TO

CD

0 C

E -2

s— »

O 0

— Q)

0 £

CD

£ ^
-Q I

5 o

co

03

co :£

2 ^
O 03
CD E

?|

CD E

<- 03
-£ CO
03 CO

2

9 £
£ e

~ CD

8.22

8 g
o 2

CD g
m 03

CD
© ^
Z I

£ o

E E
C C
CD CD

C
O

0

"0

.9. 0

-Q b

3 03

Q-QC
0 • .
3 0

0 -ii:
-0 _o
o
E
E
o
o
o
0
o

0

o

0

E o

0 0

oo ~

0 *

0 r

E P
0 0
03 ^

0 0
C 0
0 >

E o
c .2,

0 -Q

+= o

E -g

Q. ^

0 0
c -0
0 0
J= 0

0 £
c C

li
£ 0
0 0)

E 0

■0 0

§■2 8

1 S|

S 2 I

CO

0

>

’+->

o

0

5*

O

*=>

E

0

E

0

05

«J

C

ro

c

0

>4

-Q

0

0

0

o

o

0

J0

03

03

0

E

_0

o

c

0

0

•0

0

0

"0
0
E
C
0
CL
X
0
i

o

E

0

c

-0

c

'0

E

0

-Q

E

0

O

0

0

0

o

o

0

03

0

"-I — .
0
X
LU

0

0

E

0

CL

"O

0

0

0

T3

c

0

0

0

E

0

1

0

>

o

03

"0

C3

O

0

0

>

o

0

o
-*— *
c
0
E
0

03

0

C

0

0

c

■0

c

0

03

0

0

X

0

0

03

0

0

0

03

0

'0

0

_0

Cl

0

O

0

E

O

CL

0

0

0

o

o

O

0
0
0
o
o
0
03
0
L— »
0
X
0

o

J0

0

>

0

•*—>

0

L.

0

o

o

0

E

0

0

>*

0

0

o

0

E

O

Cl

0

0

0

0

>.

0

■0

0

O

1—

>.

0

0

o

o

■0

0

0

0
-t— 1
0
0

03 .

0 0

0 9,

Q_ 03

o "0
O O

c o

<

o

+-<

c

o

E

E

o

o

(0

E

o

o

<

E

0

E

©

05

TO

C

(0

03

0

Q_

0

0

cr

0

E

0

■0

0

0

>

0

0

■0

0

0

.0

"CD

0

0:

g

3

0

CL

0

•0

>

o

CL

o

E

0

C*-

■0

O

E

o

e

0

0

‘0

0

'0

0

>.

0

0

g

0

E

O

CL

0

0

0

03

0

Q.

0

J0

0

03

0

0

"0

03

0

1

0

0

0

’03

0

0

■0

0

0

0

0

>

0

0

0

0

g

o

0

i_

0

0

o

o

E

0

0

03

_0

0

o

a:

E

0

O

0

o

0

0

3

o

E

0

0

0

o

0

0

■0

0

0

0'

0

0

o

CL

0

CL

Id

C

’03

*1—

o

b i
^0
n >
— (/)

o c
c o

S2S

0 E
0 2
® 0
•0 0

0 2

. -t — «

1 S

1 1

0 CD

£ 0
0 £
0 o
•0 --
0 0
0 o
-0 £
0 e

o ^
9 0

0 ^
O =

■8 =
0 «0
o ■-
— 0
0 0
0 0
JC 0

> CO

> 0

0

SO

CQ

0

0

0£

, ■ M—

? g-b
0 .2 0
0 o 2

0

"0

0

0

o

o

0 -0

0 0
-0 1
+- 0
3X-C
-Q ^
U 0
0 -0
0 0
5 3

O V)

2 TO
0

w n
-O 0
0 0
O -0
*- 0
J0 o

b 03
£ 30

0 =
£ $
-0 0

| ®

0 _0

0 _Q

<0 03

0 0
V- Q3

0

E

0

O

>.

0 0
£ E

0

0 0

0 O

E 0
0 E
0 O
— CL
O 0

c= 0
£ 0
0 s- _

CL

E
C

^ 0
0 E
0
>

O E
0 O
30 0
0 0

« 0
0

o 0

03.0

82

03

0

O CL

0 £
0
>

0

2 ~o
0
o
DC

0 > £ 0

_ ©

c- E

"0 0"
Z o

if

> E
•- 0
0" 0
0 ^
0 E

E

c

0 E

> C

O 0

|T o

§ c

o 2
0 ^
E ~
0 0

ro £
£ 0
0 o

0 ~o
SZ 03
ct 0

> 0

5 CQ

2 0

j£E £
0

0 E

0 0

Q. O

03 SZ

£ 0

CL

E

o

o

o

0

o

0

6 0

■*- o

0

•= 0
£ 0

II

si

c
0
c o

* 8.

c n

o

o ( D
■4= 0

CD 4=
C C

£ o
o o

O m

o 5!

0 4=
0) O

bE

c

g 0'

0 ^
o

ce 2
£ s

O 3
E cl

0 o

\Z. M-

11

O M u'S

0 0 O 0

0

E

0

_0

0

03

0

0

cr

>

.0

"0

0

I

0
E
\

0

E

0

0

CO

03

0

E

o

0

0

0

o

o

0

E

0

0

0

o

4— *

0

E

O

CL

0

0

0

>

n

to

c

o

4-1

y>

<

c

©

E

©

O)

TO

C

re

03 ’33
£ C

E E

p ^

CL ■ =

0

£ £
0 0
0 0
0 L0-
O

O 03
® C\J
0 0
O) o

£ 0
0 1-

CD £

>

> g

c o

0 CL

0 0
0

E E

ro 03

E «

O 0

o 0

2 2

'0 0

0” 03

o 2
0 £

0 0

E CO
£ SZ

I I 3^
I 0 s

3 -o ^

0 £
0 0 0

^ 0 m
E 0 2

3 0 0
g O 0

o

>-®D
E § 0

o .2 4-

'1— — ^
M_ E 03

o < £

2 $

00 $
O) 4— »

£ c

E E

> CL

.0 o

-t — '

> >
> o

o

CL

0 0
E 0

O 0

0

O E

0 0
0 C
0 00
O

o 00
ra C\J
0 0
033
£ 0
0 f-

£ •-
£ E
0 03

£ |j

b co
03 0

.h: 1—
0 0
0" 03

o 2
0 £

0 0

SO (f)
£ £

? 1 «
| 0 ?
3 E ■>.
CL 0 _Q

cr 0 1
©00
0 2

o 8 ^

CD -q

£ § 0

o .2 4-
•0 ^ *£
CL"0 £
4_ E ©
O < £

m »

03.?=

£ c

E E

Is.

> CL

£ 0

'5 >

> o

0

0 0
CO

0 £
o 0
o 0
0 0

ra =

03

0 0
~ SO

£ E 0

£ 3
c o

0

0 0
E 0

E

° 9

0 £
•i= O
0 =
0- SO

o 0

0
0
0 0

0

0

E

O

CL

CL

O 0 0 CL O

“ 8

o)

£ 0

E E

|I

> CL

£ °

>

> g

0

£ £
0 o
0 c
0 00
© „
o 00

CNI

0 0
03 3
£ 0
0 I-

£ ■-
E e
0 ©
E »

0 0
-Q 0
"D ©
Z5

^ o

0
0
0
0 o

0
0
0

Q- 0 £
0

0 0©

8 g
0 u
o 0

2 $

0 0
0

O ©
©

© 0
0 ©

O 0 0

>3 © TO

■0 5 ©
g £ EE
q.8 c
4_ E ©

o < £

Rawlins RMP 2-91

TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT

to

S3

"<5

£

iC

</>

</)

QJ

O

o

T3

c

<0

c

o

a

a

(0

■c

o

2-92 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Vegetation

(f>

co

o

0

■*->

c

a>

E

®

O)

to

c

(C

e

O

o

c

a

E

0

oo

>.

co

O

o

0

i_

CD

X

O

i—

X

E

'ro

c

'ro

E

X

E

CD

0

>

0

x

o

ro

c

o

4— »

.2

0

co

0

>

0

CO

0

e

ro

x

c

ro

ro

0

o

ro

0
0
0

1

_0

X

'■4— >

ro

E

0

c

0

_Q

>4

0

L-

0

>

TO

TO

C

ro

c

o

CO

o

Q_

E

o

o

ro

0

x

>*

3

ro

E

E

o

o

e

o

ro

0

co

0

>

0

O

c

ro

x

c

0

c

‘ro

c

'ro

0 -2
*- c
O 0

o

CL

0
0
5 0

ro »

E £

12
« C
C 0

O ts
ro £

® o
co o
0 .
> 0
<10 g

co 52
ro -*
c .hr
ro 0

TO

c

ro

^o"

0

o

0

CL

c o

c

ro

0

ro

ro

CO

"ro

'o

0

CL

CO

0

0

o

0

CL

CO

0

>

0

c

0

CO

0

ro

CO

CD

0"

0

'o

0

X

0

E

_ro

CL

lZT

oQ

H

TO

0

L_

0

CO

c

ro

TO

c

0

TO

c

ro

TO

0

c

0

ro

0

0

0 8

0 .52

CD

S-i
ts I
o 8
e- c

o ro

CD Cl
C0 Q)

ro ro
E cr
ro -p

^ i

0

0

'o

0

Cl

0

0

>

’0

ro

>

TO

c

ro

0

ro

o

X

o

c

0

CO

ro

c

ro

>

x

0

0

4— »

'c

E

E

o

o

c

0

X

0

ro

0

co

ro

c

ro

t/>

o

>

o

0

zr

o

c

©

E

0

O)

ro

e

ro

0

0

_ro

o

0

co

ro

0

ro

1

c

X

1

o

o

c

ro

x

'in

c

_ro

CL

>

c

0

x

0

0

CO

ro

0

"ro

c

o

'0

0 .

8 .2

0 B

M- O
O X
X 0

E *0

>> .c
x

"ro ^

ro 0
0 '0

s §

= o
o -
ro 0

Cl

2 &
0 c
0 o

ro

0

co

0

>

JC

o

ro

0

ro £
0 .E
00 c

8 .1

8 “
0 o

CL

E
o
o

0
0

ro 'o
0

CL

0

TO
C

ro

.E £
ro ro
c o
ro 2
S 0

co

3

o

0

TO

_0

0

>

0

0

TO

ro

x

0

o

8<2

ro co
3 «J

CL 0^

o o

CL E
0

0 TO

-Q ro
ro

0 ro
0 ro
0

ro o

x

ro 0'

c

to _ro

ro 5
0 ro
■§ ro
8 ro

Q_ M—

C/) 3_

0 ro
> £
'0 o
ro -
> 0

to 0
c -
ro ro
0 o
3 o

•ii

8 '5

o g

c
o

ro
£ .E
ro to

I 8

o ro

TO
C

ro e
c .2
.0 ro

8 -

ro

O o

0 ro

1 i—

4= 0

_ TO

ro 0

1_ 4 —

£ TO

ro c
c ro

"TO m
0 £
x ro

o “
0 —
0 ro
k co
Q-_o

0 r-

ro £

o ^
3 c
0 O

0 ro
c c
° 3

Q- O
'8 8
S.E
ro-0

c c
0 0
E E
gj ro
ro £
c *-■

ro 5rr

E J!

o O

8 o

ro £
® ro
x: 0
^ E
-TO

ro 2

0 -b

1 co
c

1 fe

3 TO

E C
E

ro ao

o

ro

o

c 00
ro £

Q- ro

o fl

£ 8
0 --

0 ro
> .c

S ro
c E

ro

j- ro
£ o
ro c

ro g

x:

0 o
£ TO
ro 0
8 ro 0

1|1
"i £ cx

® 0E

ro 8 ^
ro _ 0
- 0 ro
0 00 ro

o .2 Q.
-CS .

0 c
0 ^0
*“ CL

ro g5
£ c
ro 3
^ x 1

0

TO

C

ro

0

co

c

ro

cr

>

X

-I— '

ro

0

X

0

TO

ro

TO

E

ro

-1—*

CO

co

E

E

o

>>

E

.9
’■+— 1
ro

-4— >

0

co

0

>

TO

C

_ro

CL

3

TO

C

ro

to'

c

ro

E

ro

ro

Q.

•s_

0

o

E

ro

x

c

0

TO

C

ro

0'

■—

o

0

coo

TO

C

0

Cl

Cl

<

TO

C

ro

in

co

c

o

0

0

w

0

0

'E

3

E

E

o

o

E

0

CL

0

ro

0

o

c

ro

x

c

0

TO

C

ro

0'

1

o

0

0

c"

'ro

c

ro

0

E

O

o

0

CO

0
0
L— '

'c

3

o

o

E

_ro

CL

0

3

O'

"e

3

TO

C

ro

"0"

0

'o

0

CL

CO

C

_ro

0.

0

3

ro

CO

"ro

o

0

CL

CO

0

0

'0

0

Q.

CO

0

>

'0

E

0

CO

0

ro

CO

CQ

0"

0

O

0

CL

0

c

_ro

CL

LLI

08

E °?

cd in

ro -q
£ £
S»:

0 10

E 0O
£

.E uo
ro t-
^ co

C

0

E

0

CO

ro

E

ro

E

c
o
— ■

ro
-*— »
0
co
®
>

■e

o

Q.

Cl

3

0

O

ro

ro

TO

co

c

c

o

E

TO

E

ro

o

C

0

>

E

0

N

C

o

"h — >

ro

c

0

E

co

ro

*4—

O)

c

'n

E

C

E

>4

x

TO

C

ro

0

TO

£

4—

o

0

JX

o

o

X

0

3

o

3

00

'•*—>

C

o

0

0

ao

</)

0

>

to

E

i_

0

■*-»

<

<

O

4->

E

O

E

E

o

o

0)

E

.2

Ip

o

<

+■»

E

©

E

®

OJ

ro

E

ro

0

0

>

o

0^

x

o

0

0

3

0

Q.

3

E

x

C

ro

E

O

'0

3

0"

o

ro

E

0

0

0

E

O

O

0

X

TO

3

O

$

0

X

E

_ro

x

0

3
c r
o
ro
c
o

E

O

ro

o

o

3

0

00
ro

1

o

ao

x

X

E

0

CL

X

<

0

ro

x

0

0

ro

o

OX

x

0

0

ro

o

ro

c

o

<

Q.

Q.

DC

0

x

0

0

'o

0

X

0

0

>

'0

ro

>

E

X

C

ro

0

3

o

X

o

E

_ro

o

0

x

E

ro

ST

x

c

ro

in

co

0

0

o

x

C

0

X

X

<

3

o

o

ro

x

x

E

ro

0

4—*

ro

*i_

x

o
1 —
X
X

ro

0

ro

c

q

L— <

ro

DO

0

Q.

S

QQ

E

.O

ro

o

3.

x

ro

x

CO

3

o

0

CO

0

>

£ S"
0

O X

-7—1

ro

x

x

E

_ 0
3 CL

!<

0 0

IS

1 ro

0

x

C

ro

0

ao

c

ro

DC

>

X

3

0

X

0

x

ro

x

C

ro

CO

ao

E

E

o

>>

0

x

0

0

E

o

4— »

C

o

3

0

CO

0

>

X

E

_ro

x

3

x

E

ro

x"

E

_ro

0

$

c

ro

’i_

ro

x

0

co

ro

E

ro

Rawlins RMP 2-93

Chapter 2-Vegetation Final EIS

.Q

TO

I

"O

C

ra

(A

©

o

©

Q.

(0

*->

E

ro

QL

(A

□

4=»

ro

CO

"ro

o

©

a

co

CD

'o

©

CL

CO

ca ■
C T3

o S>

p £
=3 3
CL CL

2 0
-Q

8 "O

o

C

CA

-o

© >
T3 >
© 2
© -a
c .E

I ®

f|N TO

O W
C 03
CD E

II

» g

T3 —

© 4
ii

!_ -a

o c

- CD
03 —

c o

2 "§
•*- Q.

CD ©

c £
N >4—
TO O

03 E

1 1
•+= ©
e Q-

s °

-C T3
*- C

© ro

© ^

2 E
Q_ ©

o 7d

^ s

8^

S: o

© -Q

p ©
o ©
© o

Q-o

w ©

© _Q

CO

"to

'o

©

o.

CO

©
©
o
©
Q.

o W

« E

!e

J5 co

13 Z3

o 3

CL CO

"O

c

ro

03

c

c

©

E

©

CD

CD

C

CO

03

c

©

©

©

©

CO

03

"O

c

CO

o

o

c

©

CL

O

©

X!

o

o

$

©

©

'o

©

Cl

CO

E

ro

CL

©

>

©

c

©

CO

©

CD

■4— »

CO

03

e

E

o

>>

ca ©

k 92
2 *;
>

X2 ©
© 03

-TO >

If

o >-

E CA
iiC ^O

©

©

C

©

X2

_

=5

©

'td

E

o

i_

M—

c

o

To

=3

CL

O

CL

©

O

©

o

i_

CL

o

TD

©

c

-©

c

‘ro

©

c

©

-Q

-Q

03

C

o

S

©

©

c

©

CL

©

o

03

E

0

1

ro

©

JD

_©

'e

©

X)

P

b

"O

©

o

E

©

©

©

? t

© .92

Jl

ro E
o E

Q- 8
X °
© -

ro p

© cl

E ©

E g-

© E

15 =>

CD ©

ro £
o II
o xs
>_ ro

^ °
■O CL

2 O

'= E
CD 03
© P
CD

© -~
X2 ©

©3 -Q

3 2

O =3

5 |

© >

© ©

o

o ~
e ©
- ro

E ©
8 CD

E ©
© o
03 9-
ro .©
e •©
ro _

E-g
© ©
~ ro

£ E

2n

O jo

Q.

4= O

"O

©

§> «
2 p

o

>>£

■o ~ ©

TD 5 XI
J e 2

© E

-E 3 |
-~ © J
© E ©

ro o 92

ifl

© 3 E

© ro O

sS“

e ro c
§ ° ro

9 a. Q-
e © ©
o o 3
o x g-
^ © .92

E ' E

ra ^ D

cl © ■

0 E b

E CL ™
.5- P «
E © ©
=3 > O
© ©
— X3 E

©

CD
h-

O Z3 E
O © CD
C\J E

© P

P T3

CO

Q .2

CO Q.

zi o

. i_

^ Cl
e Cl
© CD

E c/>

C/3 CD
C/3

CD C/3
C/3 0
C/3 '-£3

ro >

ro ©
o ro

© ^
E
©
■o

O ?
.2 S

^ =
©
-o

3 .52

,E ©
■o 8

= E
E w
© =
"o ro

©

_ to
o ©

© —

Cl
© CL

E ro

o ^

CS -O

> 3

© ^
©

E

o

o

©

©

■

o
©

ro cd

E3 ^
CD E

-E ©
"O ©
C ©

ro ^
w ~

© L

a ^
© ^

|€
T3 C
© ©
© Q.

2 CL
&<
Q.<
"D CO
E LU
^ ©
©' £
ro x;
■o

td 5

2 <u
8 8
-o' ~

© CL

© E

03 O
E O
CD

-o O

E

© O

E -S

ro 2

TD 8
© ^
E P

ro 8
© -O

V—

f— 1

-O

E

CD

©

_Q

CD

E

O

©

CD

2

TO

™ 2

2 3

© q:

TO 03
CD _F

E £

2 £

fi

E T3

© ©

5 E

©

ro -E
E P
o

< i

CO >

LLJ E

|1

0 O

03 "a

1 "

8 I

w I

JC ©
©

* 8

© ro

E CD

ro o

JS

o .2

O X3

>*

(h

C

o

o

<

c

©

E

o

O)

CO

c

co

-o

©

©

©

a

T3

E

_ro

©

03

c

ro

a

_ T3
CD ©
O JD

E -©
E

W CD
E _
© CD

CD E
© ©

"O ©
E >
CD ©
_ x: 2e

© 8 ©

E g o

O -o "O
E E
"O CD CD
.2 © -

-I5!

ro cd o

© i- £
X3 ,p 2

ro

-Q CO

CD

je cp

03 O
E ©
E CL

© CO

-a

E

o
ro

ro o

© o

> JD

P w

=3 TO
O

X3

©

03

E

T3

O

E

23 5

CD ©

2 ro ro
^ ©

-E - ca
5 03 0
n = O

0^? g.

$ Q $ CO

O

ro p
o ©

03 "q.
P CL
O CD
X3 ©
Xi

£ P

II

2 £

' M—

o "§

© o
03 9
© 2
> CL

ro
©

-C o

-O

E -O
CD E

© co

II

si

*4— ID

C/3

~o ^
Cl 0
CD _C
"O 0

ro P
© ro

ro -n

ro?

E CD

E

O ©

© © ©
© ~ o
ro "o ro
x; = cl
CL £ CO

E s- ©
© P Ej

■ZZ E

CD

™ © CO
i E ro
^ 8 ro

O o ro
© P E

© B P

3 3 -n

o ro 9

ro x: .2

©

X3

W P
-Q ro

-o o ro
3 -o
o ro e
> cd ro

li*

E "

_ ©
© © CD

E ro E

CD _
CD © O
©hi

i: 2 -Q

.2 E

Is”

III

I’ll

T3

E

ro

ro

©

_E

"O

1 1
03 ©
E E
CD 3

-o

CD ©
O XD

ro 8 _
x= 8 ©
o 2 ©

© CL E

EE o

£ T3
E — T ©
© CD —
E O Q

B F CL
ro e ©
pro..

o

O «5’1
ro 2 o

® fi

© o ©

> X2 H=

TD

E

CD

"O CD
E ©

CD x:

© TD
© E

> _ro
ro ro e
.ro 03 ^

% 5'|

E o 2

© •*- p

E W P

-7—5 0

ro P x:

O) © ©

co -o 2
8 E ro
ro ro cd
E © 5

C30

X

^o

E

©

Q.

Q.

<

ro n

£ s:

ro q

T3
E
CD

©
iil ©
© p

03 15

8 CD
CO _
QL P

00

x

^o

E

©

CL

CL

<

CO ( ■)

£ CL
CO Q

c 5

ro ^
ro Z

03^5

9 cd
CO ^

QL £

ro

CO

ro -S
ro

e 2 x

ro ^ -o
ro ro 8

o^ro ro

ro E Q

QL

O <

©

o

3

-O

^ Si
! ®

ro
©

3

o ©

x -Q

81

|8
2 ©
ro
o

ro . _

ro p

° £ E

© o
© ©

&p
ro -d
ro 9

(- CD

8 CD
CL

© .8

5 ^

© .2
ro ro ©

p ro
£•>
E ©
O CD

‘i_ >

CL .2

CD

■o

E

CD

TD

E

CD

©

3

O ©

x -Q

81

| I
2 ©
©
‘o

© E

II

S E
ts o
ro o

8 ro
S ro

■o ©

E ©
CD i:

© T3
© ©
E
CD
E
©

©

O CD •■= ~

©
CD

_ >

Q. .2

E
O

E ro

28

3 °-
o ©

■x -CO
o -n ~

©

CE

©

E

©

X3

>

?s
2 ©
e .32

8 ro

O ro

S.I

E ©

E 8

8 CD

2 ro ro p

e ©

5 -a

W "O

o ro

E >

CL .2

CD =
O CD

ll 1

© o

©

_ p
O © ©
x -Q §
°o a

h— 8 CD

2 g ©
2 © I

c .92 P

o 8 £
o ro

&.i

■p © ro
o ro -o

s— > c

Q. .2 ro

■o

E

CD

©

E

O

ro ©
ro o

-‘I

2 ro

8 c

2-94 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Vegetation

m 0
C CD

ft

.2 CD

4—

■43 CD
C 0
CD
-D —
— 3

0

3

o 3
0 ^ ro
.2 CD ~

0 >

o -3; ~

2 CD
Cl -Q
~ CD
E cd
2 CD

E V
0 >,

CD 0

2 i

5 CD
^ O

•5 o
0 0
O Q.
CD CO

CD CD
C O

c

_Q

_Q

CD

0

1—

'CD

0

0

c

CD

0 IT

.2 S

° *
CD —

0 0
(f. ) C
CD

C Q-
CD 9-

K i

CD "Cl
.33 c
0 CD

0 CD
Q-85

8^
o 0

§0

O W

0 z
0 C

0 03
3 £

| i

0 35
0 .2
O eg
0 g

Q_ _0

W 0 •
cd 0 3

0

0 0 _cp

T3 £ 3

c ro cl
0 — 43
O O 0

0

_Q

32 ro

3 0
O

> 0
> 0
0 0

£3 0 _o
> c 0
o - CD

0 -C

lU 0 4-4

CD CD E
C 0 £
o C ^

0 ro

^ 0
2c 0
0 -c
> c

c 2
0 c

0

0

o

c

0

0

c

0

i—

o

c

-0

c

'0

£

o

■u —

0
o

t

3

co

c ~

8 o
E *-

2 0

0 ±3
C 0
0 0
CL 0

1 3
0
0
O
O

0 0

0 0
■3 0

!*

T"1

11 -8

0 Q-0

lC C 0
T3 O £

0 E _

Q_ 0 0

7? « 0
8 c c
2 0 F
O cl E

0 9 —

0 £ 3
c tF o
2 o £

O 4-

S.-2

3 _Q
CL 0
0

0 0
‘ 0
CL

0

3
O
O

o

C 3

m 8

c

0

00
C o

o CD

II

Cg 0
0 °>
TO

of
^ 0
2 0
_Q jQ

^ E

0 "

C« >>

0 i_
0 0
o 0
0 0
c _0

!_ o

0
0 ~o
0
0

3

o 0
$ -O

-2 o
-Q c
0 "O

£ 3

L. O
.0 §

0 £
±3 0

-£ Q-

|§
0 E
■a. Si

3 0
o c
o 0

O CL

c ro
0 c
0 o
0 "9
8 05

N C

o o
0 _C

0 CD
0 0

-g cd ^

12 e 0
o 0
0 0

0 CL-V
5 CD 0

=§ * 8

0 LLI O

0

C

0

ID

0

0

o

CL

o

0 0
±3 C
0 0
jS 0

-c- 0
0 ^

■5.?

8 ro
8 v

|o

o w

0Z
-Q C

"0

3 £
o ^

c

■0 '0

o 0
"cd
ro c

5 0

,4 Cl

_ 01
3

_o

o 0

_Q 0

0

0

CD

c

’0

0

CL .E

^ 0 •
0 0 C

oi .2

3

o

5:

o

0

0

0

0
0 0

0
c —
0

0

3
0
0 = 3
OO0

8 CD
0 sZ

CD 00
E .C

■£ 0

5 1
0 >

0=0
0 CD ^

2 0 0
>2 0 .13

0 *4 0

,9 ° 0
C/3 c 0

| CD

E |
0 0

”S

1

0 2 —
0 £ 3

c r o
ro o ^

iS c

0

0

0 _
'0 0

si

o "

E -8

0 0 0
E 0 3

2 O 0
.2 0 E
E “ 0
0 !8 cd
0 -Q

O 4_

S.-2
3 0
0 0
0

0 0

' 2

0

0 .iiC

I1

0 O

0.2 E 5

^ §

c

0

00
c o
o w

II

w 0)

0 g5
c^ 0
C -5

o X

$ 0
^ 0
0 0

^ E

0

0 c?
0 0
o 0
0 0
c _o

E °
^ 0

0

0

3

o 0
§ -O

3 O
c

0 0

w C

0 O

0 ^

0 8 05

•m N c .

o o 'i

0 0 O

m £ 0 O 3

0

> C
0 —
i= 0
0 ®
g y=
0 .2
0

> 0
0 CD
0 -
2 '0

T LiC
tt 0

O 3

2^o

4 o a®;

o s n 0 .2

■*- 3 3 0 0

i_ *4. TO

0 ^0

^ E CD
o CD

c 8 8

0-B^

0 0-9

5 2 0

M x Jg

0 LU o

,-t^ TO

-g Q-

I o

0 C
o CD

0 +J

3 0
O C
O 0
O 0

0

ro

I

0

E

ro

w

0

o

0

a

(0

+**

E

J2

a.

0

3

44

ra

*4

(0

"0

‘o

0

a

to

0

c

o

0 2
0 0

■5 o

c c

0 ^
•— 3

0 o
0 §:
o

33 0
o
0

■o o

0

_ 0

0-Q
*; 0
E 0

CD CD

E V

0 >4
0 0

8 d)

^ o

0

0

:I -2

0 w

-2 CD
£ CD
0 ^

^3 CD
CD -C
O C
0 0

0

3

0

’c

3

0

C

0

0

0

’o

0

Q. 0

CO CD

t

3

0

o

o

C
0
0 c
.2 0
Q. E

CL

c c

0 3

1 £
0 E
> o
■E CD

c E

0

0

0

E

0

co

0

0

0

E

0

co

0

0

0

E

0

co

0

0

0

E

0

co

0

0

0

E

0

co

ro 0
c 0

f!

.2 0
33 0
c 0

£:e

■— =3
(/) O
0 §
o >

■43 (/)

S 0

CL -Q
*± 0
E CD
CD CD

E V

0 >,

CD 0
C 0

5 0

^ o

0

3

o 3
0^
.2 0
-5 0

c3 a-
0 CO

E5 S
■-E S

3 -C

.2 0

0 ^

CD 0
8 C
^2 0
3 c
10 'CD

S E

0

0

0

1_

0
0
4— »

0

C

0

CD

.2 S

0 x
0 .5
CL 0
CO C

4-4 CD

c O-
0 9-

E i

0

c

0

0

0

c

0

0

0

c
0
0
o
0
0

0
3
O
$
a cd
0 0 .8
.13 C O
0 0 0
0 -n °-

0 CD

0 E 3

.2 g, 0

0 c 3

8 CD 0
8 -a c
/8 c CD

O 0 o

0

CD

c

-> 0
0 l-

c 3
0 0
E "CD

£SS

*•§ 1
0 3 =

C 0 O

'0 ^ CD

g ° 0

2 8 H.
0 E 3
cn - ■

0

0

0 CD

^ g

0 0

<~>j 0 >—
0 cd.2
c CD 0

=

o E 0

*= CD _0

> E

O - CD

m 0 0

w (D 4-4

CD CD 2
E 0 £

n C , ,

8 is

^ 0
-44 ^ CD
73 0 0
" >

0
c
0

0

o

c

0

0

c

0

1—

o

c

’to

c

2

E Q.

2 0

o 0

3 c:

0 13

S CL

1 O

0 _g

E 2

--- 3

o I

‘t- 5

ro c

0

0 c

2 0

C0.E o

0
0 ±3
c 0
0 0

CL 0

0

0

0

0

2 -

"q_ 0

0

n 5

O Cl

— .CD
0 0
E 0
2 o
■ .2 0

E »

E — —
c 0 0

S'®

0 4-4

o 0

o E

0

0

0 2
"13 2

£ >_
0 o

4 —
0 4^
^ CD
0 ±3
3 0
0 0
0

0 0

0

.2 3

3

> C
$ 0

1*

0 0

C O
O CD

§!

2 0

0
0

0

0

0

o

CD

0

0

0

0

1!
$ 0
E 03

-O 0
0 0

0

c

0

0 §

CO O

l.£®
0^2
| ® S

200

000

5.2

s 0

CD

0 C

.2 *S)
0 0
^ CD
0

0

o »

C)3 0

O 2

3

o
$

TO e
±3 0
-a 0

|g

0 E

■5 .2
3 0
o c
o 0
o 0

Rawlins RMP 2-95

Chapter 2-Vegetation Final EIS

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Visual Resource Management

JA

ro

o

O

+->

c

0

E

o

05

(0

c

ro

d CN

=> >

c/>

> £

q:

0

0

to

0

0

c

o

C/3

CO

0

TO

C

o

©

o

o

"ro

0

w

3

TO

c

_0

c

o

"O

0

0

0

.Q

TO

0

C

E

■

0

0

to

0

TO

0

JO

0

0

0

0

0

o

a:

>

o

03

c

o

o

a

0

0

to

c

0

JO

3

Q.

0

03

0

C

0

to

0

>

+3

O

0

!o*

O

**

c

0

E

0

05

flj

C

ns

<

Q.

CL

dc

0

QC

>

JO

0

0

LLI

0

0

0

3

0

i__

3

3

44—

to

c

0

03

C

'•4— »
0
X
0

c

0

E

CL

o

0

>

0

TO

03

c

0

0

0

0

_0

o

0

o

i—

3

o

0

0

■0

3

0

>

M—

o

>4
-4— >
'l—

03

0

C/5

©

>

'-O

ro

c

>_

0

+■>

<

<

o

+■<

c

o

E

E

o

o

C/5

E

O

+3

o

<

+>»

E

©

E

©

05

m

E

TO

0

-a

c

_0

0

03

C

0

DC

>4

JO

"0

0

X

0

"O

4—

0

TO

C

0

CO

03

c

'E

o

0

XT

0

0

E

o

0

0

0

1

3

o

0

0

1_

0

3

0

>

0

03

0

C

0

>

XI

if)

E

O

*3

o

<

*=»

c

®

E

©

05

GJ

c

TO

0

TO

TO

0

c

0

0

c

03

CD

1

CN

c n

0

0

TO

JO

0

0

JO

h

TO

O

3

LT3

O

$

1

CNJ

C/)

0)

CO

0 in

2 cn

CO

03

c

— TO

o

C C

DC

$ 0
° a

>

0 <

CO

0

TO

TO

0

c

0

0

c

03

03

1

CNJ

CO

0

0

TO

JO

0

0

_Q

h

TO

03

3

'sf

O

$

1

CNJ

0

0

0

CL^J.
0 LO

CO

_cd

C *
— TO

o

c c

DC

$ Q)

2 a

>

0 <

CO

0

TO

TO

Cl)

c

0

0

c

03

CD

C\l

CO

0

0

TO

JO

0

0

.Q

h

TO

CN

3

LO

o

$

1

CN

CO

CD

CO

CL^-L

0 in

2 CM

CO

CD

C .*
— TO

o

C C

DC

J 0
2 %

>

0 <

CO

0

TO

TO

0

c

-t— *
0

0

c

03

CD

'(0

CNJ

®

0

TO

JO

0

0

JO

1-

TO

v-

3

LO

O

$

1

CN

CO

0

CO

CL.-L
0 LO

S CM

CO

_CD

C *
— TO

o

C C

a:

$ ®
2 a

>

0 <

Rawlins RMP 2-97

WATER QUALITY, WATERSHED, AND SOILS MANAGEMENT

to

UJ

TO

c

£

V.

S

Q.

(15

■c

o

Rawlins RMP

WATER QUALITY, WATERSHED, AND SOILS MANAGEMENT

5

CO

T3

C

■o

(1)

■c

2

a)

l.

<u

a

(0

•c

O

CO

Uj

to

c

i

CD

x

>

o

1—

X

X

- CD
CO to
CO 03
C XI

0.2

to _l

- QQ
to

Jr? CD
ro X

03 tl
> >>
> o

ro T3 c

r (D C

E c ro

0 03 X

3 §

° m
ro 3 cd
o -Q

0

o

o

cn

o

c

c

ro

o

i £ |

ro •-§ co

0 Q- 5

i-0 0

^ CD

cnj uj c

ro

o )

C 0

li

Q- 03

"2 -ro

O O
O _
m— CD

CD

CO

o

ro g
0 E
^ ro £

§ Q- iP

0 c

X 'o <“>
,2 0 0
~ 03 C

b ro
a> °-
s- c

^ 0 o

t- c -x
C 03

(D S

ro •-

0 £ E
ro "5 -o

c 0 ro
0

c

0

"D

O O
12

.9 $

03
C

X X
0 CD
0 >
.2 o

03 q_

ro ro
"O ro .2 0
0 03 Sr X
x ro o _
o ro 0.3
ro« % |

ti) ^

X X u) “O
C 0
03 X L_
_ X

0 roc
ro w cd
ro ~ -o
w >- 0 —
CD ro >. CD

■E c ro E

> 03 c 3
« b ro O

g ro — 0

o. ro p

c

—

3

o

$

0

03

03 _

C -o 0 0

X c

E ro
0-p

E

C

o o

> c
= C o

ro 0 0
ro £ c g
t x ro ^

^ c c ro

■a ro

co ro o x

X

>

X

>

0

£

3

(/)

"ro

o

03

O

o

0

o

CO

3

X

0

X

0

4-

0

ro

a

0

0

>»

X

X

3

C

o

ro

"O

03

u_

03

0

X

O

0

03

03

C

03

Jit

0
0
i

o

>

X

X

O

0

c

o

t

o

CL.

0

0

o

X

X

c

0

CL

1?
x C
OJ 03
05 ^

ro 2

c CN

ro cn

ro Cl

>. 03

1 —

ro .E

IS

_ 0

32 x

3 ~

o c
<: o
ro "2

;-E ^

> —

ro c
cn ro

C S-

2 5

% O

0

go

3 ro

CO CL

0

X

o

o

_+J

‘c

3

o

cn

O

o

L.

X

>*

X

>.

0

2:

3

CO

"ro

o

53

©

o

0

0

CO

3

0

ro

5

Js£

0

0

l_

o

0

03

ro

CO

JsL
0
0
i

u

0

03

03

CO

0

c

o

x

o

X

0

0

o

X

0

O)

03

c

ro

E

>

0

>

0

c

0
— •

C

0

X

X

3

o

0

c

o

0 CH
ro

1 ><

0 x

0 0
O) ro.

ro 9-

c <
ro -o
E c

03 ro

c o

N ™

ro cn

03 X

x ro
c I>
03 ~

0 .E

is

E o
ro 00
0 0
b x

o o
ro 03
0 %
0 ^
0

X 0' •—

0 0 p

> £

2*
I 8

3 ro

0 x

1 8*

t

3 2

co x

ro

ro

x ^

b 0

ro -b

x ro

ro W

0 ro

ro 33

o c
x o
ro 0
E ro
ro x
c o

X -TO
ro x
03 CD
0 ~

0 03
0 CL

=> E

ro ~

X T3

*-• c

0 ro
tl ro

01 b

ro 9

X 03

O 5

O T-

™ ro

tgo,

ro ro-*

3 0

X >

!_ O
0 X

ro ro

x

0

0

ro 0

0 b
0 x
3 O

0 -£

X 0

b X

03

C ^

RS

x ro3

(/) "4=3
0 =3

x 9
o b
x c

ro 8
ro 0
$ x
0^
0 "§

X 0

3|

ro c

-n

c

0

E

0

V\J -X

$ ro $ X

x x

E x
0
0
o
x
o

0 _

C —
O 0
X X

o

ro 12

3

o o
■2, ^
o _

ro ro

o Dd

0

0 0

o

x 0

ro 0
x o

3 >-
— > 3
0 O
.-t; 0
r~ ro

E o

CO

0

x

>»

X

c -o
0 0
>
o

0 X
ro q_
ro ro

O ro
x|
< >
Q- t3
HI ro

^ 03

c

3 C
O O
0 X
0 0!

0

03 ro
.E 0

ro 0

ro ro

t= x 0

x ro

§ b

e ?

05 E

1°
0^
§ O
X 9

c ro
^<n
ro 0
o 2
ro b

0

ro 0

O} ; (

^ rog

® x
^ 0

x

r- lj

o ro
.2 t

03

0
0 M—

X o
•0 -

o ro
ro E
ro

.2 03
o ro

0 _
x ro

E^
(/) °

CO

E 0 0

= C CD

$ ■ 9

0 "8 ^
— 0
x 'o X
CO 0 ■*”'

O X c

CO 0 o

>t

XI

(0

c

o

’-H

a

<

c

a>

E

a>

a>

03

c

ro

0

ro 0 0
^ ro 9

■o ^ c

ro

8 CD

X

2 3
X 0

O "TO
ro ro

03

P

o ^

>s 3

^ O

03
X

o

-0 ro
^ ro x
ro 0 g
o c ro
ro fc x
t *- £=
0 ro 03

CO 9 to

03
C

3 °

X X

> E

x ro
ro 12

0

■2 o
0 o
(Sro.ro
x 0
ro 2 x

S o ^

o^o
X 0 0
ro o Q.

o ro «

o o 9
0x0

ro -§
ro ro
5 o

X o

roo

3 CD
X ■£
O *J
x -2

o "g

0 $

03 O

0

0

_ ro „
03 co 9
ro cn x
o — ro
ro w ^

9 ro -2

o 03 o

x x

M— C
O 03

O

0

c — _

o o .2

b 0

ro ro

o ro
0 x

ro "S
>- 0

CD .1=

9 x 0
.roc.
■"pE.ro
c ro

o ro ro

b -TO CO

0 cd 3 0
> ro o >
Cd ^ ^ Cd

0

ro

00

0

ro

0

E

03

CO

0

ro 0 0
^ ro ■£
x $ c

8 rolZ
b o x

1 ro ro

2 i I

x ro =
m_ _ ro

° C 0

0 •= X

03 C -r,
2 O —

ro >, 3
X -> o
0 > >

- ro ^
x ro

1 ro x
ro 0 2

o c ro
ro P x
t c

o ro ro
CO 9 0

03

ro o

x x

> e

x ro

C "D
— 0

■2 o
0 o

cSrob
, x 0

ro 32 5

or

o

o-^o

X 0 0
03 o X
o ro ro

o o’9

Ox'0

0

ro 0 0

> 03
X3 $

8 CD
3
X

X b

ro 9

x ro ro
O ro 5
g 3 o
cl ro =
_ 03
O C 0
0 •= X
03 E -rj
b o —

o^l

0

CD 81
o c ro
ro t x
t -p c
0 ro 03
cn

03
3

c S
'0

03 X
CO £

ro 3
x .2
’> ro

b m

ro 0
0 >

o o
CD 0

E 0
5 CD

ro
0
0 03

mUttxx

O X
X CD

ro ^

ro td

03 O

2 x
F ^
o 0
>> 0
> 0
> 03

J_ 1—

03

0 >- >
0 CD 5
ro ro "ro
ro $ ro
ro |>-g

^ T1 O

8 0^

ro 2 g

ro

CO

> ro
O ro

x —

1 1

ro ro

0 >
o ^

C 03

ro ro

o
ro 0
ro b
O Y
^ 0
c ro
O $

lrt.ro

0^03

X ro E

rf\ ^ ^

0

^ 03 O

CD CD *t

8 £ ro
too
0 b
^ S’ O
b o 0

ro o .ro
ro r~ b
o 2 ro

03 b x

E ro x

CD c

E 2 ro

0 C3L ^
S’ 0 c

ro sz ro

Lt ' —

03 ^ 0

2 ,P ^

c

'0

03

00

0

X

>

b

ro

0

O

x

c

ro

I -2

O «
= ro

ro co

0 b

x -o

ro E

o ro

-9 «

o-g
o 8
ro ro

CD /.N
4- 0

5 s

O 0
£ 0
0

0 0
8 E

Iro

cn ■£

x

11

> cr

^ 0 c
ro b 'ro
o b ro
cr CL co

ro#-8

ro o >
^ ^ Q

o ® ^

b x ro
0 "I E
§■2(3

35I?

Si “

8 03 0
0 0 03
X X 00

Rawlins RMP 2-99

WATER QUALITY, WATERSHED, AND SOILS MANAGEMENT

co

UJ

"(5

c

£

o

CO

73

C

TO

73

0)

-c

</>

£

"io

3

o

I

Q.

■C

o

*t

o

o

©

in

o

0

"D

O

o

‘c

3

o

'5

o

o

k_

~o

>.

X

>

0)

t

3

(0

75

o

"o>

o

o

o

o

CO

3

TS

0

a)

<05

L_

O

><

"D

T3

3

CM

a|l

= < i
0^0
£ $ c
<- Q CO
- CO C

£ >Z

£ N o
® N M
E hr CD
-5 CD ^

C ^ -O
3 CD 3

8. £ I
eu;

u > ra

a3 to £

■ TO
3 (O

>>

0 -a
CD 3
£ 2
CD c

o *- to
U O 0
0 0"
S’ "o’

mi.

75 0 2

. Cl

£

O

o

o

o
to

c h-

0 CD
C/3
C/3

o

CD

0

O

$

-X

CD

03

6

2 5

>*

5 0

0 £

03 2j
^CM
.E cl*_

in CD CD

-4— '

c
0

E w
-o £ c

C c/3 C
0 Jr CD

3 -2 C

Q- ro cd
- > .E

0 0 3

CD ^ 0

^ o 2

o

^ c

O TO

° s

£ 1
o
ro

.x
0

— ^ 0

0 _ 2

ro

t: >4
TO
i- TO
0 0
75 S

£ c
03 —

M— "O

o®|

0 "o §
03 i- _e

5 2-75

o 0 0

0 Q- J0

>4

to C
TO CD

-i c

^ 3
^ 0

c £

C/)

CO

c
0
E

“O
c

O 03
Q. CD

i<:

0 0
ro 0
<1 6

o o

CD 0
03 O TO
2 Q- £

0 0 M

i_ °- ro

-5 o 0

TO o TO
c

ro i ^

O g
0 >

l_ -X T-

0 C 0 T-

75 0 2 x
£ - O =6
— io o
co 0 <d

S 0 T3 Q-

3 0 0 O-

0 1- ^ <f

TO 03«> w-

0

TO

O

o

■4—4

‘E

3

o

03

O

O

i_

TO

>»

X

>»

03

Z

3

CO

75

o

"a>

o

o

0

o

CO

3

TO

0

£

0

l.

0

4-4

ro

£

i_

0

>

be

■*-*

c

0

E

Q.

E

ro

o

c

111

0

TO -Q
0 TO

0

s§
ro —

*8

SS

IX

C T~

0 O

E -

!=

O

c CO
UJ 0

0 CO
r3 3

0 TO

IS

03 0

f s

-X -=

1 5

to a

g.0

f 2
Ie

E 0

i- TO

0 0

^ ?

2 8

Q. 0

TO

C

03 00
C 0

1 0
0 o

.■» J
^ 0
c

0

o

4^ TO
0 TO
CO o

C w
O 0
+3 0

0 T3
2 >
0 CD
!T 0

03
C —

N 0
0 2
030
0

ro to
c

> c
0 0
0 e
0 0

0 03

■£ ro
■= a
o ro

0

TO

£

0

o

$

0

c

o

a

ro

c

0

o

CM

CM

0 Q.

P 0

TO W
0 ®
03 —
0 O

S °

2 s'

E o

J^TO

11$

11

m O

0

E ^ .E

TO
0
-i— <

O

0

CO
O
co

>i Q-
0 0
2: 0 -a

0 TO TO

CO o 3
-= u o

0 w >

.9 c X

o 3 10

O y CM
CD 03 O

CD o o

o o

2x°

0

0

o

L.

0

° -a
0 o
!_ 0
0 -

•S W
0 0

5 =2

03 0
C >

tE o

0 c

4= 0
TO O
0

.1?
.E 0

1 2

E

c n

ro "g

o 0

c =

0 ro

|5

0 |

Q_ C

4? p

C 0

O 0

75 2

0 o
O 3

2 75

03

C

N

CD

L-

03

0"

0

•t; 0

> 0

o o
ro u_

03 TO

c c

jQ 0

0 0

TO E

0 0
o 03

ro 0

t c

3 2

co E

0

TO

2

0

o

0

o

CM

1

CM

Q.

0

0 ^

03-2

CO JD O

S 0

0 S'

E o

0

c

2 ^TO

I ® 2

03-^ 0

2 C 0

ro 0 75

0

0

0

E

ro

CO

0 >4

> TO
X -o
C S

m O
P 0
0-2
Q.

(/) o
.11
Ifl

§ c 0

2 0 •£

£ Q. ^TO

0 Q3
OTO

LU IE

l!

c
o

rz 0

1^

0

CD

0
-C

E c 73
0 cd E

03 c 0
CD t —

C Q-(X

0 E co
E 2^

1 W b
0 0 >
,E £ CC

(/)

if)

CD

a5 S
5 cm

$ Q.
1- 0

5 <

O CO

e;^

1 2
E 0
0 is
03 0
0 ^
c TO
0 0
^ 75

2-100 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Wild Horses

w

ro

O

O

•»->

c

0

E

0)

O)

<u

c

TO

s

1

©

*4—

o

TO

CO

c

2

$

©

TO

>

z

o

TO

z

x:

TO

©

CL

TO

TO

o

*4—

CT

©

w

©

TD

TO

Z

©

TO

"O

-e

>

o

o

Cl

i—

CL

Q.

O

o

©

■O

c

>

TO

o

©

CL

TO

O

TO

-o

C

c

CTO

TO

C

-

©

E

O

TO

c

O

TO

TO

©

X

©

i—

V4—

TO

O

©

X

'co

o

■*— '

o

CTO

o

C

©

Z

75

2

!_

TO

©

75

©

C

7^

CO

X

c

$

>

T3

C

TO

co

CL

If

(O

c

o

TO

©

>- CD
X CO

TO i
© ©
■C 9-

II

TO E

> ©

x:

o ~

■t CO
c c
O F

c C

TO CU

c E

TO .©

C Z

TO ^

e ©

4_r ©
o ©

2 o

O X
Q. 2
2 1

© CTO
CO sz

c 'E

TO TO
■5 o

= C\J

X

TJ

c

©

Q.

CL

<

©

©

©

X3

C

TO

©

£

©

©

©

©

CO

TO

C

TO

in

a>

>

'■H

o

©

15*

O

+■>

e

©

E

©

O)

TO

E

TO

c

©

E

©

co

TO

c

TO

E

_©

©

>

_©

c

©

E

©

CTO

TO

C

TO

E

©

TO

*i_

CL

0

1

Q.

CL

TO

©

x

©

c

o

2

TO

CL

O

CL

©

©

©

■O

c

_ro

©

co

c

TO

cm

>>

x

TO

©

X

©

■D

i

TO

-o

C

TO

CO

co

c

o

>

§:

©

©

©

E

o

©
©
©
t

o

x

©

CO

TO

c

TO

©

C

©

CO

c

TO

c

'to

E

■O

c

TO

c

o

TO

_TO

TO

>

©

"O

©

N

Z

CO

o

o

©

©

©

Q.

O

c

©

x

CL

■o
c
TO
©
©
CL
>>
-*— ■
o
c
©
CO

CO

c

©

X

©

w

©

E

o

-C

o

o

©

TO

©

©

©

>

■O

TO

TO

X

©

>

©

©

"TO

CO

C

©

X

©

CO

o

o

CNJ

©

TO

CO

TO

<

©

©

b

©

o

7=

©

©

c

o

O

CO

c

TTO

_TO

O

_c

©”

c

©

E

©

©

CO

TO

■o

c

TO

©

©

■o

5—

o

t

TO

o

a

c

TO

>

©

©

O

c

TO

Z.

E

o

o

©

©

in

0

>

TO

c

s_

0

<

<

O

c

o

E

E

o

o

m

e

o

*3

O

<

+->

E

0

E

0

O)

TO

E

TO

<

c

'to

-t — <

c

TO

E

o

2?

TO

©

©

©

o

©

c

c

©

©

©

x

TO

CO

O

TJ

0

1

©

CL

TO
CO
©
i —

o

TO

"O

c

o

a

X

TO

X

C

'to

c

‘to

E

o

TO

TO

c

o

TO

_TO

TO

>

©

■a

c

TO

CO

c

©

CL

>>

O

c

©

x

CL

■O

©

TO

a

o

©

©

TO

■a

c

TO

©

CL

0
c
©
CO

c

TO

1

©

X!

©

a

c

©

1—

l_

TO

O

o

o

TTO

©

N

'c

CTO

O

0
©

1

©

SZ

4-4

©
©
TO
©
i

O

_c

o

©

©

X

TO

CO

O

X

o

x

©

CL

CTO

C

‘i—

TO

T3

TO

O

"to

>

o

© Jd
<- ©

> ®

o c
© TO
© t

© TO
>> O
O TO
Q. >

t °
t XI

LU TO

©

CTO

C

TO

TO

C

TO

E

©
1

2

TO

o

©

©

i—

O

■c

TO

$

©

CO

©

TO

"O

TO

O

O

TO

c

TO

E

©

J3

;> 0
CL

sz <
o CTO

1— SZ

c
o
E

©
E_

13

»— ■+—>
O =3

*4—

_J c

s °

< "O
©

© ©
F ro

l— XI

©

■O

c

TO

©

CO

c

TO

X

-C

"to

©

X

©

-o

i_

TO

"O

c

TO

CO

co

c

o

©
©
©
k —

o

©

CTO

TO

c

TO

Rawlins RMP 2-101

Chapter 2-Wild Horses Final EIS

.2 c

0 .2

8 2
CD 0
CL

fc .0

TO £

0 is
cl c

8 0
O TO
CD C

CD 0
C CD

N .E

= oo

5 0

— ' -I—*

0 jc
CD

C

■C O

I

g I

^ CD

s s
0 0
0 £

1 co-
rn 0
_J .E

S o

~ TO
0
s= il

.1=; 0 0 0

:b 0 >*-
•> 0 °
^ -D
0 _2 3
CL O p

>. c <

O "c
c ro 0
0 jc £

DO- -

C § o,
cd .y ^

0 i5 <

JD 3 ^

- Q-X
2 g.DC

00 g

^ 0 o
> c

w

ro

CD

0

JD

TO TO
0 o=

§ 8
O ~
TO O
0 2
-Q CL

to
0
O
5=

0 .0

01 0
0 JD
-C —
■*" TO
JC —
0 O

O-BS

§ £
8z
0 0
O -C

5 C TO OO

~ 0 0 E
E = £;
0 0 0
CD E 0
0 0 0

0 ro a
to c
0 «> .2

0

0

o.

>4

CL CL C

4- 0

O CD

0 0
X 0
0 TO
_ 3

0 o
O c

0 CO

£ -0

-t— '

0 c
0 .2 <
cto_2 ^
0 E x
0 Q-
TO O 0

-o £2

0 2°
>

0

c

0

TO

0

0

>

n

(0

C

O

5

a

<

■*=»

E

0

E

0

O)

CD

E

CD

0

in

CD ^

T“ 0

*5 2
0 o

S to
o o
0 —I

So

c TO
O 0 0

'■^ _C ■>

0 0 c

_0 0

II

Q_ (/)

E 0
.E 0

0^

c 2

— 3
C O
< $

E

0 TO C
O C 0

0 0 1
J3 0 '
c cl .co
0 ^ -c;

D O E

0 0 2
CD ^

c i=;
— 0 o

0-^0
0 0 0

O 2 to
0^0
, O OS
0 <? .2
TO > 2
E ^ O
O E 0
O w

.E Z cd

TO

c

0

coo

c

0 0
JD 0

4—*

5 o
o 0

* 0
0 DO
~ -C
O OO

0 5
S 2

° £

ll

0 CD
3 ^
Q. to
O >
CL 0

0
i

CD

0 C

>4 ~

LCD W
UJ 0

C 0
£ 8
§ ~

c|

S 0

.■t: 0

c .t;

o 0

E c

Si
s 0
0 0
JC TO

COO

c

>

0

JI

o

0

0 TO
— 3

0 C
0 .2 <
aoJE *p

0 3 -L

0 9--x:
to 2 0

"c 0
ro 0

x ^

CL 0

O

-t— *
0

•J= 0 Jj
c x: — 1
0 — ’ 0

0

C/D

0

_J >

<<

Is

-X E-

S2

51

0

o O
— J

0

JC 0

T .E

O CD

^ E
5 2
< ^
0 5

i— I

x CN
£c<J

0 Q_
X 0

0 5

>4 ^

-a c

.2

o> 0

Si

TO 0
0 TO
JC c
0 0

0

CD

c

0

sz

o

TO

If

■SI

C C

0 o

T- 0

x 3

■O 3
C M-

2 c
Ql0

<S

TO 0
C 0
0 JD

2-102 Rawlins RMP

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

<n

o

C

d)

■c

</>

U.

T3

C

<c

&

2

1

v.

a

a

(0

■c

O

<0

Uj

"f0

c

i

Rawlins RMP 2-103

Chap ter 2-Wildlife and Fisheries Final EIS

>*

n

m

c

o

©

©

O)

ro

c

TO

0
CO

CD

1
©
"6
To
c

CO

CD

c

-2

©

"6

©

0

1

3

©

C

o

CO (U

.E .c
>

© CO)
'F C

TO o
© -*-*
> c
CO o

TO CO
3 c
O -

*d

Z'X

■C Q
■2 ©

CO)

f I

CO ©
© CO

X ©
1- ©

£ £
© c

"E ©

CO g.

to ©-
c <
CO

55 -8

CO 3
C TO

Z ©

1“

O) (1)

.E -c
>

© CO
'F £=

CO

3 o
©

> to
CO o

s|

TO CO
3 c
o —

Jo

>ox
•c Q
.2 0,

±3 TO
CO ©
© 00
X ©
1- ©

0 o

©■g
z ©

TO 9-
■o Q-
c <
CO ^

55 -g

CO c
c _©
'c ©

1 =
5,2

©

CO

©

E

CO

C/D

CO

■2

© i=

£ ©

E ©

o X

't— ' I

c o
© M-
> © .
o>-E -
© ©
to

TO CO

3= g>

.fe
■8f

X

3) CN
CD ^
T- X

ll

m 2.

Q.

Q <
c/D to

© 00
I*

0 to

li

It

CO

E

c ©
CO _C

TO c
© —
©

IS

© O
© 03

©

©

"m CD TO
©

CO

SI

©

~ TO

o ©

© ©
© "O

'©
c
o
o

E ©

© 8

Q. ©
CO
CO

E

© CO
< TO

CO

o

1—

CO-

CO

CO © .9

TO XO XO
TO 2 3

1!

©

1

CO _

© §
® c

< -i <

x co P

!±! © a:
2 © u-

.a»» ®

5 T “
2 ©
o

©

© -=?

CO c

© ©

8:1
O CO
CO. CO

c o
© ©
E la-

© 3

y ©
= o

C7 c/)

C?
© TO
© c

CO ©
CO b
C 3
CO CO
^ TO
© ®
CO) —
CO co
E c

© CO

Q E

TO

c:

CO

©

©

1—

3

TO

©

o

o

2 P r =

o ©

■4—*

CD JZ
TO O
© ■-

x <;

irf

w ©

© O

c :=
o o

O CO.

TO

c

© CO

8 i

> ©
*3 ©
O CD
co -

o =>

-t TO

5 ®

0 3

° o
© =
CO) CO

ca ©
E xo

CO -~

1 8
2 T)
.E 3
to o
< <:

CO

©

.c

c

CO

E

3

b

CO

©

TO

c/d

CO

E

TO CD
CO £

to' to
0 —
53 ©

IS

■§:j

© o
© ©
TO Z

©

©

m © TO
2 x= ©

©

© co
8. ©
2 g*

E

© CO
< TO

_© • 23

•Sffl
8« l

3Es

o ^
co o
O) © .©.
TO _Q _Q

E 2 ©

3

o _

$ TO
© 0
8:1

©

TO —

© §
.2 8

^ <

3- © O
X co S"

^ © cc

z © UL

>? sz sz

TO

® TO

C -t— »
© TO
CO ©
CO t
TO 3
CO o

TO

c

CO

w

©

1

3

TO

©

CO

o

© -E -F

©

^ o o

X CO. TO

TO CO
© ©
E S’

© 3
E ©

= o
cr ©

TO

© ®
co.£
TO TO

E TO
© co
Q E
o .©

To JZ
TO O
0 ■-

X $

©

©

o

SI

I-
© ©
© a

C :=

o o

O CO.

o -5

3 S

i_ /—
</)

Q. ©
3 .>

©

TO
TO
TO TO
ro >*

03 ^
TO .2

-2 ©
3 ®

TO 3)

© .E

1q 3
TO

o © ••
E © ©
CO. o TO

©9°

1_ CO >—

ro © g.

o 13 ©
S co c
Q. c .E
CO >

> CO)

©

CO)

CO

©

c

©

o

CD

1 1

©' o

CO-E

$ 1
£ &

© ©
:e c
CO o
E ©
©- c

-X =
§ <

CO

5

o

CD

uri

© © CO) O TO

CO
t
3 co
C/D co

■2 £ <:
g © =

TO £ £

>2 ©
^ 13

^ i

© CO)

E t
' ©

3

sz

©

E

COX

V)
u_

o

■g q.

03

© i i

u_ o o

© ©
1_

Q. OX
© 5
O TO
. . ^

0

c

3 .E

"7 ©

. — I

CO.

— TO

5 >
O 5

© .

CD

_ V*

t £

TO CO

CO

©

I

•e

o

sz

C/D

c ©

6)8

b o
0 ©

E .© CO — '

©

Q.

o

o

o

-si

3 ° ,TO
3 TJ ^
I © ©

CO.

<

CO

c

° >
CO >

TO 2

® 6)
CO) ©

o ®
o Cl

TO ©

O

~Cl ©
3 S
W Q-
TO 5
TO

C TO
© >,
3)3

TO .©
£ TO
3 ©

.© g.

© 8
o ~

fl

=5 o
(/) 03

TO TO
© 3

12
z ©

2 8
Q-

0 S

« &
(/) *-
i— _

o

g- o
2 ©
3) -2

•2 E

8^

TO T-

W

CO

©

© TO
S CO)
!_ c

*2 ©
© ©
TO ©
O i-
■TO O
© Q.
CO

© E

cr M—

E O

TO

CO) o

TO

’> o

ll

£ Q.

l ©

© o

S 8

© 3)

° ^

CD ro m

uo^ o

^ © TO

I TO SZ

-2-5

© 1 1
LL o o

© ©
:e c
CO o
E ©

3- TO

-X _

© 0
co.

© 5

O TO

>< TO

3 .E

~\ ©
T — I

Q_

|!

— ‘ TO

TO 0

TO

©

CO

CD

to

o

to:

C/D

E .© co

| 8.

1 §

c o

TO

° >
o >

TO 2

CO

■E $

© O

g-5

3)8

i b

© ©
M —

TO

o

CO)

c

3

03

UD

v o

CO
TO *“
© ©
E TO

© s_

■q 2 3)

2 co) ©

TO TO
^ O

©

o

Q. ©
3 . S.
© Q.

3) E

TO .2
TO TO
© >>

TO* 1

-2 C
3 ©

© Q.

o ~
CO -C

t 5

3 O
C/D CO

-CO 3

Z TO

b ©
a. ©

© c
■_ L.

© o

© Q.

o 2

Q. CO
TO ih —
O

©

TO

©

© TO
£ CO)
!_ C

£ ©
© ©
TO ©

S O

© CL
©- CO

ll

©' o

3) "E
CO

© ©
:e z
CO o

e ©

.2 3- TO

© ©

— ' CO

o

©

■F zs

in

CO)

©

TO ^

© E
8^

CO) o

C -0=
5 o

I ®

CO
©

3 E,

© 3)

TO

0

CD 0 ©
o

TO Q.
^ © TO
3 TO !_

-) v ©

1 TO SZ

- 2 o

© i 1

LL O O

CO

©

C/D

CO.

© $
O TO
. . ^

0

>. TO

3 .E
■©
Q.

|I

_ v

TO 0

TO ©

©

©

1- CL

8 §

c o

o >
0 2

5 >

O 5

TO _g

2 ©

TO 3

to -E ©
O 3) 0

W b 8
0 ©

' M—

co — ' o

3 ° ©

"7 © ©

- TO.|
-8 2 3)

2 co) ©

5 g ©

S ^ CL

IT)

O T

©

CLF

©

>

Q.

3

i

W

3 E

TO .©
TO TO
© >,
3)3
c .©

£ 3
3 ©

.© 8.

I 8

o ~

W TO

c

3 0
x:

TO

©

TO 3)

© .E

■ ©
o^ ©

© ss

S 0 3

Z -o
o © • •
E © ©
a o t

TO

CO 'TO ^

©

©

CL

©

2 T5
B 3) TO
CL TO .E
TO

^ S 3)

a) -2 e
.2 o <:
© ® o

8l £

TO

©

3 ©

3 3
1 8
© CO)

E b
' ©

0

TO

i_

CO

CD

1

3

xo

©

co—

. CO

? c
0 c
E 1c

O 0

ll

x: o

© TO

-i- ©

© E
co. ©

o

o

O

©

TO CO
© -TO

E, ©
CO)

CO)
TO

o

-X —
<: -
CO

sz o

W TO

o ©
° O
.TO CD
^ cz

© E
© ©

o

^ o
© s;

TO

CO

©

•E 0

© 0

©•2 8

©

©

©

o

©

CL

©

o

Q.

0

CO

>

3

© n
co. C/D ©

3) o >-
©20

0 3
CL XO

I

XO

©

o ll

©

o

CD

CO.

©

C/D

I

IX)

CO

CO)

3

<

I

CL CL

< <

CD

C

0

x:

©

o

CD

Q.

©

OD

I

LO

CO

CO)

3

1

CL CO.

< <

2-104 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Wildlife and Fisheries

X

c

3

CD

LO

$

0

x

0

o

0

CL

0

C/D

I

LO

CO

x>

3

<

CL CL
< <

b -b
_0 w

— 0
o o

3 CD

TO t

CO w
^3

g J!

C T3

° £
M3 CD
CO -
O 0
O 0

0 o

^ .0

0

c p
0 p

0 „
0 LO

CL 00
3 C

II

3 5

CO o
0 =
CL CO

^ 0

CO

CO o

C C

!;= x
X o

<u >

g >- 0
0?£
c o o

g> 8 0

J- C 0
£ 2 O
^ — o
0 Q co

4-4 >4 —

0- ^5
c 0 O

1- ^ X

2 O 2
CLO "O
ro c\j c
- CD
0 't~ X
> - 0

'■S|£

0 $ X
M— 0 CO
O -C >

-C

05

'0

m O
2 .2
3 —
m TO

0 2
o 0
0 T

>. o

> “E 0
*= 2- 0
O CO o

ro x 2
■55 0 £
8 g-.£2

C id X

— CO)
f; .2 -p

CO o

0 •-

01

c i

2.8

CL

CO c
1— —

brx

05 CD

2 Q-
0 X

0 0

CD £

0

o . £

~ «“ §-
0 E
0 0
0 x

0 X
> c

CD

2 05

0 •—

0 -p

0

O

£ o ^

“ 0 ®
0 3 §;

3 2 <

4-. P

o 2

0 0

E I

Q_ C/D

_C 05

05 Q-

p s

£ CD

9 0
x 0

0 '3 X-
05 CL LO
0 o t-

2 x c
E 0 0

gl

o 'P
3 .2
-O ±:

2 3
X 0
_ x

o £
t co

9 ^

0 0

5 £

.2 -g

co c
3 £
cr

ro

0

0 -o
O £

c 05

0 «J

o w"

o ro
p £

_ 0

Q_ 0
Q O

s_ O

o °5

b 0
"O ro
0 X
05 C
0 0
C 4^
0 0

0 0
-Q X

0

X!

3 X

0 .. 3
0 _Q if1 O

.2 -n 9= S

_ X

8

8 *

__. 0

i*-2
€ :>
3 o
0 0
X 0
0 —
£ O.

t E

3 0

C/D X

CD LO
C

0 T-

E 0
. 0
o

0
>

0
c
0

X O
0.2 ^
05 iS £

2 o
p -o
E c

o ro

0 s

— .2 0

00-^
o *= g-
ro ;> £

O o o
0 0 0

0 c

^ 8
CL C
3 0
CL ^ X

Cl .2 c
0-0 0

0

X

X3

c

0

0

0

o

0

CL

0

■O

JD

o £

0 £

05 X
•p 0

o

_0 0
— 0
o o

C CO
0 t

_0 w

13 i—

C x

0 £
-.3; 0

0

o

0 9 •

0 V 0

O f/1

0
0

Q-^

0 o

05 c

0

C 1-

o

Q.

0

0 o

-t— >

c n

2 CD

2 "o

0

0 —
CL 0

£ 0
0 ^
05 o
C c

■O
0

! o

0

0 o
3 o c
0 _0 • =

2 Q_

O 0 ^

o 0 ^

m C

o ®

CL

0 c

0 'O

^ .co

"O l~l
3 -P ^

0 ^ T-_

__ "O
05 CD
2 Q-
' 0 O-
O 0 0
cm £ E

0

<

0 y-

ro E
£ .2
0 T3

0 T3
> C
X 0

2 05

l|

0 O

W 0

0 .2

X ■O

£ 0
O o

£ ^
2 o

CL C/D

m 0
X g

X CD
3 X

o *■'

' $ -P

05
0 3
0 O
0 b

0 X
0

— X
05 0

2
X
0
2 c

0 0
0 >

X (/)
> C
*3 0
O -P
0 .2

0
0
o

X
c
0
X
X
<

0

0.

s

CD
0
0

X
X

o
x:

X
0 X
x c

o 0

X

gl

o "O
3 .2
X 5P

0 'E

X 0
_ X

o £
t 0

s >
0 0

c 2

0

o t0'
2 0

£ £

-= 0

-2-S

0 5

3 o

0 I

M — >

0 X

O £
D_ 0
Q o
>_ O
O w

X 0

-Q 0

0 X
05 C
0 0
3 4^
0 0

£5
0 0
X X

<

0

0

0

E

0

C/D

cT b
_0 0
— 0
o O

c £

CD t

co 8

13 *—

0 °

C x

.2 £

4 t 0

0 -
00^
o 0 ~

X

0

0 X
0 £
X $

0 o

0 O
0 c
X 0

X co
0 w

o 2

C O

0 o

^ .0

0 0
05 2
2

,i= X

p- o

O &

0 X
X 0

o 0

a =

X ^

9 x

3 0
O ■

$

0
<
o
cm

o ^
TI 0
0 0

■s E

o 0

c 0
— >
0_ X

s «

cr 0

X

c

'0

0

0

X ~

x£
0 o
E X

0

0

0

E

0

C/D

0
0
1—

3

o

^b
_0 0
— 0
o o

c £

0 t

_0 0
w'S

C x

.2 £

1 ■ CO
0 -
00^
o 0 -1=

4— »

0 "o

^ .0

0

O X

c <13
0 £

0 X

II

X 5
X 0

52 $

0 o
0 =
X 0

£ 0
0 ^
cn 2

C 3
X

p

2 >

2 o

2 E

g’S

0 £
X. 0

b

3

0 o
0

5 o

c n

-4— <

(f)

CD

c

O)

2 o —

Xo X
0 CM c
0 x CL
> - 0

0 § X
0 0
X >

X

05

0

— 0
£ 3

!i

_ co
in
0
o 0

CD V

0

>> o

■4—*

>-2 0
x 9- 0

o £ 0

0 CT, £

■m O (D

8

C 2 X

o

c

£

CO o
0 T!
£ 03
.2 x

0

>

X

0 o

0 c
o —

4- 0_
0

0 —
c cr

0

X

o

X
£ .2

X 0
.2 x
0 x
0 0
03 £

0 -s

co E
£ .2
0 X
0 X
> 3
X 0

2 05

II

0 p

0
0

_ o
£ o x

« 0 O
0 3 X
c 2 <

0

0

0 .p

X x

3^ 03

CD o
2 ^

2 p
X C/D

2 X

X <33
05°-

£ ^
P CD

0

"O 0
0 2 ^
X x LO

0 P X

0 Q-'°
<5 x c

E 0 0

X

CD

3

_C

O

’c

5

.0

X

-*— <
0

0

c

X

13

H—

c

0

X

i_

CD

CL

O

0
1

Q.

0

0

X

X

0

0

0

X

0

c

0"

0

0

E

£

0

0

X

X

0

X

o

x in
0 X
p c
2" co

0 33

>4- 0

^ £
o

lL £
CL 2

X'O

o
0
0

x ro

C X
o 3
o 0

0

■

X

X

O

X

c

0

C

3

O

$

X

c

"0

c

11

X

‘0

LO~

_

3

E

^ X
0 CD

X

c

0

X

0

0

0 X

0

0

0

M3 0

0

'^3

1 £

t

;>

-c — ■

0 E

0

3

0

0 .

0

0

0

0 Tp;

0

O

0

> £

X

4 — 1

>

•— >

c

X

M3

X '0

0

0

X

3 C

X

3

0

X 0 — .P

0
o
0
t

3 0

C/D x

0 ' f ■*

V) -4 — '

P c <

0

0X0

X
c
0
0
0
o
0
. X
0

X

t_

XI

b
o .
0 .

XX

E X

Rawlins RMP 2-105

Chapter 2-Wildlife and Fisheries Final EIS

2-106 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Wildlife and Fisheries

2 1

TO
CD -=

CD

JO

3VU

Is

SJ“

.© © 8

i+Z l_ CD

If E

0 E o

^ £ £

E 0

if)

a) ro c

8 ©^TO
0 05 O

0

_Q

1|
i §,

0 E

- 8

•2 I

$ 05

© g>

Z JO
CD C
TO

E TO
© 0

c 5

8 2

to

c

© CD
0 TO

i— i_

O 0
TO TO
C C

LL JO

= O 2
0 TO O 0

TO

c

ro C

-X

O TO
O CD

| 1

0

O X5

if) TO
0 O

E ^

Q. 0
_0 if)
0
> 0
CD if)

II
0 2
<: i

u)

© 0
0 ©

j= a

■*- 15

Si

la

CD "O
CD —

8 ?

3 ©

£ ©
0 .©
o ©

2 o

o o

0

>

Q_ >

E 05

if) •>

^ c
to 0

SI

CD 0
C JO

Lq -o

1?
0 0
o ~

t a

© o

C/) 0

0

*- JO

W ?) r
O © i-
TO _8 ©
C c £
CD 0 Z
Q. , TO
CL o C

— 2 if)

“wiS .3?

Q. C U
^ ■ — 0
2 ® a
QQ E CD

TO 2 0

0

CD CD 2
0 t- r-

I?

E 0

CL

E

0

0

o

(- CD

s =

;© CD

"o. <5
E ©

0 s

o j?

C 1_

O -0

o £

"O

2 ©

Q. CD

0 ©
j= ©

*- o

o 8..©

LL 0 —

0 ©>

> i

O =
0 O

1 2

Q.

E •-

CD -0
10 CD

If
” «
g5 0

IS

0
0
4—

O

o

>_ LO

0 .E

Ox JC

1

o i

o >

if) .E

0 a
£ <:

CD' ©
CD CD
C ©

0

00

0 o
X) 5

0 CL

"O -
— if)

' — ' c

^2 J0

0 ©-
0 TO

2 §

0 5=

0 _
i- TO
CD C
0 ©

O

0

CD

o

CD

i_

CD ‘
C

> (/)

© 1

c ro

0 ©

0 ^
cl -o
c

o 0

- 0

*= o

'o "to

0 ©
0 E
^ 0

o -C
O CL

t- 0

0

>

Q. >

E ©

0 _

^ c

■O 0

c c
0 .E

CD CD

E

1q ^

11

0 0
o ~
0

•t ^
c/) 0

for

^.E -a

^•2 0
Q. C ro

cq E o

_ O CD
TO q_
0^0
05 LO

C

0

0

TO

0

CD

0

C

0

E

0

JO

o

o

0 O

0 ll

1 ©

^ .©

© O
U_ 0

TO

0

= 0

2 c o

05

lo

TO

0

CD
C CQ

O
0 "O

JO o

o

"O *

- 2
o C)

L 0 | .

CD 0
X 0

if)

— *- c

0 0
^ E

0 S,

M — CJ)

“D

0 0
-X 5

8^

0 ©

0 0

> -CO

I ° 05
0 TO CD

C O ^
0 O CD

E ^ u.

Q. 0 OJ

O if) c
0 3 '>

> 0 5

CD if) -=

L. O o
0 -c 5

0 2 o

^ i e

0

o

t

o

0

05

C

Q. 2

E ©
0 3

> o

■j= y-

! c
Q. TO
O 0

II

0
0
4—

O

o

^ LO
0 c
0 .E

^ -C

o '1
o 5

if) .E

if) CD
05 ©

c ©

© 0 TO = ~

0

CO

TO ©
C 0
0 JO

Is

2 o
0 o
00 5

0 ei

TO -
•— 0
' — ' C

^0
CD ©-
© n
2 8
CD m—

O

CD C
0 ©
5 0“

11

C _CD

0 ©

0 ^
CL TO
4- C
O 0

0

CD

L_

0

CD

»- c n
© 0

1 i

0 ©
£ o
'o o

0 ©
0 E
0

O JO
O CL

T- 0

TO

0

0* CD

8a
e g

© m

JO CD
TO c
3 ©

© B

$ CL
0 .E
0 ©

X5 c

CD © ©

^ .© =6

0 ©

OO
LL 0 O

05

JO

TO

0

TO

O

if)
0 0

0 TO

E

© -
05 $

05 TO
JO C

2 if)

3 TO
O

JO 0 C

0
TO
C
0
CD 0
CD 0
O ©
~ .©

-X ~ o

CD =

05

_ O
0 O

if) C -LO

ill

0 0 o

LL CD $

§“

CD 0
CD E

E o

TO

c

© c

JL

O TO
O <0

II
^ 0
E CD

© _Q

if) ^

c

0
E

CL 0
~ if)

©
O O’

0

o
0

> w

CD 0
TO ’

0

0 . E

o —

0 J= .©

cu

028

" -r-

o

0

<y)

0

0

0

E

0

co

E

0

o ©
E jo

^TO

CD T=

0

JO

P

o

o

c

O —I
•J= CQ
CD ^__i

0

JO

O 2

|5

^28

If E

0 h o

~ 8 ^
0 t 0
© 0 ^

c

0 05 O
LL JO E

CD

C ©

0 E
0

g 05
© CD

0 C
TO ~

? 5

0 2
0 0

TO

C

© 0
0 TO

i— i_

O CD
■D -O
c: c

o a

O if)

TO
c

© c
LL

O TO
O CD

II

0

E CD
O TO

0 2
C 3

0 o
E ^

Q. 0
-8 8©

in

© 0
0 ©

_© 0

15

f§

CD “o
CD —

§1

0
> 0
© ^

p

0 2
S g

11
0 2
o «
E 8

o o

0

>

Q- >

E ©

if) —

^ 8
TO 0

SI

05 ©

E

1q to

J!

8 1

1 1
=3 O
CO 0

if)

0
O

11

© 0

<2

0

15

0 0

o j=

s-fe

0

if)

0- E
2 ©
CQ E
o

TO

c

0

if)

0 0

TO

© " 0
05 LO .2
0 r- SZ

c TO ©-

© C E

E 0 0

0

o

i- 0

a o
2 ©

Q. 2

E ©

© Z

0 5

C 1_
.2 '0
o
0
o

1—

Q.

0

0

> i
1 M

0 o

8 ©
~ -c:

8-1
CD TO
TO ©

El

0

? ©

if

>- TO

a o

0 o

TO $

0

a

o

o

!_ LTD

© c

0 .E

-^a

o
o

JD .E

0 a
^ i

u) ©

? ©
E_

^ ©

if)
0
0

— 1—
2 ©

1 s

TO -
— if)

■ — ' C

CD ©"
© 0

2 8

CD m—

c n

co

co ^

»- TJ
CD C

fo 03

5 CO

© 1

c 0

0 0
0 5

CL TO

c

o 0

o

0

05

0

05

1

0 -
C

JO

o

0

>

Q. _>*

E ©

u) j
TO ©
TO 0

8 a

CD ©

E

1q to

1?

© 0

o ~

t a

W 0

0

0

© 8

0 ©

© E

E -8 E

© 0 .E
CL ^ 0

< o a

O- C

00

TO
c
0
0
E -

LO r 1

0

0

O

^ O ©
TO ->-• Q.
0-^0
05 LO
O'"—©

c

0

0

0

TO

0

CD

0

C

0

E

0

JO

2

o

o

© O
0 ll
••S Q.

0 ©

^ .©

© o
Ll 0

Rawlins RMP 2-107

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

CO

E

TO

C

E

</>

TO

c

TO

•C

</>

C

■o

c

TO

§

i

£

a

TO

■c

o

2-108 Rawlins RMP

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

</>

.0)

c

0)

•c

V)

tJ

c

TO

5§

5

i

TO

a

TO

■C

O

x

> o i
1^0
“ g--S

X 5 3
-0 .2 °
C -O ID
03

c’ro x
S c $
3 ffi o
w 2 "a3
=6 ^ >*
0 0 2
®

CD n, 1 «
M— > CD
i= *■£= CD
I 3 o >>
CO 03 >

L_ LO

O t-
0 =
E Q-

E <

^ E

.9 2
x M~

11

X -2

0 2

2 X

= in

° X
c 0)
o =

0 $
o 2

Q. (D

| E

u, 2
0
0)

0
o fE

X C

0 ®
x

^ 0

■9 o> o
9 c o

— 1 — v-

03 0 o
903
< c o

0

>

X

3

i__

0

X

X

C

03

03

C

x

0

x

0

o

03

t

3

co

X

3

O

§

0

o

o

zs

O

l_ LO
O t-
0 =

E 3

if> 0

E

Q_

<

0

0

X X

En

E

0

c

0

i

X

0 X

X

M—

0

c $

I

0

X

0 0
8.1.

X

0

X

0

X

!—

2

LO

0 c

X

X

0 2

X

0

, ■

:-e 0

0

X

c/)

> 0

0

0 >
0 >

1

X

0

X

c

0

X

3

CD

=5

<

° X
C 03

0

0

S C/3
03 O

c o

'.;= j*:
0 O
03 O
C O

0

03

0

E

03

CO

0

>

X

3

i__

0

X

x

c

03

03

C

x

i_

3

0

x

0

o

TO

t

3

CO

X

3

o

0 $

1 8

11

0 o

X -O
0

0 2
2 LO

E Z.

^ 'a.

9 <
£ E
-5 o

.2

X

X

M—

•*—*

CD

c

$

0

0

_c

0

0

X

0

0

>.

X

X

0

X

0

X

L—

2

LC

if)

0

c
1

1

X

X

0

—

0)

0

X

0

>

0

0

0

0

X

0

c

c

0

X

3

03

3

<

o -o
C 03
O =

5?

Q3 $

o 2

Q_ 0^

x F

<

O

4->

C

o

E

E

o

a

</>

c

o

u

<

c

03

£

0

03

03

E

03

— 0
03 O
C O
'-33 ZS

0

0

0

0
>,
X

1

0

0

03

O

c

o

13

0

03

03

C

03

>

0

>

0

C

0

c

0

X

X

3

O

$

0

0

o

0

X

CO

0

3

CO

a}

o

0

x

CO

_Q

03

0

O

tt

0

>.

c

0

-4—*

O

X

X

3

O

0

sz

LO

Ec
0 «D
■o O

X —
c -
TO —

■=_ 0
"2 X
3 C

.2 ^
X Q.

0 <
O ^
TO 0

t '0

=3 TO

CO .a

0

x

D T3

O 03

5!

— o

03

I?

O £

o ^

T_ 0
x

CL o
< ~

*+— C_)

O 03

O I
1_ 1-
0 0

Q- 0
0 13

> i_

'■8g

3 TO

o 2

X §

0 5

® s

X i_

03

03 • —

'5Z £

3

13 — 13
“O ^

®2 B

5 CL^

2 cl c

^ 03 0
2 0
CL J3
0 13

03 ?

0

X!

0

>

03

0

3

13

03

-C 3

0 0^
> 0 C
O C 03

CL 0
_ £= TD

.9 0 0

jS '3 2

C 0 X!
go 03

E Q- o

0 TO §

I-S £

q T3 !—

o-5 ro

c <» 0

13 0 13
0 > 0

0 — .9
O o."
o

- c-g
g 5 .2

^ 3 0

> O

0 E

ro 03 -O

0 c

> -x:

'.X 0
CL 0
3 C

X3

0

13

0

W ■o O

0 o

03

c CO

0 .9
03 5 ><

• — CD -jj
_Q Jr ^
1- JD Jr

=3 o

O O.

0

2 0 03
® ffl x

1 o 5

CO CL.

=Q

(/)

C

o

o

<

£

ffl

E

©

O)

ro

c

TO

0

>

Q. _><

E ®

0 X

3 “

13 0

S.E

03 0

9 -o

X3 -O

I?

0 0
o ~

CO 0

0

§1
0 0
O w
ro o

E 5
— 0

N

15

.9 3

E o

si

1,1
UJ 1 1
0

c c
0 0
E 3

03

~ TD

o o
0 0^-
oo'g

0-0-0
0

o

0 _
CL ~

ro 0

5 13 .9

o- £ 5
. 0 c
0 m 0

-C 0 Q.

g<

0 £
0 2
0 3
0 2

03

.9 -o

O 0

O 0 xr-
o o ^2
o o

a 0 3
^ 0 c

O 0 CO
0 9 _
0 0
0^0
Q. c9 0

5 T3 .O

o-^5

0 C
O 0 O

5 0 §:
o g<
0 0 0
•§ 0 B

O 0 ^O

co 0 !2 2 si

0

>

® 0

> c C

"S. -7-, ®
=r 13 0

E 0 »_
3^

C 2 |

C -Q _
Xi 13 .2

ill

^0-0
0 0 0
<3 Cj=

0 3 ■*=

t C
3 o 0

0

>

o.

3 •

i_

0

3

13

C

0

T3

0

03 0
C -C

13

0 0
LE 0

C o

I 8.

^ 0

0

>

Q. _>7

E ®

0 .X

^ g

13 0

£.9

03 0

9 -o

XI TD

15

0 0
t

C3 o
CO 0

0

O 1
0 0
o 0
ro ^
P-2
•i TS

S|
15
.9 0
E o

sS

CO ■ |
CD -43
C c
CD CD

E 5

03

.9 TD
o 0
o 0 XT'

O O 15
O O
a03
•+T 0 C
° 0 0
0 9,—
0 0,.
O r- if)
cl2 0

^ x o

o-S5

0 C
0 ,n 0

O g<
0 0 2
-g 0 B

0 0 X
CL 3c 0
if> 2 sz

® o
.X _0

CL X

E X

if) C
"O ®
X "O
c ®
ro '0

03

9 o
€ x

5 5
0 c

0 £
o

0 X

t ^
=5 O
CO 0

iS o

03

o

X
0

X

0

0
a.

X X

.2 "o
S 0

CL

3

.-X X
$ ;2

X 'X
^ 0 c
0 ~ O
X -Q ^

o o
1—

c.r

03 0
C X

X X '3-

*0 >

^ > if)
if)

0 0®
2x0

«£ ;> e

=> o o
CO 0 x

0

1—

X

X

0

o

_0

x

x

c

0

X -

0 0

■js i

v o

0 ■<-

■p 03

> o

$ X

3

0 0
0 O
X O

c. o

3

1 0
73 $
X o
c =
0 0
03 0

9 -o
x x

ji

0 0
o

0 —
t 2
Ci o
CO 0

0

!—

x

X

0

zs

o

_0

X

X

c

0

X

_0 if)

0 I

"V o
0 ~
■p O)

> o

*> X

O o

x _0
X X

E x
if) c
’-0 0

C .9

_0
0 '0

03 V

c 0

-2 x

2 5

— 9

0 8
o

t 2
0 o
CO 0

03

o

X

0

‘l—

'0

h.x
0- 0
X X

^ o
5 0

ZC if)

o 0
0 X
0 n 0
£ X o-

x c E

3 0 0

o-q-2

$00

C -2 5
-9 V o
c 0 —

O — 03

.2 -o o

O > x
O- c 0

03- X
X 0 2

0 S

‘e- ” "O

00^
Q. xiS

o

if)

c

o

if)

0

0

E_

X ^

2 2
0 0
9: if)

o?

E ”

0 2
"O 0

s£

&!

c t

X 3
0 X

JiC if)
CD 0
0 X

0 25 0

x c E
3 0 o
o-o-2
$ 0 0

C 2 ^

C 0 -2

S| g>

O > TD

O- c

03-
O 13
"O 0
0 is Q_

X — X
00 2

0 0

0 0
.9 if)

0 2 CP

0

0. X

0

0

fi5

O c

X 3
0 X

0

CO

-X

0 2

x .2
X ^
3 ?

I-

03 0

c 0

O I
0 0

O X

8* .9

X

0 0
-9 $
0 o

E_ =

CL 0

0 g

0 c

1 0

o

03 8

o to

0 2

'1- if)

0 O

X _0
X x

O E

0 8

o

"9 0
0 c

Ie

— c

CD 0

8 E

c o

< 0

8 0

o ^

- 0
2? 03

.9 0

0 E

X 0

0 0

Rawlins RMP 2-109

Chapter 2-Wildlife and Fisheries Final EIS

2-110 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Wildlife and Fisheries

Rawlins RMP 2-111

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

co

E

tj

c

£

a> a.

-a
ro o
c w
>- o

CD Q.

o

«)

.0)

‘C

Q)

■C

.<0

£

■o

c

ro

2

i

a

<0

•c

o

CD

0

W

8?

03

s- 3

"D -q

£ W

> ?> § .2>f

-WO
■g w
^ w
w o
CL Z
Z O
CD 2

§- 03 £

E ro ro

» w s

■° 0 03

O 03 _
_ 0 03

CD ST c

C 0)5
"o < — C/3

-2 Z 0
3 x: c

|1 o

8 | .£
■eil

5 O

CO 03 jQ

Z O
£ _q

0 0

■ h= o

3 0

cr-o
0 0

CD

it

(/) ^

| 8
!q -o ^
0 £ LO
r 03 ^

ill

8® S

c ® a
ro -Q £■
-E - <
0 ro ^
£ o w

ro

c

o

o to

ro
0
w

0

>

Q.

0

i—

W

"O

o

CD

c

Z

3

W

T3

0

O

03

t

3

CO

0

w

1?

CD O

0 $

ro* ro

2 1
0 ro

ro _

0 03
il c
03 "4=

<- 1/3
.E <u
sz c

£ ro

1|

CD -ro

■ — 4—

w o
0

-n co
w o
0- Z
Z o

m 2

£2 5

° g o
w cd£ jd
ro ,ro q) o

^ 3 i O

> 0

a
ro xo

3 3
0 CT-O
0 0

CD

if

c/) ^

-O ro

"o ^
ro S ld
x: ro

sfl
S 1 5

c ro q.
ro jd Q-
-2 — <
3 ro
£ o to

CO *= c
TD 1 — O
“ O co
"ro o ro

c ro 0
ro

0

w

“O

03

0

JZ

i_

. 0

03 o

0 -
^ W

W -*

1 S

Z ro

3 03

2 ro
w o
0 to

o to
i- CD
CL C

W

0 w
$ "TO
o ro

8 5

~ 3
-2 03

5 5

roz

> s

w~ 5
0

C w

2*1
ro CD o

P CD 03
E w

0

3

o

v_

CD

C 03 _
£ 0 03
O E 0
4= 03 =

W T3 -2

7n 0 '

W = Q_
CD Q_ b=
-Q 3 ro

8 § “

ro ° £3

t3 £= ^
ro ro

XI "O

.g3!

X X3

=z ro

E

T3

II

>i

-9 'o
8 ro
81

0

w

3

O

i_

03

"TO c/3
03 >-
0 0

JI

03 O M
0

w

0 E >-
Sr ro o

o ro -o
3 ro3 c
£ 2 ■>
W o ^
0 to <S)
~ . 0

0 coc
1_ 03 —

Q- c 1_

x: 'o 8
1

1 x a

x: 0 ■*.

= 03^

^ w ro
■o . w

£ ro g
X3 ro j-

2 &■§
Q--o =
<13 ro ro

§• 6.

ill

§ o is

> ro tq

^ ro c

= "o ro

1 ro 8

■O = 3

c E o

> = 03

-O

03

0

SZ

L.

. 0

p >

03 o

ro -
— w
w

2 8

W o
ro to

O w o

w

^ 03

Q- C

x: X3

.g3!

X X3

2 1
0 35
I "TO

l.§
8 I

•E 3

-2 ro

o 03
X3

Is

5 8

w" 5
0

C w

03 ro

® g

ro ip

0 CD
03"°

-o =

0 03

'IS-

8 ”

o -fe

ro -o

ro <-

If

ro

ro 8
1 o

L_

t- CD

> £
o. ro

3

W Q.

X3 E

"O

C -0

ro >,

ro ro
-e ro

3 ®

ro g.

ro 8
o ~

W ro

■o
c
ro

0
w

3
O

9> 0
ro ■£

ro $
ro 03

ro g
ro o
ro !=l

E 03
03

-o 0

ro ^

™ ro
ro *7-
ro i.

C i—

= ro
ro x:
~o w

~ ro
-S -Q
2 E

Q. 0

2 E

03 Z

W m—

ro o

2 "o

03 O

o ro

.9 CL

ro ro 0
— ^ sz
c

0 03
O C
C 'O

o o

O -O

£ 8
03 3
0 O
03 03

O ‘TO
U 0
C =
O 03

03

O _
Q. CO

0

■ro ro

C 1-
03 Z
0 0
w o

x: g3 >-
o 0 ro

| o |

^ w S

0

>

Q.

3

i_

W

TD

~o

c

ro

03

c

"O

c

ro

0

w

3

O

Q.

3

03

0
ir: CD
■a ro

£9 8

ro 0

r— cy

0 2
o 03

Cl -o

w ro
0 ro
HE 0
> c

a Z
ro -o

xz

o

s —

Q-

0

■_

CD

W

o ro

03 c

x: .g

£ ro

2- 8

03 C

x: o
w o

O ro ro

lo 8 o

i_ 03 03

|

E O =
0 o ro

8 'o 6.
¥ ro j-
^ p ro
m- o x:
o Cl ro

o 5 E

c i: ro

ro i- m

8

ro o
£ = 2
03 -C T3

euro

m 03

o 42 o

-o ^ w

I O
a. 2

3 .X
W Q.

71 O

■O

c

ro

0

w

3

O

i_

03

0

"O

-O ro 03

c -o ro
ro >i ro

c* o o

r- vu

ro 2
o 03
o. -a
ro ro

ro ro ro

-o

ro

-g

o

>- 2:
0 03

c ro
5 ro

ro 5g
w ro
3 2
O CD
03 C

o =

ro

03 ^ r-

Tz . 2; j=
ro ro 0

C/) ro -o

■o

® ro

•|z

2- 8
ro c
x: o
w o

o ro

LO 8

7 — !—

i_ 03

ro

SZ 1 O

E c

0 .g

o ro

M — o
o a.

o 5
0 T

C^ O

ro

03 SZ

c o

ro |
-o Z

0
w

3

0

L—

03

-a
_0

'ro

1

CL

CD
.C

ro

“O
c

ro c
0 0
w o

3 C
O O

ro

g3 >_
0 ro
o> c
ro 5
w 5

ro

E

ro

ro

I—

W -Q

~ ro

3 C

w o
ro to

-o 2
3 ro
o

5: f

to -O

-c ro

i|

If

c "O
>- 0
.2 T-3
"w o
0 >
5? ro
<- ro

!-°
o Z

C 3
O

03

^ Z

C CD

g ^

Z "O
ro cd
ro o
ro Z
E ro
~ 0
Z

0 o

W X2

E E

8 z

to -o 0

ro 8 ^

4- - C

3 § $

03 <-> o

0 W

O

Z 0 c
8 >>£

ro -9 c
-c ro o
■^w'^
c C 03

0

c

0

X2

CD

W

0
S

0

£ 8
Z ro
ro c

-£= 3

1 1

o N

o ro 0 Z -c

ro ro |

>> ro Z
ro xz 0
< o w

ro o
2 £
O 3
XO CD

W

CD

0

E

CD

c n

E

CD

0

W

•E 8

= 0 c

3

O -T

g J

to Z

-TO £

o ro

>- CD
< O

-O

0

o

'o

>

ro

0

xo

30

3

O

£ CD

^ z

c ro

g -c

Z "o
ro cd
ro o
o Z
E ro
~ ro

0 o

W X3

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2-Existing and Proposed Withdrawals

Table 2-2. Continued and Proposed Withdrawals

Continued or Proposed Withdrawal AJ*°r"a‘iv® Ait^nativf

1 (Acres) 2 (Acres)

Total Existing Withdrawals

Alternative
3 (Acres)

Alternative
4 (Acres)

Total Existing Withdrawals5

935,530

935,530

935,530

935,530

Proposed Withdrawals

Developed and Undeveloped Recreation Sites5

Encampment River Campground

11

11

510

250

Corral Creek Recreation Site

10

10

530

180

Bennett Peak Recreation Site

15

15

580

230

Teton Reservoir Recreation Site

353

353

870

620

Prior Flats Campground

82

82

360

210

Dugway Recreation Site

43

43

420

200

Nine Mile Hill Recreation Site

126

126

670

440

Big Creek Recreation Site

30

30

450

220

Rim Lake Recreation Site

N/A

N/A

540

N/A

First Ranch Creek Proposed Recreation Site

140

N/A

N/A

N/A

Dune Ponds Recreation Site

2,750

N/A

N/A

N/A

Shirley Basin Reservoir Recreation Site

88

N/A

1,010

N/A

Wheatland Reservoir #3 Recreation Site

777

777

1,880

1,520

East Allen Lake Recreation Site

97

97

310

160

Little Sage Reservoir Recreation Site

24

24

420

160

Little Robber Reservoir Recreation Site

240

240

1,710

880

Laramie River Access

1,290

1,290

2,150

1,680

Special Designations and Management Areas

Historic Trails Potential ACECd

11,770

N/A

66,370

N/A

Como Bluff ACEC

N/A

N/A

1,690

N/A

Sand Hills ACEC and Potential JO Ranch
Expansion

N/A

N/A

12,680

N/A

Chain Lakes Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

30,560

N/A

Laramie Peak Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

18,940

N/A

Red Rim-Daley Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

11,100

N/A

Pennock Mountain WHMA

N/A

N/A

7,770

N/A

Wick-Beumee WHMA

N/A

N/A

280

N/A

Cave Creek Cave Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

520

240

Laramie Plains Lakes Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

1,600

1,600

Blowout Penstemon Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

17,050

N/A

Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly
Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

59,720

N/A

Rawlins RMP

2-113

Chapter 2-Existing and Proposed Withdrawals

Final EIS

Continued or Proposed Withdrawal

Alternative
1a (Acres)

Alternative
2 (Acres)

Alternative
3 (Acres)

Alternative
4 (Acres)

Cow Butte/Wild Cow Potential WHMA

N/A

N/A

49,570

N/A

White-Tailed Prairie Dog Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

NDd

N/A

High Savery Dam Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

530

530

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA

N/A

N/A

600

N/A

North Platte River SRMA

N/A

N/A

12,740

N/A

Jelm Mountain SRMA

18,100

N/A

18,100

N/A

Pedro Mountain SRMA

N/A

N/A

18,650

N/A

Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA (includes Lake
Hattie Reservoir and Twin Buttes Lake
recreation sites)

1,330

N/A

1,330

1,330

Rawlins Fishing SRMA

N/A

N/A

330

330

Jep Canyon ACEC

N/A

N/A

13,810

N/A

Shamrock Hills ACEC

N/A

N/A

18,400

N/A

Encampment River WSR

620

N/A

620

620

Big Creek Eligible WSR Segment

690

N/A

690

N/A

Bunker Draw Eligible WSR Segment

530

N/A

530

N/A

Duck Creek Eligible WSR Segment

510

N/A

510

N/A

Cherry Creek Eligible WSR Segment

1,750

N/A

1,750

N/A

Littlefield Eligible WSR Segment

350

N/A

350

N/A

Muddy Creek Eligible WSR Segment

10,430

N/A

10,430

N/A

North Platte Eligible WSR Segment

1,460

N/A

1,460

N/A

Skull Creek Eligible WSR Segment

7,430

N/A

7,430

N/A

Other Proposed Withdrawals

Gibben’s beardtongue site

15

15

15

15

Other Special Status plants sites®

ND

ND

ND

ND

Area within 14 mile of incorporated boundaries
of all cities and towns

N/A

N/A

4,500

NA

Area within % mile of incorporated boundaries
of all cities and towns

N/A

N/A

N/A

1,500

Estimated Total Withdrawal

999,200

941,930

1,206,640

952,510

Acreages were calculated using both surface and subsurface lands administered by BLM.

Existing withdrawals are also listed in Table 3-4.

Buffers of 14 mile and % mile are included for Alternatives 3 and 4, respectively.

The Historic Trails Potential ACEC includes the Cherokee, Overland, Rawlins to Baggs, and Rawlins to Fort Washakie
Trails/Roads and the Fort Washakie, Sage Creek, and Midway Stage Stations.

Additional closures and withdrawals would be pursued as conditions and plant status warrant.

N/A

Because of land surface overlaps, acreage figures for individual areas do not add up to the total acreage value.
No similar action; not applicable.

ND

No data.

2-114

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2-Current ROW Corridors

Table 2-3. Current Right-of-Way Corridors

Current Right-of-Way Corridors7

Total Nominal Width

Exxon/Frontier Natural Gas Pipelines (multiple)

600 feet

Spence-Bairoil-Jim Bridger 230 kV Transmission Line

600 feet

CIG Natural Gas Pipeline

2 miles

Lost Creek Natural Gas Pipeline

600 feet

Sinclair Natural Gas Pipelines (multiple)

600 feet

WAPA Power Line

600 feet

Interstate 80 Corridor (pipelines, public utilities, roads)

4 miles

Rawlins RMP

2-115

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

a.

s

0

1
«
a.

E

o

U

u

ez

E

E

3

m

Tf

I

fS

3

03

H

<£J

t-

T-

l

<N

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts

o

in

o

LO

oo

P 03

> c

o *-
o

TO 0

X 4.

.9 x

£ 0
03 -Q

0 >
0 g

X i-
_ X

C

o

o

0

o

X

0 3

0 o

O 5
s 8

£ o
> 0

03 -

C 0
*= .2
0 '0
0

-o

0

1

o
0
0

X
'03
03 "55

:§ CL
0 X
0 DC
0 Z

la

> 0
0 x
0 73

o .2

3 C

0 '1_'
0 0

/in 4/ 4/

TO 01 — 1-
0

0

03 o J5

« 8 §

ro -8 o
x 0 _

3 0
0 0
0 •*=

xj

— o
0

TO OJ

2 E

X <

to

0 — w

X > *-
O > 0
Jr 0 0
Q- 0

?!

a |

p §

II 8

00^
.9-0 0

'•2 5 0
ro 0 3
0 Q. o
o

O CL O ±3 .9 o

3

o

5 I5

CD _Q
_C

8 .22

x -o
0 0
> o

O 03
O t
.9 3
X 0

O

00

00

Cm'

00

CM

4—

0 o
8 £
.9 x

g, 33

03 -q
0 >
0 O

x

_ CL

0 03
.> c

>x 3

=5 ®
0 £

c

g

o

0

o

x_

CL

3
O
§

:> 8

x b

> 0

03 -

X 0
Z3 0

1 »

£ £
o

o 0
*- 0

x

03
03 "0

% CL

0 I
0 QC
0 Z

_0 O o

5 0
2 E

CL<

0 ~ -53
.0 0 TO

■tt 03 —
0X0
X > ~
0^0
Jr 0 0

Q- 0 ~
0 % x
3 g.5
3 2 §

O CL O

03 o

3 8
1

0 —
X 0

/ — i_

"o 3
5 3
0 O
.9- o

O

'■X 0

f— -4— »

03 0
0 X

■o E
0 o

0 4—

Q. *r
000

IX 0 0
C 0 *3
0 ““ •>
C -O lx

5 g1

-4— '

CD _Q

D
CO
0

08-2

to ’£ ^
000
> o
3 g 0
O g t
o .9 3
£ .£ O T3 0

CD
03'

UO
OO
4—

° O
C £

.9 03

O P

03 -q
0 >
0 O

X b
_ CL

0 5
0
0

O

0 CO
> c

>X 2

=6 8
0

o 30

■0
x
0

0

03

03 "55
•x CL
0 I
0 QC
0 Z

0
0
-4— '
0 >
9- ■
o

°>8c
0 O

3 0
0 0
0 ‘X

0

3
O
$

:> 8
x b

> CD

CD

2 E

CL<

0 ’X
0 0®
■— i- sz
0 0 ■*— '
0 x o
CL > ~
0^0
Jr 0 0
0 0*-

0 % -a

3 8. 1

3 2 o
000

ro — o
0 0 _

“D -S» “X

0 o >-
9-0 0
.9 ~ 0
t; “ 0

<° 0 3
0 0O
-po

— .9 o

| i5

0 JD

0 —
i_ ^
0 0
> O
o TO
O t
.9 3
"O 0

_0

0

3

LL

"O

£

ro

0

■a

c

<0

c

o

</>

4->

o

(0

■a

E

TD
0

la

■^3 0
0 0
0 -3

0 5
^ 3

5 >
c >
0 ^

E 0
0 ®

£ t

0

Is

0 O

0 o

03

0 CD
> t-

0

0 0

:-e n

c

3

E
E
o
o

0

0

0 0

c 3 3
O 0 C

^ ■- 0
5 -o =5

0 c —
03 0 $

0 0 4_

>0O

0 £ >x

C/) m *

o3 ro 0
9 -o c
— 00

0 -t; -4-

0 c
00 —
^ *— "o

E .9 0

■o

c =3

0 0

T-l P

§ P E

5 5
4- 3

c -g

0' .9 0
c 0 0
0-^0
E 03 2
0 ^ ro

0 ^ 0

0^2
“

o

>x

'0

c

0

2
0 o
0 —
0

Q.

E Jr
LU 5

- E C
2 03 §

/X C E

E

c —

•— 0

0 0
.9 ^

^■o
.9 c
o ro

2 i

c 5

o 3

•4= o
5 5

0 /-x C

S’g-S

> 9 0
! 8 S3

8 o ^
t 0 n

0 _ .9

4- o 0

2« 8
2

F ^ 0

c o 0
0 P 0

e>£ 8

< S .9

5 0

0 0

3 .hr
C T1*-
0 "O
■O c
0 _0
0 -O

£ 'i

O 4-

c o

■O -O
3 ro
o 2

$ Q.
*- 0

-O ®

CO ^

E 5
0 _9

33 0
0 0
cl 5

c

0

o

CL

0 .

“D £
0 c
2- CD

O c

0 x-
4— 0

1.1
CD _C
“O ^

$ 2
M— 3

0 o

d) o
CO
=3

Q_

E >-

LU 5

0 ^

2 0
0?

5 0

4- Q-

o p
c 7
9 2
o **=

3 o

"o .9
| 2 8
£ £ 0

C CO

_co >*

— — 0
0 03 O

O = ''

03 $

"O

0 3
0 O

5 $

■O
c
0

0
0
c

O 0

0

0

— O
0 0

Ȥ

a 5

0 CM
0 ' — '
0 0

2 C
O 0

.9 E

0 0
.c 0
h- 4=

33

C 0
_0 0

33 O

5 O

Og

N ^
0

_ cu
0 ro
c E
c ts

0

0
4—

o
c

9 0

0

0 — t-,
0 .t3 9

1- r- C-
CL E 0
33

3 33 —
0 3 5
2 O ^r

> o

33

C

0

E c
ro .2
^ P

0

E c
5 0

0 o
o *-
3 0
33 0
0 .hr

0 O
«« 33 -§

E ^ o

0.2 H

E =

LU $

33 JD
0 0
0 .C
C 03
0 xi:

3 o

03 ^ 0

.9 x ~

0 _03 0
0 o Jr

0 2- o
o I w

.982

0

0

3

O’

o 0

O 33
LO 0

cm' 0

^ JD
0 *-.
C °
0 C
E 5

0 o
0 >

o ro
•4= 0

0 >x

03 w
03 2
0 O
> 0

2x^

g3 0
0

0

0 0
(D

w 0

n w
0 0
>x 0

« 8
33

o

cl'®3
0 5
0 33
0 —
0 ^

0 Z

0 o

0

2 03

3 .!=
O

0 Q3
0 O
3

£l

£ I

m- 03
33 *“
C 33

® 3

33 O

•0 8

3 _Q

0

■£

0

c

o

'0

0

0

x_

Q.

CL

3

0

2 I

0

0

03 03
i- r-

5 O

03

C _
O -1-'

-8 p

2 8

0

</>

o

s_

£

O

w

®

oc

*-•

</)

<D

£

©

-*->

O

(0

a

E

33

c

0

0 2

> 4=

0 >.

c .t;

1—

0 CD

"cd cr

CO .h=

z «j

0 I
g 33

3 03

W 0
2 P

TO O
Q- 0

E w
.9 0

0'

0

c'

0

CO

0

0

0

§

X

"0

0

0

X

0

0

(—

CD

~o

X

0

1—

X

C

E

0

0

1—

c

CD

t —

cm

0

0

0

0

0

1—

E .

0

0 T~

X

^ 0

0 t3

(ft

0 >
X

0

0
c

■“ 0
33 ±i

3 <
o

0

c

0

■4—'

o

0

h

03 0
03 «
0 2
^ 5

Is

.9 -C

03

C

0

£

Q.

0

O

X

X
O o
- o
gc

03-2

0 0
CL i:

0

^ C C3
- 0 0

o E Q-
5 0 E

0 03-

03 TO 0
2. £= 0
g3 0 °
> E£

0-80

^ E -

c w p
0 0 .>
0 -° ro
— ^ c

2 =J 0
^ 5: <

0
>

0

E 0
0 33
^ c
0 3
0 0

£ 8
1- -C
CD

"D O

=i

t3 E

Q. TO

E 0

3 _Q

33

go

^ 33
03 2
P it

5 o

0 0
£ -Q

a.1
0 _
o 0

8“

0

c

o

o

0 .
*- 0

S|

C C33

0
~ 33

TO "Jr

P 0

O 0
33 0

0 >- _0

< J3

03?

.9 ^
E 33
*s £=
33 ™

0 2
. 3
0

0 3
3 0
TO E
o o

O t
0' TO

§.|
C3 _TO

3 3
0 Q-
0

_Q P
JD
t 0
3 -t-'
O ro

> P

=" P
0

0 u.

0 °
SZ 0
I— XI

.9 £
8 8

0 0

1 “

0 o

03 —
0 0

c E

x p

t 0

0

33 X
0 h-

TO .
0 0
2 C
o .2
.9 o

0 3
0 0
0 0

TO 0
0 TO

o

o
0

-Q t
TO -|

£ Q.
O -jz
0 0

0

>

0

E 0
0 33
c

0 3
0 0

£ 8
1- X
0 *-
33 O

ii

O E

Q. TO

E 0

t x

o 0

s—

0 iX

TO .9
•2 0

0 .9
£ 0
05
o

o 0 0

X

$

0

0

0

1—

X

*4—

0

»4—

0

T-

c

0

0

>

CO

' 1 .

CO

0

0

X

s—

■_

CL

0

CL

3

<

0

0

>, 0

0

0

8^2
Q. 0 *=
0 "O

3 5 _0
■I c 2

E 0 >
= 33 5

f s

.2 0 0

X 33 3

0

E 7:3

9 X

0 4-0
TO O m

P o

9 9" to

9- P 0

Q.33 _

0 5 P

X ^

O00
3X0

-4— ' CD

0 0 3

o 5 M-
Z 2 p

■p -O .9

L_ ■— M—

0 -b

p

o 0 19
o 3
0 o
E $

o

0

.9 2

03 °-

9 19

5 3

2 o
5 $

0 *-

$E

0 0'
33 0
X 0

TO 0

I?
0 £
X 33

03 O
0 O

-4—' >

CO $

"aC CD

E >.

O C33
4= O

x 5
0 X

E 0

0 5
03 0
0 Q.
X

0 0

E 2

x p
x

0 F
0 t

^ >>
0 X
0 0

o g-

CO

CO

CD “O
o ^

0 $

0
■g C
8 ro
c CO-

o o

'to E
t O

§- g

To 2

^ >
Q 5H
05 O

TO 33 TO

2 3 ®
o o .9

^ 5 0

TO .9

X h*=

0 33

1 8

0 £

C TO

g X

E 0
0

03
0
X
0
E

o

X
0
E
o

*_ w
s 0
0 >
_ 0 0
XXX

0

0 X
X
0

0

C - -

.9 S
o DC
0 >

X x'
0 o

1 1
03 it
0 O
C 0
0

E 0'

33

x p

ro o
0 ~
0 TO

0
o' 9

i— ^3
X 0

> 3
X °

5 O
0 0
O o

0 9
0 x
TO O
0 5

Rawlins RMP 2-117

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

2-118 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts

TO

CD

3

0

i_

3

CL

CD

JO

33

3

O

OJ

c

N

RJ

L_

0

o

o

+->

w

(1)

>

c

o

</)

o

«5

a

E

o

CD
CO
. CD

§J >•

■4= CD

c ™

iri ro
ro 2 8

</) Q. h

£ &S.

I i_ M— (D
CD O 13

"c — 2
3 £5 =3
c $ O
E CD §
03 Z=
i- D (/)
03JC CD

2 > o

Q-> 03

0 _

§■8-®

C cl

O E

9 cd
to ■Q

O 2

0 > 3

03 ^ C/3
CD >> 0

TO

C n-
CO O

.1 0
ro E
0 ro

03 0

> H
£ 0

_c

TO

±3 0

CD

C

•i ^

CD

03

>, ro
= c

3 .9

r~

8 3
ro c

CD

P

M—
M —

n, O

, and
: gains
zk. In

30

3

o

0 TO
0

£ ^
ro CO

0 CD -o
TO t

0
0
$

ro

o =

JO

c ro 0
E = ro
0 ro __

03 ro 2
c -o 0
o c >
_j ro o

X c
-Q 0

c E

0 ro
0 0
0 1
ro

3

o

*r C
O O

8 W

-X 0
cl ro

0 2
> o

ro •—
c 30
JC 3
~ o

>, ro
+4 0
— 3
-O M_

ro o

_ 0 ro
o ro 0
jc 0
CL J=

2 0
o 0
.9 $

ro
co

CM CC -0
O 0 03

in' c 2

cm ro >

C 0

.9 c
~ ro

-i

E ro
o
o

0

ro 9
> 9
ro -

■D X3
C

ro
c
o

to

3
TO
O

I- CL.

03^^

|

— Q_

11 s

c 2 E
5. c o

= o
•jS a. §

c ro .9

£ 88

O O TO

cl o ro

c

0

E

0

03 TO

ro 0

C .1=

ro 3

E CT
c 0
0

> 0
0 -O

c .9

0

° o

E Cl

— ro
co 0
ro c

c ^
■TO £

i_ .TZ

3 5

.9 TO
TO 0

0 ro

0 o

3 0
£ 0

ro 0
C/D ro

*3

=3 CD

(/) M—

0 O

Is

11

> TO

c 2
Q- 0

o -v
0 tz

> o

0 JC
TO 0

0
03 V
9 03

JJ

o ®

n— .C

£ TO
3 C

ro

0

TO
3

I ^

Z. 3
ro o
_c 0

o

0

ZD

<

o

CO

0

>. 03

0 2
o

ro

CO.^
O

-JC

CO

o

Oil

03 =

25

03

c

ro n

O ro
™ ro
3 a

cl ®

= £
0 0
0

ro o

3 0

= z>
1q <
B o

.= o

0 03
-C o
I— CO

ro

-Q 03
-O [V.
3

o
$

CL

3

C

o

to

03

a.

E

03
TO
0 *- 0

Q- ro c

*4— O CD

°c £

c o
o a>3

3 '0 03

TO —

c ro

ro TO £

g gl

43 O 0

O X -Q
O 3 ro
to E co
o - M-
X CD O
CL_q

0 to ro

03 -z= 0

2 o 2

3 5 ro

E ~ ro

3 ^0 =

033 CD

c 0: 0
o > >
J ro o

TO

3

o

c

o

ro

0

03

0

0

03

b 0/5
g c

Q Q3

C E

0 ro
0 0
0 £;

l"S

O 0

0

0

>

to

9,

!o

0 9

□_ 0

o ^

t5 0
0 .!=

^ o-

O 0
■+— ’

TO TO
0 -5

05 n
03 9
c >

c ^
£ 9
0 -o
TO 5

CD

C

o

■E X'
TO *

ro 3
i_ a.
ro E

03

E

CL

0

0

jt; 0
— ro

9 ®

ro c

o

.9 o
o

o ■=

si

o 0

*= 03

ro ro

U

o E

3 ^

.9 TO

TO 0

0 ro

0 o
CD X
T- 0
X ««
c/D ro

l?

is

±4 ^
3 CD'
0

0 o

Is

11

TO

C 2

|i

Q- 0
O V
0 n
> o

0 JC
TO 0

O

C

(/)

^ CD O

CD

£ -C

O

oi (D

—

r- O
m r\

ro-r
9 ao
:> c

|l

3 55
ro o
jc 0

o

0

ZD

<

o

CO

I"-

0

>» S1

0 2
ro 3
E .*

o CO

o 3

9 c”

03 J=

3 >%

.9- =

0 Jro
0 ^

0

o

o

0

0

>

TO

0

0

03

0

*= 03 td O

— u_ ■— ri , —

? 0
3= 0

Ji

to

o o
0

0 2

gl

s I

0 0
0 0

03

c

0 0
E -Q

O c

” 5

C i:

> 3

0 C
?1

03 TO
0 C
X CD

C CD

O 'o'
0 1-
CD CL

0 M—

0 O

TO
C
CD -p

03

C

0

JC

0 CD

9 £
§.2

2 g-

CL .9

= TO 4=

ro 0 .9
ro > -g

CT 2 B

CD CL -X

^ £ -Q
ro 3

0 0 C/3

JD

E 2 2

1 1 S

03 ^ 2

C _

o • — CD
— C «/3
0 CD CD
3 ro =
cr ro

2 to 0

O ro o

TO

c

03

E c

ro 0
c to
o ro
•^4 TO

3 2

03 ®

> j—

c
o

ro

.y* 0

E g

3 ^

^ ■ TO C

£ 0.-4=

X C

to a)

C E

0 03
0 0
0 £;

I'g

O 0

.9 $

o
0
O 3=

o CJ3 !C

•X CD 9

m E £

C

CD

0 E
0 ®
ro 03
0 ro
i- c
o CD

3 E

£ 4*
3 o
o o
$ 0

3 5

c —
CD c

E ^
> —
2 S

CL X
<- 0

03

E

‘i_

CL

C/D

0

.> CD
ro |

9 E
3 £

i—

3 5

3 TO
TO 0

0 ro
0 o

3 8
ro g
C/D ro

S3

is

^ o
3 r-5

0 M —

0 o
3 o

3 4=

1 =

TO
C 2

fl
§■ &
0 tz
> o
0 .c
TO 0

0

0

O

E

0

03 V

9 03

11

o CD

0

03

03

C4
O
O

^ to

& s>

CD

° c

oi

ro ^

£ "o
= 0
o 0

Q. *

TO ®
C .>
CD 0
C ^
.9 c

-X

o

03

"8 03
N *'

9 ^

9 =>

_ ±4 <

ro c;

9 03 0
o ■— r-

— 0
o CD

3 -

C ±4
0 3

E «

o

?1
CD O
ro ^
3 0

3 0

ll

TO £

ro
0

0

c £
o

ro 51
0 ?

03 -43
0 3
> TO

X >

> CD
TO 9

i 5

TO c
8 2
ll
l»

O o

8 c

3 8
3 2

0 CD
•- 0

3 E

E ^

.9 0

C/D

TO

C

_ro

TO

o

o

$

TO

C

03

TO

C

_ro

TO

3

t:

0

c

0

TO

CD

O

0

TO

~ CD

ro S

0

0 £
>- o

11

s p

JC

o

CL
0
3

o
0
0 y

3 5

c 0

3 JC

1 1
0 o
o 3

TO

0

o

3

TO

0

2^

0 >>

-) — ■ ■4—'

03 =

E 3

4= X

^<8
TO *-
C C
03 0

8 0
0 03

*- ro

03 C

CD

E

i

CL

0

0

*4 0
> 03

8 |

c £

la t:
1- ±4

£ 5

3 TO

TO 0

0 ro
0 o

£ 0
£ 0

ro 0

C/D ro

0

3

<

98

4P °-
3 N-'
0

0 O

3 O

3 4=

1 s

TO

£ 2

£ i

CL 0

3 T*
0 t:
> o
0 x:
to 0

0

03 V

c= 03

& c

t TO
3 C
0 CC3

>- C

3 9
3
o

ro

E

_ 3

CD o
JC 0

o
0

3
<
o

CD
°0

22
0
ro 3
E

V 0

o £

X 0

9- 0

£ >
03 l=

0

03

CD

c

o

(/)

a

ro

Q.

E

o

CD

9 TO
C C

ro .2
— o
o ro

S 2

0 Q-
c .-44

•8 i

to —

£ £

to 3

0 o

a: ^

TO
0

ro 0

o

0 ■£
X o

03

o

c
0
E
a/

m ^
0 c

q: ro

*0 E

3 m
0 ^
>

0 ■

TO CL

TO
0

ro ^
o

0 •£
x o

03

§8

0

— ^ 03

8 0 ro

TO QZ
O

Q- c c

III

l!'

O 0
$ TO

03

E

TO

0

ro ^

^ o
0 ■£

ro ro
TO 0
c c c
ro o 0

c to E

0 = 0

•44 *- 03

0 0 CD
3 0c
3 05 CD

2 *0 E

CL C
+- 0

1

TO £

3 §>

O 0

5 TO

CD

E

o

CD

m TO

ro c

CTO 8
c c

8 .9
= o
o ro

o 2
0 Q-
c ±4
.9 E
to —

£ 3

to 3
0 o
05 $

TO

0

ro 9

^ o
0 43

CO

c
0
E
ro

0 8*
ro c
05 ro

i?

o >-
0 2
> E
0 -jc

TO CL

Rawlins RMP 2-119

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

2-120 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts

CD

E

CD
CD
CD CD

TO

_C

o

C

0

Q.

3

'sz

O

5

O

03

0

C

0

C/0

D

£

o

jc

>

0 °3
2 0

0

X

CO

>

o

2 c

o

0

T~5

0 £
0 3

^ - o g §:

2 CD O
0.-0
S*|

?<:

CD n—

03 °

C CD — —

'Q- 3 £ 2 §

CD -2

O CJ

2 I §

0

CD

=3

>

X

O

0

E

o

0

0

CD

C

0

0

3>

C CD

0 £

> 0

0 ^

'3 CD

0
0
1

3

c

0

0

0

i—

3

0

o

o

— *- -i 0 .P

CD 3
3
0 O

E $

CD =
CD 0
03 0
_C3 CD

0 »

S £

0 O

0

0 «
0 3
CD >

2 x

OQ

0

” 0
0 .2
^ 'o

0 3

co 3

g5 Q.

•2 CL

>»

O)

o

c

o

o

CD

CL

c

o

(A

■4-1

o

CD

a

E

3 0
0 3
c

CD 3
0 CD

£ 8
i- 3
CD *-•

3 o

!i

o E

cL'c/3

E 0

£ _Q

CO

CO

CO

Is-’

00

~ "D

J.8

a.£

CD 0

0 0

„ JO

3
3
O
$

0

>

CD

E 0

0 -o
i=: o
0 3
0 CD

£ 8
i- -C
0

■D O
C

“? CD
(f) —

O I

Q. «

E ®

£ X2

03

Is-

CN

03

3

C? 0
£ -O

i_

o. £
CD 0

0 0

_ _Q

— 3
3

o

3 0
0 3
C

CD 3
0 CD

£ 55

~ O
!- XI
0 *-
3 o

IS

II

E 0

£ jQ

CO

03

Is-

oo

03

£ "O

a. 5

0 0

0 0

. JO

3

3

O

03

3

XD !_
3 £

31

3 0

0 0

0 CD
0 0

1 E

° £
0 3
0 O

b °
0 0
03 .2
CO -t;
CO >

co o

03 0

xi

03 ■

3 0

o o

i- '3
£ CD
>

0 O
0 o
O 0

3 TD

O “C3
c/3 0
0 £
*- 0
Q.
o

(A

a>

o

s_

3

o

(A

<D

X

C

o

3

CD

CD

v-

O

0

X

c

o

(A

4->

o

CD

Q.

E

c

o

Q. 2
0 £
Si

03 .

O _0
CL 0

0 g
o £
^ E

0

CD

3

-t— '
0
0

o
a.

0 _

0

c

0

4— »

0

0

1

o

0

L.

c

°<
o X
0 X
£-2
£ X

£ m-
3 O

i c

> o

c b

0 O

F

Q. 2

— E
0 E

03 £
JO c

H- 0

° o

0 Q.

>

0
-O &
0 C

0 o

CD-
3 £
3 *;
CD =j
— 0
o 2

0 —

0 55

3 0

0 03

C “O
c

0 0
0 _
=3 O
0
0

o

0

CL

E

c

0

a

L—

'c

03

'0

0

>

0

XI

£ l O

0
3 3

3

3

3

0

E

0

03

0 0
' 3
0

a. E
E

0 g

2 £
b ®

El

O ^
- 0
£ <
0 ^

0 £
jo c/j

■o $
3 ®
o c

^ 3
0 O
0

■— *4—

'I °

I!

O .ti

cl -a

CL TO
O 0

in

o ^

|||

^ to in

£ -a -o
£ cd g

5c CD 0

W £ (/)

0 - 0

^ &£

O go

ss

o

U1 m

3 < CD

0 ^ X

^rn °

0 CO — >

-I

C *;

O $

0 0
"D 03

II

3 O

o x:

O 3

0

?«i
0 <
x: ^

3 X X

0 0 CO

h

03

0 0m
“ « 0
£ 0 s

X3 c- 3

£3.1^

® = §■
° .2 §•
0 'F

£ S ra
E o §
0^0

^ £ 0

r 8 b

< I 2

0

■*-*

03 '0
XI CD
s_ 3

£ Q-
0 E
0 0
3 O

SI

3

O O
'0 £3

0 ts
0 0
0

bos
0

■O -3
0 CL
O

£ 0
O >

Si

■J= 0

0

CA §

0 .2

0 m

O O

0 O
£ o
0

"O >-

ro £
0 ±;
0

0 0
O 3
O 0
0 JO

0

0

_ 0
0£
D

£ o

C CL
0 Q-

&!

_ 3

£ 0

o ®
o 0

5 3

T3

3

o

0

-n ro
0 2
o 0
0 ^

CL 3 0

0 0 2

^ 1.0

CD 0

0 'Z

M— 0

£ 3
•> "O •
5 0 CD

C

° = 3
£ £ 3

o £ £
0 2 0
CL £ CL
F o CL

£ cl o

3

o -o

0 o
0 0

0 —
0 0
03X1

0

03

C

■4—*

0

0

Id

3

0

0

0

1

a

0

0

£ "o
0 ra

^ 0
CD CD

— B

|l

3 g

0 O

E ~

CL CD

O o

0 O

> 2
0

■° o

03

0 75

c 0

X O'

03

3

O

£

CL

0

>

£

4—*

3

0

O

CL

M- O

O c
C O

o

0

o

3

■O

0

.23 03 C
X3 -2 _

0

i—

3

T3

0

I?

0 O

£ B

3 O
CL O
3 £

0

c n

.2 0

— o

0
0 0

c

3 O
3 ‘x:

3 0
O 0

g- O

O 2

0 _
3 =3 *-
0^:0

I O O

3 0 0
O 0 0

CL

6 E

0

0 o

0

X ~

03 .'n.

3

E o
•x= o

3 ®

> S

Si

■O

O 0

£ 0
O 3
03 0
3 >-

^ 0
0 x:
0

o

0

0 CL
0 3
0 £

0 -n

o £

0

3

o

75

0

o

2 0
>- o
£ =£

« §

^ O

O .2

£ s: ®

0

03

3
O
$
3 «
® 8

8 5

o ^

C-3 O

o 2

0 E

03

0
C
O TO
J= 3
0 CD

Rawlins RMP 2-121

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

0£

(O

c

01

o

CO

ro

c

o

©

0

>

Q

c

©

C

C

o

o

(D s_
> 0

'■S?
E =

0 0
— 0
TO O
0 £

£ 0
r ro

-8 ro

1 1

0 0
O 0
TO 0
Cl ■*-

E 0

_ JO

< -2

^ TO

£ 0
CO o

0 o

= 0

0.-0
0 0
o 0
X o

0 o
co 0
0 ^
> o

CD C
C -0

1 §
< $

o
0 ro

=3 “O
0 3

- 0
08
0 0

0 0
JO 0 0

0 =•
c JO

_ro o
!_ 0
O $

£ to
C c
0 0

15 E

0 x
C ©

ro o

TO

0

TO

0

0 ^
c .£
C 10

c ro

<5 0 _

111

0 J0 £

0 2 o

"O 0 0

J?f 3

£ E 0

CD

c

lx

0

0

0

0

'

TO

0

0

'c

0 0
0 £
O 0

0 JO
’

>. CD
SO C
0 O

E ro

"O

0

0

0 -O
0 £
©^
JO 13

?!

1 0

oi

£ o
h o
o >
o 0

0 "©

0

£ c

•5 1

§!

« c
0- o

is

E g,
0 0
05 >

03 8

© ro

Q_ 0
0

?i

1 1
r- 0

0 o

O JO

C 5

> 0
SI

E 0

0 0

-o

c

0

0

CD

C

2 0

3 (/)

O —

* 2

0 O

c £

0 0

1 g

0 0

-o _©

i I
0 0
o 0
0 0
Cl ~ 0

E 0 5
£ jo <

c -0
o

0 0
0
o

m £ £ 0 C

ro ro 0 0
c 0 ro 0

o>0 ©-

0 c x
>00

0

£

o 0

0
o
c
o ro
-g jo

‘lo o

8 .0

0 ^
= -o
E 0

T N

ro 0

|I

ro 0
2 0
0 "O

-g 3
>

Q

0

q.2
IE 0

05 3

E ^

c

ro o

3 0

ro 8

I ^
£ 0
ro 0

_ , o 0 _
to n 5 5

(/)
i

o

C ■ ‘

0 0

_ 0 p

m i- O

ro

£ 0 C

E £ > £ °

E — r- 0

o 2
o

— 0
O 0
I— JO 05

2 J!

0 3

^ § *5

£ 5 0
O-O-o

| ro 0

>- < 0

rr ££ 0
^ CO M-

0 c °
ro ro _g

&'E
£ -o ^

F 0
0 CD 0

2 ro "D

^ ol 0

i= E £ -O

ro .2
:= ro
° o
o .9-
c 0

8.0
o CO
0 2
-Q c
^ ro

05 £

I'i
< 05
s-i

C£ ro
CO 0

0 0
£ ro

I— CD

0

0

03

.9 ro
c >
0 —
o ro
0 c
0 .9

£ ro
*- 0

8 0
o >-

Q. 0
"O — •

3 V

o 0
> ro

t0

ro -0
o c
cr ro

0
0 o
0 O

2 ^
o -o
o c
5 0

8 I

iZ ^
^ co

0 i—

3=5 C
_ro 0

ro

£ -o
o 0

0 03

0

c

0 ro
£ 0
_ro -Q

Q_ O

Uj_ ■4—'

tr 0

o C

JO

O

°1
0 >

JO

ro

if

£.s

0 O

^ 2
O T=>

0 0
c -°
0 p

E

0 _
m 0 Dd c
-8 "O CO 0

ro -0

£0^8

i= E £ c

_ 03
03 O
0 §
0 .

2 E c

03 >

ro 0 0

0
0

0 c ^

JO o Ql
"O '0 -O
o £ o
000
s: £ <:

-o

c

ro

0

03

C

-4— <

»

0

0

ro

c

o

0 0
E 0
o
0

2 jo

1 1

> 0

< =
^ 0

(Y 0

»s

!l
0

c

ro

0

ro

0

c

ro

ro

0

0
0
0 £

£ 0
ro 0

0 £

1 *

to £

^ 03
0 O
C "
O

> ro 2 2 « >

ro

sz

0 ^

.1 ^ i

0 ^ CO

"5 0
£ _>> £

ro ^ •£
0 =3 0

0 cr 03

0
ro

^ 0

0

0

o

0 0
I— 0

ro ro

03 0

2 ro

E 0
ro o

w £
0 -0
£ o

M- >

o ro

Q. >3

0 p

£ ©
5 c
0 0
^0
= c

o $

£ 0
2 0 0
M- 0 -=
i_ 3 ro
0 -o c
>00

‘I- !— '0

i— "o ro

-1 b

^1 2

0

_0 "P

S 8

c -
ro 0

0 §
^ 5
0 0

So

$ o
> ro

= 0
8 E

0- 0

1— ^

0 0
ro ro
5 E

o _
0 E

„ c
0 0

0 I

1 E
0 0
8 LU

E ©

0 £
Q- c
5 £
0|

0

0

0

0

c

ro

m 0

0 0

0

0 0
0

2 > 8-

3 ro £

o c 0

0

^ co
9 c

ro

‘ 0 F
0 0 o
^ -O 5X*-

ro

0

03

c 0

_ro ro 3

0

0

ro

0

0

03

ro

c

ro

E

o£

£ 2

0 0

ro £
0 £
o !-
£0. 0
0 JF

c ro
ro 13

fl

03 0

If

0 0
2 8
0 0
lb
•i 8-

13 ©

£ "O
ro c

ro ro

2 CD

ro £

^ S

£ 0

c E

0 CD
0 0
13 0

3 8
o c

$ 0
0 8
.2 >.

ro £
0 0

.E ^

||
£ 1

c
0
E

§tt:

o CO
© >

ro

c

2 o

© Q.

o 2
~ o
0 o

83!

ro sz
E 5

%£
2 3

o ^
$ 0 -

0

c

ro

0

CD

C

■4 — >

0

0

c

o

ro

0

b

0

L_

0 0
2 8
0 0

'F 1—
0
0
X
0

E ^
^ co

S 0

_ro 0

Q- m
1- 0
~ 0
0

03

ro
c
ro
E

0 m
0 0
*- o

c _
~ ro
0 £
0 £

£ ro
> Z

0 o
1°

0 0
8 o
0 tr

0 (13

5 DC

8 w
0 0
0

£ £
0 0

O 03
=3 C
0 -F
0
1 —

0
05

o

0

o

c

ro

0

c

0 >>
0

ro ro
0 c
£ o

0

|i

o o

0 ^

0 =

0 ro

C 03

"F cr 0

2 0 0

2 £ -F

C c t
ro o

0

CD 0

o c
*- o
0 o

00Oc

5 2

ro 0

0
0

0

03 O
C C

0. O

ro o
0 0

0 0
x £

-F 0 03
O00

2 0 >
Q- 0 f.
p x .2
£ 0 >

— o

m 0
8 .8-
^ ro
o E

8 0
81
51

I— 0

0

i_

o

•4—*

0

0

0

0

$

o
0

0 <

0 ^
o >

ro ^
2 cl CO

0

03 .

2-122 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts

x: <t-

0

k) D-

2 °«
co 0 0
2

£2 .g
3 0 X

5 o 0

o ?£

>00
5 3 CD

TO <5
CD U
TO C

0 o

0 CO

oo CD o

O'

(/>

0

0

Z

CD

>

>*

CO

£

O)

if

1

it

o

0

> 1-
T= 0
CO TO
c c

0 13
•*-* 0
CD CO

CO 0

CO

0 ro •
TO 0 CM

0 E 0

0 CO >
m m'*;

O 0 c
0 to i-
q. 0
E 0 3

_ TO <

0

TO

O

C

3

O

x

co

>

X TO

O 0

0

0 43

-Q >,

= I L.

:g-R J!

Ill
^ 0
0 .
CO

ll

8 .3

o co

^ c ■ ■= 0 o

TO

3 "CO _
O 0 0
5 O
0 25

< 3

S X
X • ^

w 0 0

> CO Q_

5 2 O
O O Q.

o
0 0

c

0

Q_ 0

c

0

o

c

o

>s

l-I

? o
.E Q.

TO Q.
■3 O

51

O TO
c

CD 0)

m co

0 CO

OO "3
c 3

§ 0 CO

■| O ”
_CD ^ C
O CD CD

CO) 0

.E 0 o

co o ro ~

3 O

0
E ■?

0 0

O 0
3 0

0 0
2 CO)
CL .E
- E 0 .E

— 0
0
o

3 r-
~ 0
0 0

II

0 -p
0

0 0

c 0
°3 O)

C

0
l—

CO)

2 E 1

Q_ LIZ

oE
0 —
3 0

£ 3
4= 0

c CL
O 4-
O O

0

0

3

1

0

CL

o

o

3
TO £0

0 .E

£ I

3 2
0 £:

0

TO

O

c

TO

3

o

X

CO

>

X TO

O 0

M I

t— o

TO 0

3 >
§ 0

> c

> 0
0 <t-
E 0

0 TO
±3 C
0 3
0 0

£ 8
i- to
0

to o

II

II

E 0

_ TO

o
c o

0 CO

E 0
0 0
CO) 3

£>

£ o

SJ

O 0

to 0
o

o. ^
0 0
o c
x o

0 ‘3=
- O
CO CO

0

>

0

TO '3

0 0

0 0
to c

0 2
o 0

>- CO)

"2 01
£ 3
0 »_
3 o
O) ^
0 co
0 0
03 3

*S 2

tt= 0
° 0

0 -2
£ >

TO

0

N

CO) co
0) O

■E o

CL —

E 0
0

0 03
0 3

> o

s $

£ 0

ES

0 CL
0 C

0 .E

O 0

s-

X! 0

TO d)
0 '0

O

0

0 CO-

CO),
c o

c
o

0 0
0 CO

b 0
0 0

■D 3 £
3

0 0 CO
i- TO ..
3 0
0 O

0 0
0
TO
0
E
E

0

1 o
O >.

0 £ SZ

TO 0 O

3 0^

| 2 5
^ 0 0
<Ec
^ F 0
X ^ E

W5 0

CD CD 3

C

o

o

0

o

Q.

0

0 0
> O

0 k

0 ^
0 3R
0 0

0 0

0 O)
£ 0

0 -8

0 —

s 0

co £

g-0

O CO)

3 .E
0 tz
o 0
0 0

- O 0

^ _o 0

2si

O TO 0
■T± CD X
TO 0 X)

0 r-

0 5
0 0
TO

0 0

_ C

o i5

0

0

TO

0

CO)

0

c

0

E

0

TO

TO

3

O

c c

TO O
0 0

§.o

0 c/)
0 2
-Q C

^ 0
3 £

1 5
< 03

_g

TO

3 3

- CD

: o
0 - ^

C 0
0 0
E 0
0 0

CO) —
0 0

o

0

o

CL

c
0 D)

TO
0
0
O
0 O

0

TO TO

X

E co

CD C
“D CD

C£ CD

0 -^r o
C 0 S

0 CO) ^

C/5 0 E -E <

0 0 to .<5 i

T= 0 C X X

I— co 0 0 CO

0
0)

0 0 5

- i 0

0 0 ^

0 X -c

E 03 O

E 0 |

^ c 0"
c 0 C
0 0

0 8 2

0 0 0
F CL 3

'I 0 ^

E TO 0

c

o

0

0

o

3

o

0

0

l_

c

o

0

2 .E

O 0

2 c

m- 3

o o

ll

3 0
O’ -5

0

TO

TO

3

O

£ TO 03 ^

< X

X

co

c

'0

c

3

o

c ,E 0
co § o

>0 T3 ^

c Cfl

0 3

0 I—

E *0
0 c
0

co 0

3

0 c

>. E

0 Q.

o

0

oo e —
O 0 0

C t >
0 0 0

0
c

4—

o
c
o

0

0 _
o 0

0

TO

0

s__

CO)

0

TO

3

O

TO t TO

E „ _

0 O Q. 3

“> > « E>

0 0 C 0
c 0 c

0

0

0
c
g

0 '0
> 3

2 -b
Q. .E

c

o

CO)

c

0

0

0

c

0

0

0

1

o

2 C
0 0
" c

3

o

3 c O >,2
3 E

3 0

cr -0

0

1 0
0 TO
c c

0 0
±i 0
CO 0
0 2

TO 0 ,_

2 E 0

3 co >

0 0 ™
O 0 c

IDT 4
Q. ~ 0

E 0 3
-E to <

0

TO

o

c <
2 ^

2 k

§ CO

.E 0

0 0
c

3
O

TO

c

0

0

0

l_

0 0

0
o
c
0

o
c

TO S

3 0
o

0

TO

0

CO)

0

c

0

>

0

c

0

0

0

TO

0

CO)

0

c

0

E

1 0
TO '♦=

a?

0 3
£ 0
£ 03

0 £
c 3
o o

0 ^

4- r-

8.0
0 -2

TO

C

0

0

CO)

c

0

0

0 03
CL

O iii

c

0 0

3 0
0 o
0 c
o 0

0 E
i_ 0

CL
X
0

0 0
£ £
-3 0

•52 o

C

p 0

E 0

TO 3

X 0

£ c
3 0
O CL
5 X
> 0
>, _

3 2

TO

C

0

0

TO

3

O

0

0

0

0

o

-C

TO

c

0

32 coo
3 3

0 B
§ 0
0

ro

0

c 0

> 2
X O
O 0

0

CO)

0 0
2 3
0 0

i_ £Z

CO 0
0 0

2 0
0 0
o

2 0
0 0 0

0 ro b

O)

0 c

>00

Rawlins RMP 2-123

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

2-124 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts

Rawlins RMP 2-125

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

2-126 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts

Rawlins RMP 2-127

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

2-128 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts

Rawlins RMP 2-129

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

2-130 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts

Rawlins RMP 2-131

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

13

C

0

CD

c

<D

0

0

JD

Z>

O

c

CO

>>

JD

■o Q

CD Ll_

2 O

§3<:

C/3 — CD

CD 3 o

CL 0 2

E £ CD

— _ DS

Ȥ|

2 p C

03 P O
= (5 O

0

c o 3

0 Q- §

■° ^ 5
DJ "I

0

0
0
E

3

0

— CD

£ ±

0

o

3 m -

0

S >

> c 0

0 ro £

0 E to

-c o c
1—2 0

-O ±3

0 >

03 >

£ 3
0 O
E ^

-o 0
0 —
03 JD

0 0

C JD
CD v;

E 0
0 >,
X3 =

13 TO
3 E
o c
$ O.

<

0 lo

0 ■>
ro >

13
0
0

3 _

.eg 3

03 g-

N g.
2 0
05 o

-X —

CD 0

0

JI

0
0
0
0
i

o

c

03

c

0

3

0 —

X -g

0 e_>

® a

n E

13
C
0 ^

.* ®
I± M—

CD O

2d £

C 0
0 JD

E E

'C 3
CL C

— 13

5 3

?S

0

0
0
L.

o
0
o

™ j>

O CO

LU J=

o fc

< JD

si

eg 03
0 c :
13 > '
® O

03 =

0 0 :

0 O

E 2

X -SI

0 CO

q.2

E ^

o 03

o o
0 o

0 0

S.E

■■4= 0

2 c

C '7Z

O

o E

3 o

o

g\®

CD -=

0

O C
_0 0

Ei

^ E

CD w
0 JD

£4°

P

E 0

0 —

JD 13

0

0
C

o

CD 0 ~

| 0_

^0
c 2 -I
O c/3 £
+3 CO
0 0 0
3 O 13
CL C CD
0—0
d 0

® 0 3
JD — 0

.2 “ o

>00

® §

2 *
CL 0
— 0
0 J=
C CO
O 0
*3 -C
13 I—
13

0 0
td .2

0

.55 0

JD

0

0

O

0 O

| c
E 0

JD

— CL

0 0

0'

0 0

C

c -o

0

E

E 2

0

Y 0

3

0 ^

0

<,1D
C' c

0

t_

C 03

3

0 0

c

— 0

0

CD 0

13

® 8.

C

0

E 'u

>

3

0 £
> 2
'0 o

C Q.

3 "O
.E 3

il

^ 0

03 JD
C —

Sg

2 E

0 0
0 03

03 0

c I

jc:

0 0 r-

0 C E

o St
S " ®

zi U) z-1
CD _
O CD 2
2. J= 3
o H o

>* E >

j? I ^

2 £ 8
■o CO 0
_C 0 £

0 0 E

-C O O

r! 0 0

O JD
0—3

2? 8

Q- 0 O

^0 0

1!

JD O

il

0

o E2

CO JD
= 03
CL .E

< 3
O ID

LO £
T- 0
l- JD
0

JD <D

o £
o O
O Q.

0
o

3

"O fl)

CD

*- CD

C -o
ro £

L_

CD

- 0

13
O 0
1- O
0 c
Q- 0
i_ JD
0 ^
03 £
C 0

° 3

0

JD

13 0

= 2
o o

$ ro

0 o
0 CN

0 - — -
0 O

> LU

0

0

<

c

0

0

0

■O

0

03

0

C

0

E

5
3
o
$
X
0
Q.

E
o

_ o
0 0
JD >

E CD

.E C3

il

Is

o

13

0

0

O

2 0
£ o

0 CO 2
£ O O

o

0 0
JD JD

0 r- iO

.2 Z 3

o £ o

2,‘i 5

0 c CD
— 0 2
o m CD

-Q CD
s- "5 CD

5 o"
0 £
■g ® ©

E > 0

Cg c
0 0
03 E

13 0

E 03
CD 0
— C

o ro

JD
3
CL —
m- 0

O fc

c c

■Be
5 0
0 5

Q- 0

Sg

J= o

0

0
>
0

S I

O c

CL -
.2 £
B'i

.E 03

s-S
0 0
E £

0^0
ra O 0

X' — O
O0

O >4 0

E 0 JD

■5, 2 ^

-O 0 —
0 0 0
£ 0 E

o o

S?o

2 ra 0
Q- JsC c
13 CD o

3 2 w
o O 0
>00
— > 0
2 0 j=

£ui-

j :
o

ll

^ -o

0

JD

O

0

o

u_

CL

ID

3

O

5 c

JD .2

■J= 0

§ E

> 0

T-' -E

00 3

rn

C .h=

® 0
c 0
- £
o 2

LU

o 0

< JD

c E
0 -j=

w 'o
CD “

13 C
0 0
03 C

m 0

0

C

0

E

0

JD

X ^

if

§1-

o >» c

0 -«= ro
>00
0 £ —
0-0

0 .E E
£ JS T3

3—0
0 JD

0 E -
= 0

£0-0

N? 2 ^

>. JC 0

3 3 —

— O 0
$ § £

0

JD

E

0

00

>4

_0 0
JD 0
0 >

5 0

> o

ro 0

c ^

iS c
.E Z
0 —
E 5

2 |
0 3

0 Q.
CL O
0 CD-

13
O 0
£ 0
o $
— 0

C —

0 13
CD. CD
O JD

0 O
JD =

S 3
3 Q.
O M—

^ O

03 O

0 .O
0 0
0 0
JD CL
I— O

0 o

0 C
> 0
0 O
C Q.

2 “O

.E 3

il

^ 0

03 JD
E *-*
m O
2 0

2 £
0 0
0 03

03 0

?i

E

03 0

3 «

2 0
13 >

>4 0

JD O
0 0
2 2
o -o
0 E

ttr ro

0 2X
>, CD
— 0
0 <-
> O

0 0

03 >
0 0
c O

O 03

11

o ■o

Jg

^ 0
>- JD

0 +-

JD! O

E 0

4— -t— ■

0 o

S fe.

°l •

til

J3 B 0

2 f E

3 0
0-2
5 00 JD

0

JD

2

3

O

$

0

0

1—

0

0

>

0

O

jj

0

0

0

S E

o 0
0 0

0 0 o
3 >- 0
0-0 0
(1) c+- 0
-o ~ -Q

ro 1 -
0 $ 0

O 44 >

>00
o 2

13

c

0

0

0

>

0

o

O 1-

■■S-S

E 0

O O

o

X

0

0

,*= 0

0 .0

03 "q

C 2 _c
00 —
E O-.E

13
0
$

O

3

il

13 0

11
> 0
03 13
C 0
j:
0 0

0 ir
£: |
0 2

i 0
2

13 0
0 Q.

O o
0 0

n - 2 £
O _ Q. o

4g

o 2

11
0 ^
0

0 0

>. i-

0 0

— 13
0 C
0 CD
C

■ ± 0

0

^ 0 0
03 C -
O O

o 1 2

^ c —
>> o ^
J= O ^

fl) ^

r CD 0

- 2 o

Jr 03 0

0 O CL

«

2 CD _g

1 ? ®
>02

0 o c
Z 0-0
0 .0 c
0 2 _

81S

5 co c
0 E ’0

— 0

13 0 0

c E —
000

— CD 0
Or 03

Z .-o

3 >, 2

CD. 2 CD

— C
O0O

3 O
> 2

0 u
03 0
© >
c ro

ill

0^0
2 2 0
c o

0 JD E
^ 0
E 0 o
0 .

03 ■

g o
0

E 0 0

o
O 0
0 ^
0 o
0 —

O 2

3 JD

2 E

3 o

o|

o ^

0

0 13
3 c

I 2

o —
0 0
CD _Q
© X
0 ^

3
O

5

03

C

i

3

13

0

0

JD

O

0

O

s —

CL

-o

3

O

0

0

JD

00

2-132 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts

Rawlins RMP 2-133

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

2-134 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts

Rawlins RMP 2-135

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

2-136 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts

Rawlins RMP 2-137

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

03

>

£

o

E

03

o
c o

X

C

IQ

03

X

X

3

O

^ C

c

03 03

E ^

03 O
03 *-
C/3 X

03 .2

03

X

ro

'5

C/3

C/3 ■

■SI

O 03
03 c
03 03

™ 03
E X

o-o~

c

^ 03 O.

E £ •-

X 0 >,

S 0) =
2 £
cxO ~

£ g £

03 *5
E . ^
O O o

CD 03 >
> £ 4*:

0) u Q)
T3 -g Q3

03 O Q

C/3

C

0

E

03

0

£ 03

>.

0

0

co

O c/3
>, 0
i= C

5 .2

0

"O

0

o

tt

o

c
o

iS 0 5

0 0 =
|55

5_lW

= C/3 .03

0

0

X 0-

0

0

X 5

x 5
£ 0

o -Q
0 £
o '5

Q. W

£l

13 ^

o o

vz,

0-l
0 -o
C O

s P

c

o o

■3= X
0 ~
i_ 4—

0 o
£ >,
o £
o. g

0 o-
O 0
2 £

E o

o £
E 0
*+— 1—

(/) ^
415 0

C “O
0

£ I

g5!

0 5

X

0 tH

O §
™ 0

0
0
o
o O

c

— 0
5 ~

0 03
— C

-O o
C 0 ■

£ u. <

o o -

x

o

o

£

0

T5 0 — £

X

0

0

o

o

03

c

C3 0
0 0

CC —

g £

> 03

o a:
3 ^ w

Q. o '-

4_ U 0

O 0 >

c5ir
.2 5= 0

2 M i
£.£6:
o^r

s*|

ro £ Z

x o
0 o

E ^

03 "O
0 C
0 0
0

0

0
X

1=* 0
0 -O

= 0
< -O

0 >s

X 0

£ cm
3 CO
0 ^

0 _
0 0

■g.2

0 1
C s~
0 0
E £

x

3

o

$

0

2 cm

£co

03

0 >
0 !_
0 £
£ 0
.03 X!
"0 £
0 3
x 0
£ x

° §
g£

2 X

is

0 4=
>- 0
O c

03

£ '0
0 0

03 "o

c cm

0 co

E ^
0 i_
-O o

M—

o >*

C HE
O -Q

0 .2^

= a5
ro >_
0 'm
0 2
x £

E3_ £'

S|i

0 g .2>

(f) -T,
CD O 0
0 Q. 0

0 0 £

_ 0 ^

E 03 ~
^X3 §.

| g.l

Cl'o =
.2 0 .2

> 0 3
| 0

0 XI o

-= O Q-

Seb

1 = 1
s 0 $

0

0

c

o

0

c

E3

'0

0

-O

c

0

E

03

0

0

^ 0
0

CO

o

o

5

0

c

o

.9- 0

i— c~

0 .2
2 0

Q. 03
0

g 03

2 0
E -o
0

03 c

0 0
c >
0 0

^ 3

0

§ §

! i>

^ 0
_0 0
-Q ^
0 0
3 <g
5 0

11

_>> ^3
03 _Q

il>

c 0
-2 03

0 C

3 O
o 0

0

XI

c

0

o

0

c

o

0

c

E

■

03

0

"O

!5

0

’5

0 0
— -o

II

W

w

a>

a

o

<

T3

C

TO

C

O

U3

TO

r

o

Q.

</)

C

TO

£

O

(/>

■+■>

o

TO

a

E

0

0 iz
o 0

£ 2
0 £
03

0 £

0 o
0 £

£ ro
c
0

3 £
£ <
o •-

$ T3

0 ®
' _LJ

o -c
0 o

Q. 0

E 0

£ T3

0

0

0

-O

0

tr

<

1

E °-

0

>;<
« CO
0 >
0 >

*o 0
C o
ro m
0 0
c o

0 p

0
■g
>

b

^ £
o c
o 0
c c
c =

0 X

^.cS

if

0 c

1= 0 ‘0 03

o 03
£

£ 2

0 ro

03

1 5 a
< Q CD

(Y •— 0’

“i =

— t-L CD
CD -o -C
H £ £
o TO 03
c^- c
0 0 0
o ~ CD

CO r t
^ £

o m
0 p

0' $

E C
h- 0

O <

c X
0 £
O ^

0 5
o 3

-X iz:

" o

0 C3

0 u.

0 £

1 00

0 o
0 -z=

-X 0

c

0 br

3 £
£ <
g£

$ T3

£ E

O c
0 o

CL 0

E 0

— T3

E

£ 03
0 0
5 g

3 E

0 0
o °

S*-o

g s

E-o

0 0

2-g

o £
0 >

x 0

E c

Q. 0
£ C
0 O
> -4=
0 0
■o -c

0

"O 0

0 2
o 0
3 2
■O o

® 0
cm -o

0

£ "o
x

II

— o

0 43
0 0

— •£
O
Q.

" 0
0 C
0 0
0 £

0 L—

£ o
c 0

O X

■C £

Q. 0

Q. 2
o £

0

£ =
0

o 0
0 £
§ O
0 3

0 ^
0 Q_
xi >

0 Q3

O ~

0

0 0
g 0 i5
8 g 2

O 2 o
0 £ 0

3

X o
0 ^
0 0

0 0
E -x
0
0

0

0

2 c
0 L-

CL 0

0 0
O 43

c "O
£ C
0 0
3 0

4—

11

0 |

c -
■E o

E M_

■= 0

si

$ o

0 o

«4— -+— 1

m c°

1 2

0

0 0

03 .2
±4 O
C 0

£ 0 o

£ U3 o
O0-Q
CL O c

£ 2 0
o 0

0

XI

33

0 O =
X o
.2 > 0
® O £
O. 0 O

c

o

0 X
0 X

0 0 o
2 C E

O o *4
X -4= «

•“ 0 <~
X -c 0

o u

CL $

C £
0 0

51

0 £
o
c
0
c

. a:
0 >

0

>

0

‘X 1—

X £
0 M~
0
X
0

£ 2
3
o

o

Q.

c
o

>4

o >

X .X .X

c

SI

£ 03 3
c O "O

= 00

o' 2 .2

03

0 0 .2

-o

c

0

c b

O C/3

3 0
0 2

■e 0

O LL

0 o

g^

L.

*-• c
c -2

O O
3
0 £
0 0

i§

c

— .2
0 ±4

x 0
0 -2 g.

m 0 o

2 0 g

0 03
X

0

0
0
o

>» o o

C 0 S=-

0x0
x C 0

3^0

> O 0

5 .2 Q)
C 0 --

o -e x
-.43 o o

0 at
000

h x CL
2 0 0.
2 £ o

X

0

>

0

x

o 0

o 0

03 0

.2 x
1 1
si

£ 0

o .2
c

£ g.

o O

0 Q.
Q_ s-

0 3

i— o

c

o

0 £

03 Z3
= O

E 5
!_ 0
0 X

X o

o O
1- 0

0 £
0 0
o E
x 0
0 c

£ ^
o

ro c/)
CD

t§

o ro
2 0

£ E

0

o

C 0
0 X

c 0
0 o

0 0

E "co

4- c
O 03
0
0
X

0

0

03

X

c

0

£ g:
0 <

0

CO

c

3

o
E S
0 x
0 co

£ ro

0 %
<f> 0
CD y

CD >

"o 0

E g

0

0

0

.2 O

0 c

03 E

£ §

i-g

0

c

>> ^

g £

0
0

4.

3
0
0
0
E

_ c
0 .2
£ o
, o

0

o .2
0 o
0 0

0 £ CL
a>£ .

0x0
cox
000

c

03 0

■a E
£ 0
o 0
c 0

E 03
0 £
c 0
®x

03 *-

£ o
'0 0
£ o

.2 g

C

0

1 b

o W

2 <

o .2

£ 5

b 0 x

0 c
E 0
£ o
t: ce
£ ^

0 g

o °-

X 0
£ E

o-2
o 0
0 X

C TO
0 -

<3

o
x

0
0

£ 0

£ — J
c 0
3 c

o £
^ 0.

o .2

0 ro
0 1

2-138 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts

Rawlins RMP 2-139

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

2-140 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts

0 CD
o o

CC o

CO .2

0

x

X

c

03

w

0

CO

■D

E

to

-6

a)

.c

«/)

V

+->

(0

1

(0

3

o

s_

0)

(0

E

o

(/)

4->

o

(0

a

E

8 03

| 8
^ H—
3

C/D

CO

O “D
— C
O 03

aL w

El

Q3 o
C 03

CD

E E

O X

O i-

0 3

X .2

I— "O

X
3 o
O 03

it
0 —
03 C
$ 03

.1 2
X 0—
03 3

8 ,g>

"O 0
2 03
X >
*- ™
o

0 2^
E? 0

5 c

c3 03

.2 o

X CL

C/3 C

0

O

c

E

03

CO

0

>

0
x
03

1

0

>

3 x 0
3 0 >

|~5

« 8 ro

|og

> p -2

to^

=5 X3
O' TO

0 o
| O
o £

O 0
03 0
CD E
C 3
Vi O

■2 0

5 2
0 _
x o
0 w

o o

>2 03
! §■
CO .2

CD
~ 0

— 03

3 ®

C/3 P
0 _03

0

O

X 3

! >
C ro
03 c

O u.
CP 0
'c =

03 <3~
0

2 C

3

J>>
C 0
0 3

03 3
03 3
C. 03
03 C

O

CL

0
0
0 0

0

03

CD

x

C

03

0
0
0

0 *2

H

1 o

0 0
o >
0 0

X X

IS CD
03 0
C ~
X >

8

0 5?

x .2

XI
T-’ 3
0 0

CD 0
C O

® 5

5 3

< 0

03 O
~ 03

- E

CO .2

0- 13 03
- Q3

C

03 0
0 >>

0 = w

> 2 N

CO 5. —
x o- ro
o
o

.3 ' 03

X
0

>> 0

00.
“ $ -
C 0

^ c

I §X
O ° 03
CL 0 X
_ 3 CD
X U !_
— 00
—3 O -*—1
O F" 0

^ I $

0 X

0 o

$ I

■o z.

0

8 |

X fc

O CL
X °
>_ ®
o >
0

0 X
E? 0
0 0

X 03

0 y
E 0
0 =
O O
0 _
t E
0 o
CO >2

0

X

0 O

T3 C

1 2
0 ^
O >
0 >
x .3

E

c

0 .2

CD -7-5

CD Jg

il

ry w
Cl. (p

0
0
3
0
O
0

5

0>«
0 0
0 ~
> 0
5 E

4_ 0

c ^

5 >.

0 0

i—

_o 0

3 0

K-> 0
0 0
£

c 5

T> 8

55

0 0

E •
O 0
Z .2
^ 0

3x0

2 (D >
$ = 2
0 8 ro

■5 o “

O 0 o

® g 0
03 1- c
C 3 -

0 o
■2 0
3 0

0

Q3

TD

0

O

5

3

CO

03

E jw

5 ®
0 ^

0

0
0
X

E «

1 > S

g 0 CD
C ET3

■0<o

o ® 0

L- X 0
— C 0
.2 0 —

E ®

o 5

L_

L- X
0 03

O 8

S -o

E 2

.2 x

® 0 2
2 0 3

0. 0 *-
p 2 0
.20 c

c >« o
0 0 a;
O .-i
X —

0

0 0 8
x 2 0

CD o

-O

m ^

0 ro
x
c o
0 0
E 03

18
0 TO

0 3

X 0

8 ®

ll

“ »

O X
^ 0
O TO

Q. 0

1:1

l!
.2 0
X CD

E E
o x

0 3
0 0

X 0
0 C3
O TO

*1

aj —

*CD C

C/D

0

^ 2 TO I

0 3

3 .E>
^ x 0
E 3 2 0

x > S

M- 8 ”

o ^

0 Z'

03
TO

TO

X <=
w _ O ®

X .0 .0 O ^
I— x x x o

x

® x

2 0
0 c
0 '0
$ 0
X CO

8 I

.f'cr

0 o

3 x
X TO

0 o

§ O
0

3 X ®
2 0 >

1 5 E
0 8 ro
5 o 0

o 0
TO 0
X 2
C 3

5 8
a £

0 _
T3 ‘O
CD W
2 O
45 TO

= E
CO .2

3 ®
0

0 ^

0 2
0 3
0 ■£

2 0
0 c

0

o

0

X

E ™
— 0

2 0

C 03

f<
o I

M — X

— c
2 ^
'c >>
0 0
o ^

X ^

5 o

i— E

0

0

TO

X

C

0

o

0

■_

o

E

c

0

E

x

o

0
0
3
0 0
O >
0 0
X X

X 0 C

8 03

» 3

3
O
£
1—
0
TO

O X ^
^ C X
C3 CO 0

ro 0 °
X $ 3

C .2 X

-3 2

x ~ x

03 C3 m—
C0O

15 0 8

3^ “o
c

— C/D

■4—' i_ w

0 0 r-

8 2
CP $ 0

£x
TO c

0 0

0

> _
0 0

00

■

G

>

0

0

o

c

E

0

CO

0

>

o

x

0

i_

0

>

3 x 0

5 0^

| 5 E

0 8 ”

5 o 0

- o

3 X

O 0
0 0
TO E

C 3
X 03
-2 0
3 0

o x
o

>, TO TO

2 0 ^

to 0

C TO

0

—3 J—
CD 33 O

X CD CD

h- X X

0 $

O C £
X o £

0

X

0

o

0

t

(O.l

TO

~ _cd
3 ®

0 03

0 3
0 ^
2 0
0 c

</>

0

(/)

>_

O

X

c

o

(/>

o

to

Q.

E

X

"S CD

3-1

•5.^

C/D O
“O

0

TO

0

TO °
X -2
O X
3 0

C13 CD

2 0

0

c

0

0 0

0

0

CL C

o 0 X

X TO

!!

0 0
c -Q
0 x

P

o <-

0 0

s I

I"

1 0

C 3 TO
0 0 _
3 CD -2

X 0

X 3 0

p 0 TO
0 0 0
>0)0
3 C CD

0 E 73
g. 0 2

CT o 3
c V o
— 0 §
0 CD ^
> 3 CD
0^0

0.-6 2

■ i I X

TO 8 ®

>

-4-- i-

CD O

"O

0 E

— 0 X

03 0 “5
J= L. >,
X ^ 3

Sli

0 CO >

E >-.2

5:1?

2 o 0

E TO TO

0 C
> 0

II

£ 03
x O

1- 3
0 X
X 0

ii

C/D

s 2

* 3

0 12 0
£ $

> 0

TO

C 0

5:1

3 >

.2 o

X 0

0 8
Q- TO 8
>> 0 ~
x E 0
0 2 .3
Jrr 0 X
2 O TO

£ V x
- 0 .
>>0 0
= >2 0
x 2
O £= O
TO TO X

X
C
TO

0

0

>—

o c
0 TO

3

X x-

$ 0
lC ^
0 =
0

0™ =

0

x

x

1i

CO ^
< £

0 0

“ 0
> c

^ CT

E-E

0 0
0 g

TO 2
0 X
.0 E

= 0

X

.2 <
> o

O

X Jr
0 _0

0 E

CD 0

0

o

0

c

0

TO

0

TO

C

*i_

3

0

C

0

c

o

Q.

0

O

X

0

8 i

E 5

3 o
0 X
> 0

0 m
X _0?

X

0 0
0 0
0 TO
0 0
>— 1—

o O
c p

0

TO

2 (b

TO 0
TO ^

S 2

f!

X 0
ro X
0 P:

X—

0" 0
0 0

£ E

2 0

o

3

0

0 0'

P C

o 0

>3 C

c

0

0

X C 3
^ 0

X
0
B ^
p 0

TOP
2 ro

II

.0 _ro

X =

0 E
0 05
0 •
x

X 0

3 M

O 03

^ E
x 0
0 3

TO <~

5 .2

X 0
C TO
ro 0
0 >
TO O
TO

m_ 0

O 0 Z
>■■0 0
= X x

3 X-

,2oo

> § r

.2 0
0 <-

c S
2>=c

03

CD
0

_ 0
■j— ” TO 0

0 .2 CL

■p 0 X
0®0

5 E

0 x_

0 o

X 0

O TO

<^i

2 5 E

>

x

o
3
0
= 0

-X c
o

0 *=

2 TO 0

OOP
O >

0 "O o
P 0 TO

0 E

“0 ro

8

0 >r
0

0 X

l=i 0
2 o

.0 TO
CL E
.2 3
X X

O *x
0

0 X

E l

X -1-

— p

0 o
0 ro

X 0

£ o
0 0
TO i-

X X
C 0
0 0
= 0
O X
0 .2
0 X

_ 0

X >

c o

ro X

0 p

TO .E
0 L.

fS
“ ■§
O 0
o 0

0 X

0" x

c o

0 O
p $
O -

E •£

8 I

I "O -Q

0 -5 c
0 o 0
^ $ 0
^ C/D TO
CD !—
$ CO CD

XX?

H 0 £

>>£ O
p 3 0

c 0 0
0 0 0

x 2 -

m C 0

0 TO 0

=».E 0

p E 2

0 TO °

3 § 0
TO E X

o

0

0

0

TO

X

c

0

TO

Rawlins RMP 2-141

Chapter 2-Summary Comparison of Impacts Final EIS

2-142 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2-Exclusion and Avoidance Areas

Table 2-5. Utility /Transportation Systems, Communication Sites, and Wind Energy3

Exclusion and Avoidance Areas

Area

Alternative 1
(acres)

Alternative 2
(acres)

Alternative 3
(acres)

Alternative 4
(acres)

Exclusion Areas

Special Designations and Management Areas

Wilderness Study Areas

WSAs/VRM Class lb

68,160

66,120

68,160

66,120

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern0

Blowout Penstemon Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

17,050

17,050

Cave Creek Cave Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

520

240

Chain Lakes Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

30,560

N/A

Como Bluffs ACEC/NNL

1,690

N/A

1,690

N/A

High Savery Dam Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

530

N/A

Historic Trails Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

66,370

N/A

Jep Canyon ACEC

13,810

N/A

13,810

N/A

Laramie Peak Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

18,940

N/A

Laramie Plains Lakes Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

1,600

N/A

Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly
Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

59,720

N/A

Red Rim-Daley Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

11,100

N/A

Sand Hills ACEC and Potential JO
Ranch Expansion

7,960

N/A

12,680

12,680

Shamrock Hills ACEC

18,400

N/A

N/A

N/A

Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research
Area Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

5,530

N/A

White-Tailed Prairie Dog Potential
ACECd

N/A

N/A

109,650

N/A

Wild and Scenic Rivers0

Big Creek Eligible WSR Segment

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Bunker Draw Eligible WSR Segment

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Cherry Creek Eligible WSR Segment

1,750

N/A

1,750

N/A

Duck Creek Eligible WSR Segment

510

N/A

510

N/A

Encampment River WSR

620

N/A

620

620

Littlefield Eligible WSR Segment

350

N/A

350

N/A

Muddy Creek Eligible WSR Segment

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

North Platte Eligible WSR Segment

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Skull Creek Eligible WSR Segment

7,430

N/A

7,430

N/A

Other Exclusion Areas

Areas within 14 mile of a cultural property

N/A

N/A

350

350

Rawlins RMP

2-143

Chapter 2-Exclusion and Avoidance Areas

Final EIS

Area

Alternative 1
(acres)

Alternative 2
(acres)

Alternative 3
(acres)

Alternative 4
(acres)

or the visual horizon, whichever is
closer, if the setting contributes to NRHP
eligibility

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

600

600

600

600

Total Exclusion Acres6

111,770

66,720

384,030

98,440

Avoidance/Closure Areasf

Special Designations and Management Areas

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Blowout Penstemon Potential ACEC

N/A

130

17,050

17,050

Cave Creek Cave Potential ACEC

N/A

240

520

240

Como Bluffs ACEC/NNL

1,690

1,690

1,690

1,690

High Savery Dam Potential ACEC

530

530

530

530

Historic Trails Potential ACEC

66,370

66,370

66,370

66,370

Jep Canyon ACEC

13,810

N/A

13,810

13,810

Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly
Potential ACEC

N/A

N/A

59,720

59,720

Sand Hills ACEC and Potential JO
Ranch Expansion

7,960

7,960

12,680

12,680

Shamrock Hills ACEC

18,400

18,400

18,400

18,400

Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research
Area Potential ACEC

5,530

5,530

5,530

5,530

White-Tailed Prairie Dog Potential
ACECd

N/A

N/A

109,650

N/A

Wild and Scenic Rivers6

Big Creek Eligible WSR Segment

690

N/A

690

N/A

Bunker Draw Eligible WSR Segment

530

N/A

530

N/A

Cherry Creek Eligible WSR Segment

1,750

N/A

1,750

N/A

Duck Creek Eligible WSR Segment

510

N/A

510

N/A

Encampment River WSR

620

620

620

620

Littlefield Eligible WSR Segment

350

N/A

350

N/A

Muddy Creek Eligible WSR Segment

10,430

N/A

10,430

N/A

North Platte Eligible WSR Segment

1,460

N/A

1,460

N/A

Skull Creek Eligible WSR Segment

7,430

N/A

7,430

N/A

Special Recreation Management Areas

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
SRMA

600

600

600

600

Jelm Mountain SRMA

N/A

N/A

18,100

18,100

Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA (includes
Lake Hattie Reservoir and Twin Buttes
Lake recreation sites)

N/A

N/A

1,600

1,600

2-144

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2-Exclusion and Avoidance Areas

Area

Alternative 1
(acres)

Alternative 2
(acres)

Alternative 3
(acres)

Alternative 4
(acres)

North Platte River SRMA

5,060

N/A

12,740

5,060

OHV SRMA

ND

ND

ND

ND

Pedro Mountains SRMA

N/A

N/A

18,650

18,650

Rawlins Fishing SRMA

N/A

N/A

330

330

Shirley Mountain SRMA

24,440

N/A

37,820

37,820

Wildlife Habitat Management Area

Cow Butte/Wild Cow Potential WHMA

N/A

N/A

49,570

49,570

Pennock Mountain WHMA

7,770

N/A

7,770

7,770

Wick-Beumee WHMA

280

N/A

280

N/A

Other Avoidance Areas

Areas within 14 mile of a cultural property
or the visual horizon, whichever is
closer, if the setting contributes to NRHP
eligibility

350

350

350

350

Existing and proposed recreation sites

9,960

9,960

24,310

9,960

Gibben’s beardtongue site

15

15

15

15

Greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed
grouse leks (14 mile)

46,360

46,360

46,360

46,360

Identified 100-year floodplains; 500 feet
from perennial surface waters, wells,
springs, and wetland/riparian areas; 100
feet from the inner gorge of ephemeral
channels9

61,040

61,040

61,040

61,040

Other Special Status plant sites'1

ND

ND

ND

ND

VRM Class II areas

359,610

232,830

346,670

346,670

Total Avoidance Acres3 * * 6 * * 9

518,300

421,710

497,080

634,650

3 The RMP reflects the adoption of the programmatic policies and best management practices identified in the “Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Power Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western
United States” (June 2005). Exclusion areas only apply to wind power development. Additional areas of land may be excluded
from wind energy development on the basis of findings of resource impacts that cannot be mitigated and/or conflict with
existing and planned multiple-use activities.

b WSAs are classified as VRM Class I, and thus are exclusion areas. In addition, programmatic policies presented in “Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Power Development” (June 2005) identify WSAs as exclusion areas.

c Per the programmatic policies presented in “Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Power

Development” (June 2005), ACECs, WSRs, and linear features within National Scenic Trails are exclusion areas for wind
power development.

d Areas not mapped because of sensitivity of resource; estimated total area covers 109,650 acres of RMPPA.

e Because of land surface overlaps, acreage figures for individual areas do not add up to the total acreage value.

f Closure only applies to the acres under Alternative 3.

9 Acreage reflects area within 500 feet from perennial surface waters, wells, springs, and wetland/riparian areas.

h Additional areas could be avoided if conditions and plant status warrant avoidance.

Rawlins RMP

2-145

Chapter 2-Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements

Final EIS

Table 2-6. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements
by Hydrocarbon Potential (Approximate Federal Subsurface Acres)1

Area

Hydrocarbon Potential
(Federal Subsurface Acres)

Total

High

Moderate

Low

ALTERNATIVE 1 :

NO LEASE2

WSAs

0

27,050

37,100

64,150

WSR Segments

0

4,770

4,820

9,590

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

0

27,150

38,450

65,600

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3’4

Blowout penstemon habitat

0

0

150

150

Cemeteries

0

0

120

120

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (not leased)

0

0

50

50

High Savery Dam and Reservoir area

0

0

1,070

1,070

Historic Trails + % mile

11,740

17,310

25,170

54,210

Non-trail cultural eligible properties + Vi mile

0

130

110

240

Active raptor nest areas

15,880

36,900

45,170

97,950

Campgrounds and recreation sites

0

10

5,560

5,560

Greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse leks + % mile

8,050

5,930

18,010

31,990

Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area

0

0

0

0

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

34,440

58,890

91,800

185,130

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3’4

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (leased)

0

5

125

130

Chain Lakes ACEC (delineated wetlands)

0

800

720

1,520

Jep Canyon — Aspen

20

80

1,400

1,500

JO Ranch site

1

0

0

1

North Platte SRMA

0

5,890

100

5,990

Preble's meadow jumping mouse potential habitat

0

0

1,340

1,340

Shirley Mountain SRMA

0

0

11,470

11,470

VRM Class II areas

12,040

18,670

439,260

469,970

White-tailed prairie dog habitat

7,670

5,320

34,290

47,280

Wyoming toad habitat

0

0

0

0

Total Affected Area (In acres)5

18,210

24,200

454,190

496,600

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4

Bald eagle communal roosting + 2 miles

0

3,370

14,840

18,210

Bald eagle nesting habitat + 1 mile

0

600

3,680

4,280

Big game crucial winter range

100,210

208,370

518,940

827,520

2-146

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2-Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements

Area

Hydrocarbon Potential
(Federal Subsurface Acres)

Total

High

Moderate

Low

Big game parturition areas

0

0

15,580

15,580

Mountain plover habitat

89,940

166,420

367,500

623,860

RCAs

6,530

13,590

15,940

36,060

Raptor nests (% mile to 1 mile)

163,640

353,380

405,600

922,620

Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat + 2 miles

221,590

210,860

553,510

985,960

Sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat + 1 mile

5,270

3,650

3,980

12,900

Winter sage-grouse

90

270

0

360

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

338,390

601,380

1,217,980

2,157,750

ALTERNATIVE 2:

NO LEASE2

WSAs

0

27,050

37,100

64,150

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

0

27,050

37,100

64,150

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY34

Blowout penstemon habitat

0

0

150

150

Campgrounds and recreation sites

0

10

5,560

5,560

Cemeteries

0

0

120

120

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (not leased)

0

0

50

50

Greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse leks + % mile

8,050

5,930

18,010

31,990

High Savery Dam and Reservoir area

0

0

1,070

1,070

Historic Trails + % mile

11,740

17,310

25,170

54,210

JO Ranch lands

1

0

0

1

Non-trail cultural eligible properties + % mile

0

130

110

240

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

19,450

23,140

49,590

92,180

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3'4

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (leased)

0

5

125

130

North Platte SRMA

0

5,890

100

5,990

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse potential habitat

0

0

1,340

1,340

Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area

0

0

0

0

VRM Class II areas

0

0

328,600

328,600

White-tailed prairie dog complexes

7,670

5,320

34,290

47,280

Wyoming toad habitat

0

0

0

0

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

6,690

5,370

350,420

362,620

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3'4

Bald eagle communal roosting + 2 miles

0

3,370

14,840

18,210

Bald eagle nesting habitat + 14 mile

0

70

710

780

Bald eagle winter concentration areas + 1 mile

0

600

3,680

4,280

Rawlins RMP

2-147

Chapter 2-Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements

Final EIS

Area

Hydrocarbon Potential
(Federal Subsurface Acres)

High

Moderate

Mountain plover habitat

89,940

166,420

367,500

623,860

Raptor nests + V2 mile

72,570

167,960

192,410

432,940

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

141,880

295,500

494,650

932,030

ALTERNATIVE 3:

NO LEASE2

Cave Creek Cave ACEC

0

0

510

510

Chain Lakes ACEC (not leased)

0

3,010

610

3,620

Cow ButteA/Vild Cow WHMA — Mountain Shrub and Aspen
(not leased)

210

0

0

210

Jep Canyon ACEC (not leased)

30

0

210

240

Laramie Plains Lakes

0

0

0

0

North Platte SRMA (not leased)

0

330

9,650

9,980

RCAs (not leased)

10

560

50

620

Sand Hills/JO Ranch ACEC (not leased)

510

0

80

590

Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research ACEC

0

0

0

0

Upper Muddy Creek/Grizzly ACEC (not leased)

170

730

2,740

3,640

Wick-Beumee WHMA

0

0

1,870

1,870

WSR Segments

0

4,770

4,820

9,590

WSAs

0

27,050

37,100

64,150

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

930

31,280

53,990

86,210

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY34

Active raptor nest areas

23,830

58,220

65,710

147,760

Big game parturition areas

0

0

15,580

15,580

Blowout Penstemon ACEC

0

0

19,010

19,010

Campgrounds and recreation sites

0

580

12,160

12,750

Cemeteries

0

0

120

120

Como Bluff ACEC

0

0

0

0

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (not leased)

0

0

50

0

Greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse leks + % mile

8,050

5,930

18,010

31,990

High Savery Dam and Reservoir area

0

0

1,070

1,070

Historic Trails + % mile

11,740

17,310

25,170

54,210

JO Ranch site

1

0

0

1

Non-trail cultural eligible properties + % mile

0

130

110

240

Shirley Mountain SRMA

0

0

15,200

15,200

Towns (not leased)

240

0

510

750

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

41,830

79,300

160,430

281,560

2-148

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2-Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements

Area

Hydrocarbon Potential
(Federal Subsurface Acres)

High Moderate Low

Total

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3 4

Chain Lakes ACEC (delineated wetlands)

0

800

720

1,520

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (leased)

0

5

125

130

Cow Butte/Wild Cow WHMA (leased)

14,670

8,460

9,690

32,820

Jep Canyon — Aspen

20

80

1,400

1,500

North Platte SRMA (leased)

0

20

4,550

4,570

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse potential habitat

0

0

1,300

1,300

RCAs (leased)

6,520

13,030

15,890

35,440

VRM Class II areas

0

4,380

464,150

468,530

White-tailed prairie dog complexes

7,670

5,320

34,290

47,280

Wyoming toad habitat

0

0

0

0

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

23,010

23,860

463,910

510,780

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS34

Bald eagle communal roosting + 2 miles

0

3,390

14,940

18,330

Bald eagle nesting habitat + 114 miles

0

1,750

8,500

10,260

Bald eagle winter concentration areas + 1 mile

0

600

3,680

4,280

Big game crucial winter range

100,210

208,370

518,940

827,520

Big game parturition areas

0

0

15,580

15,580

East of Highway 789: Greater sage-grouse leks + 4 miles

178,230

85,000

79,800

334,030

East of Highway 789: Sharp-tailed grouse leks + 2 miles

14,380

7,770

10,160

32,310

Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat + 2 miles

221,590

210,860

553,510

985,960

Mountain plover habitat

89,940

166,420

367,500

623,860

Raptor nests + 114 miles

275,910

545,850

689,450

1,511,220

Sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat + 1 mile

5,270

3,650

3,980

12,900

Winter sage-grouse

90

270

0

360

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

357,740

680,520

1,314,290

2,352,550

ALTERNATIVE 4:

NO LEASE2

Cow Butte/Wild Cow WHMA (not leased)

350

680

4,630

5,660

Upper Muddy Creek/Grizzly WHMA (not leased)

170

730

2,740

3,640

Encampment River WSR

0

0

610

610

Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area (not leased)

0

0

0

0

WSAs

0

27,050

37,100

64,150

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

510

28,550

44,170

73,230

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY34

Active raptor nest areas

2,870

7,890

8,470

19,230

Rawlins RMP

2-149

Chapter 2-Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements

Final EIS

Area

Hydrocarbon Potential
(Federal Subsurface Acres)

Total

High

Moderate

Low

Blowout penstemon habitat

0

0

150

150

Campgrounds and recreation sites

0

10

5,560

5,560

Cave Creek Cave ACEC

0

0

240

240

Cemeteries

0

0

120

120

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (not leased)

0

0

50

0

Greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse leks + % mile

8,050

5,930

18,010

31,990

High Savery Dam and Reservoir area

0

0

1,050

1,050

Historic Trails + % mile

11,740

17,310

25,170

54,210

Jep Canyon — Aspen

20

80

1,400

1,500

JO Ranch site

1

0

0

1

Laramie Plains Lakes

0

0

0

0

Non-trail cultural eligible properties + %-mile radius

0

130

110

240

Shirley Mountain SRMA

0

0

15,200

15,200

Towns (not leased)

240

0

40

280

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

34,730

59,170

124,850

218,750

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3’4

Big game parturition areas

0

0

15,580

15,580

Blowout Penstemon ACEC

0

0

19,010

19,010

Chain Lakes ACEC (delineated wetlands)

0

800

720

1,520

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (leased)

0

5

125

130

Cow Butte/Wild Cow WHMA (leased)

14,670

8,460

9,690

32,820

Jep Canyon ACEC

5,360

5,100

2,860

13,320

North Platte SRMA

0

5,890

100

5,990

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse potential habitat

0

0

1,340

1,340

VRM Class II areas

0

0

464,980

464,980

White-tailed prairie dog complexes

7,670

5,320

34,290

47,280

Wyoming toad habitat

0

0

0

0

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

10,710

9,850

478,030

498,590

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3’4

Bald eagle communal roosting + 2 miles

0

3,390

14,940

18,330

Bald eagle nesting habitat + 1 mile

0

600

3,680

4,280

Bald eagle winter concentration areas + 1 mile

0

600

3,680

4,280

Big game crucial winter range

100,210

208,370

518,940

827,520

Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat + 2 miles

221,590

210,860

553,510

985,960

Mountain plover habitat

89,940

166,420

367,500

623,860

RCAs

6,530

13,590

15,940

36,060

2-150

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2-Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements

Area

Hydrocarbon Potential
(Federal Subsurface Acres)

Total

High

Moderate

.

Low

Raptor nests (% mile to 1 mile)

163,640

353,380

405,600

922,620

Sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat + 1 mile

5,270

3,650

3,980

12,900

Winter sage-grouse

90

270

0

360

Total Affected Area (In Acres)5

341,220

613,360

1,226,700

2,181,280

Lease parcels are designed on aliquot parts. The actual acreage for the lease may vary.

o

Although closed to leasing and related oil and gas activity, any other surface disturbing or disruptive activity would follow the
surface disturbance prescriptions.

3

All activities would be subject to intensive mitigation, including offsite placement of facilities, remote control monitoring, and
restricted or prohibited surface use, including road construction, multiple wells from a single pad, central tank
batteries/facilities, pipelines, and power lines concentrated in specific areas, etc., based on site-specific analysis.

4 Refer to Appendix 1 (Wyoming Standard Mitigation Guidelines). These requirements apply to all surface disturbing and
disruptive activities.

5 Because of land surface and land restriction overlaps, acreage figures for individual areas may not add up to the total acreage
value.

Rawlins RMP

2-151

Chapter 2-Summary of Proposed SD/MAs Final EIS

0

0

1

o

CD

O

05

CD

00

CO

<

X

<

O

x

c

CD

E

(D

CD

CD

.c o

O CD
CD O
CD CO

CD

CD

i_

O

CD

O

CD

cn

o

co

CD

CD

i —

O

CD

O

05

oo'

<

X

CD

CD

i—

O

CD

O

O

O ^
LLI 0

O b

< CD

CD
0
i —

O

cd

o

o

CD

<

X

c

o

CO

c

05

CD

0

"O

"ro

o

0

Q.

CD

O

■o ^

0 CD

fc g
go

cd n-

■o r-

c ^

LLI cd

w

0

■

o

cd

o

c\i

O)

LO

0

0

i—

o

ro

o

05

CD

O

LLI

O

<

0
0
i

O

CD

O

00

co'

<

O

X

0
0
i

O

CD

O

CO

in

LO

O

LLI

o

<

0

0

s—

o

ro

o

CD

cn

o'

co

O

LLI

o

<

0

0

'

o

ro

o

05

oo'

O

LLI

o

<

o

LU

o

<

o

(M

un^

c

o

ro

0

0

>

ro

O ^

LLI 0

O b

< CD

0
0
i

CJ

CD

O

O

CD

o

LLI

o

<

0

0

L-

o

ro

o

n-

co

cd'

CD

O

LLI

o

<

TO

0 ro
ro g
c o
ro r>-'

"O t-
c - — -
LU CD

0
0
i

o

ro

o

CM

h-

05

in

O

LU

o

<

0

0

1

o

ro

o

05

CD

O

0

0

i—

o

ro

o

o

'd-

co’

<

X

c

0

E

0

05

CD

J»

^ 0

-£= O

o ro
ro o
0 co

£

0

0

-

o

ro

o

CD

in

o'

co

<

X

c

o

■4— 1

CD

C

05

0

0

■o

"ro

o

0

CL

0

c

o

ro

c

05

0

0

■o

"ro

O

0

Cl

0

o

<

X

c

o

ro

c

05

0

0

■O

"ro

o

0

CL

0

c

o

ro

c

05

0

0

■O

"ro

'o

0

CL

0

o

0

0

o

ro

o

05

CD

O

LU

O

<

0
0
i —

o

ro

o

oo

co’

O

LU

o

<

0

0

i—

o

ro

o

o

"sf

oo'

O

LU

o

<

c

0

E

0

05

CD

| Id

S 0

U_

-£= O

ro ro
ro o
0 co

£ LO-
X £,

0

0

b

CD

O

05

oo’

<

:>

X

0

0

b

CD

O

O

c

o

ro

c

05

0

0

-o

"ro

o

0

CL

0

0
0
i

o

ro

o

o

CD

c

o

ro

c

05

0

0

•o

"ro

'ro

0

CL

0

c

.o

ro

c

05

0

0

T5

"ro

'ro

0

Q.

0

c

o

t

o ^
Q- 0
0

0 O

Eo

o

= co
CO

< ^
pi

O

LU

o

<

3

m

o

E

o

o

TJ

ra -C
(D 0

O C
LU i5

o

x

< o

0 -> =

111
3 £ ro
c Js a
ro O x
CO 0- LU

a

o

“5

o

LU

< g

II

5*

a c
o ro
o O

o

LU

o

<

-SC

o

l_

E

ro

£

<0

o

i_

ro

£ 0 O

a .8 w

o a O

w 0 f

p ro
-3
C

— (1)

05 .E

ro o
co co a.

2 -Q

4-* 0

ro —

c

0

■*-*

o

OL

0

0

ro

c o
‘ro LU
JC O

o <

ro

u>

c

0

*■«

o

X

Js£

ro

0

X

E o
ro lu
ro O
_i <

c

0

0

X

>

0

ro

Q

1

E

x O

"O LU

0 o

X <

ro O
O <

0

0

ro

_i

- <
Q- _
0 ro

E 1

ro 0

ro o

-i X

o O

■3 LU
O
X <

c

o

E

2 o

0 UJ

la

CQ X

0 >.

0 —
i- N
O N O
>- m
■oOo

"D TJ <

3 0 _

§ 3 ro

^03

Is S

X « o

x 5 x

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary of Proposed SD/MAs

Rawlins RMP 2-153

Chapter 2-Summary of Proposed SD/MAs Final EIS

or

C/5

0 03 o
**- C CNJ
q O CO

III

1 ® E

■D c ^

o) — E _
ra « <d m
c q <d

® o & o

^ .E C/5 co

cr

05

o co q
C CM
q O CO

111
i « e

cc

05

q co q
^ c ®
cd o cp
25
co

_ w
co <D

lo

CNJ

0

CO c

T3 ‘r-

CD §

Q) y . — .

CO CO CD C/3

3 5

0

CO C

a: —

m «/)

E5 CD

^ b

b o'*
c O
0 o CO

o ~ cn

q w

z o

CO

CC

05

£ co g
q o
"0 J2 "0

cr

05

q:

05

CD

O CO O

C

o o iP
-O
CO

_ 0

co 0

o co q

•*- C CD
(DOC?
-O
CO

CO 0

0 E

IPs

0

N-

o

CD O C

ro.y e ^

ro cn 0 0

r — ”5 ■*— '

LO

£ 05 co

c q *s 0

£ o >,

.2 C/5 re

0 _

0 •*-'

0 c

Ocb

0 § C

03 -2 E
0 0 0

IP

s q 05

35
0
0

■O c

0 o c
0).y c ^
0 0 0 0

- CO

c q q 0

cp o & £

3 5

0

0 c

■D c

° O

0).y

0 0 0 0

LO

CM

CO

.2 05 0

J o £ 5

0

.2 05 0

111
0 c
-o c bb
CO § c
o)-2 E ^-l.
0 0 0 0
c -5 0 CD

5 .E 05 0

</3

05

>

£

o

"E

CD

O

05

TJ

C

ro

T3

CD

gl

0

c CD
CD 03

'0 £
0 00

^ o

0 ~tj

o 0

So
0 £
o o

0

0

0 0

— 00

“I

0 o
■b q

£> o

c O

o 0

£ -3
3 *■'
CO q
0 £
0 —

c
o

0

c

E
0
0

■O

3n ■

= El

£ 0
CO "O

■5 ”

0 E

to

0

■0

c

0

0

0

0 DQ
0 -

03 0
0 . _■

^ O
0 O
O 0

0 0
0 O
c 0
.2 o
"0 ^
c q
F 0
E ®

£ E
0

■o r-

;> ««
*1
151

0 m 3
0 re
O10 O

0 ■— .bf

■o r; t

3-f 8

-o o
0 ■£,

0 0
P

0

o

0

o

CO

LO

0 5 2 n

0 co q

o c/3 £
>- 0

-Q 0
CO -o

■5 ”
0 E

O =3 t.
0 co q
o c« £
CL r 5

% E

-S p

CO TD

■5 ”
0 t

P

151
0 CD 3
0 rtr

0)0 °
0—5

■o r; t

O O

-^-■ ^1 CJ
-o o 0

0 q x:
u o “
0 0 q

O w

Ql

0-^0
-C s 0

0

c

o o

LO

0 r-
c -

e i

il

~ !£.

q 0 "to
co -q 0

■5 g b

E 0

S 1/3

^ c
“ 0

65 I

0 DQ 3
0

03 0 O
0 .— q

^ o
_ o
■O O

0 £

0 0

0 C3

c 0

LO

0

o .q

0

O 3
0 0

o

0

J- 0

Q- -c $

S E

0

03 05

~ 2.

q 0
co -0

•5 £

C / ) c

^ CO

sil

151

0 00 3
0 . 'O
cd p q

■° b t

S-f 8

03 O

0 £

O 3
0 0

O 0

CL

0

0

0 0
0 o
c 0
.2 o

IS

l!

£ E

03 Nj-

0 >,'

q 0

co 03

•5 ™
0 E

OC

CO

c

0

E

a

E

re

o

c

UJ

a

CO

<:

0

5

’5)

m

0 c
£ 0
o E

® 0

05 CO

0

q

O)

U

5

re

“ s

0 ®

E

E 05

3 <D

05 CO

0£

CO

0

q

’03

E

0

0

£-1
0 03
JZ 0

o co

a

CO

$

0

q

O)

£D

0

0 *->
6 0

^ E

O 03
3 0
Q CO

QC

CO

0

£

03

m

£

0

c

0

E

03

0

CO

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 2-Summary of Proposed SD/MAs

0

C D
C

o

o

=3

•4—

E

o

~o

0

(/)

03

0

"D

C

03

E

0

GO

>*

CO

0

>

ir

c

0

o

CO

“O

c

0

0

jQ

0

'5
c n

i

o i2
c c

0 <U
CD E
■O
CD
g

E

1

0)

CD
-o O

“O —

p

0

|?

g, o

CD >
CD =*
CD CO

_ c

CD

CO tj
C CD
cd n
CD 2

E Q-

c CD

.2 o
o ®

s-

CD

CD

CO

0

0

0

.c

cd o

I ^

0 Qi
o ^
z 5

Rawlins RMP 2-155

Chapter 2-Priority Access for Easement Acquisition

Final EIS

Table 2-8. Areas of Priority Access for Easement Acquisition

Areas of Importance1

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Areas of High Importance

Arlington (forestry)

X

N/A

X

X

Atlantic Rim (recreation)

X

N/A

X

X

Big Creek (recreation)

X

N/A

X

X

Ferris Mountains (recreation)

X

N/A

X

X

Little Medicine (forestry)

X

N/A

X

X

Miller Hill (recreation)

X

N/A

X

X

Shirley Mountains (forestry and
recreation)

X

N/A

X

X

Seminoe-Pathfinder (recreation)

N/A

N/A

X

X

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
(recreation)

X

X

X

X

Rawlins Uplift (recreation)

N/A

N/A

X

X

Areas of Moderate Importance

North Laramie River (forestry)

X

N/A

X

X

Pine Mountain-Split Rock (forestry)

X

N/A

X

X

Rawlins Uplift (recreation)

X

N/A

N/A

N/A

Seminoe-Pathfinder (recreation)

X

N/A

N/A

N/A

Toltec (forestry)

X

N/A

X

X

White Rock Canyon (forestry)

X

N/A

X

X

Areas of Low Importance

Seven Mile (forestry)

X

N/A

X

X

Sugarloaf (forestry)

X

N/A

X

X

Woodedge (forestry)

X

N/A

X

X

High Savery Dam and Reservoir
Project (recreation)

N/A

N/A

X

X

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 indicate areas for opportunities to acquire or maintain legal access as listed by alternative above.
Alternative 2 would pursue opportunities only as they arise; therefore, this row is not applicable.

N/A Not applicable.

2-156

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2-VRM Classification and Acreage

Table 2-9. Visual Resource Management Classifications and Acreage

VRM Classification

Acreage

Percentage of Total
Land Area

Alternative 1 (Map 2-51)

l

68,160

1 .92%

II

359,610

10.13%

III

2,676,950

75.38%

IV

446,760

12.58%

Alternative 2 (Map 2-52)

1

66,120

1.86%

II

232,830

6.56%

III

2,581,620

72.69%

IV

670,910

18.89%

Alternative 3 (Map 2-49)

1

68,160

1.92%

II

346,670

9.88%

III

2,467,780

69.31%

IV

670,910

18.89%

Alternative 4 (Map 2-50)

1

66,120

1.86%

II

346,670

9.76%

III

2,467,780

69.49%

IV

670,910

18.89%

TOTAL

3,551,480

100%

Source: BLM 2007.

All lands in the RMPPA were rated; however, only the BLM-administered lands are managed within
the VRM system, and only BLM lands are included in the above-referenced acreages.

Rawlins RMP

2-157

Chapter 2-Seasonal Wildlife Stipulations

Final EIS

Table 2-10 shows seasonal stipulations for wildlife as described in Table 2-1. Seasonal stipulations for
threatened and endangered/Special Status Species not included in Table 2-1 are described in
Appendix 14.

Table 2-10. Seasonal Wildlife Stipulations

Affected Areas

Restriction

Restricted Area

Alternative 1

Big game crucial winter ranges

November 1 5— April 30

Antelope, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, and
mule deer crucial winter ranges

Parturition areas

May 1-June 30

Identified parturition areas

Greater sage-grouse and
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
breeding and nesting habitat

March 1 —July 15

Within 2 miles of greater sage-grouse lek
and 1-mile radius of Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse lek

Greater sage-grouse and
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse leks

March 1 —July 15

East of State Highway 789, south of
Interstate 80, for all Surface Disturbing
and Disruptive Activities, west of State
Highway 71 and Carbon County Road
401 , and north of State Highway 70.
Within 2 miles of greater sage-grouse lek
and 1-mile radius of Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse lek

Greater sage-grouse and
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
winter concentration areas

November 15-March 14

Within identified winter habitat

Mountain plover

April 1 0— July 10

Potential and occupied habitat

Yellow-billed cuckoo

None

None

Barn owl nest

February 1 —July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Burrowing owl nest

February 1 —July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Cooper’s hawk nest

February 1 —July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Ferruginous hawk nest

February 1— July 31

Within 1-mile radius

Golden eagle nest

February 1 —July 31

Within 1-mile radius

Goshawk nest

February 1 —July 31

Within %-mile radius

Great horned owl nest

February 1 —July 31

Within %-mile radius

Kestrel nest

February 1— July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Long-eared owl nest

February 1 —July 31

Within 3/i-mile radius

Merlin nest

February 1— July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Northern harrier nest

February 1— July 31

Within %-mile radius

Osprey nest

February 1 —July 31

Within %-mile radius

Peregrine falcon nest

February 1 —July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Prairie falcon nest

February 1— July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Red-tailed hawk nest

February 1— July 31

Within %-mile radius

Screech owl nest

February 1— July 31

Within %-mile radius

Sharp-shinned hawk nest

February 1 —July 31

Within %-mile radius

Short-eared owl nest

February 1— July 31

Within %-mile radius

2-158

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2-Seasonal Wildlife Stipulations

Affected Areas

Restriction

Restricted Area

Swainson’s hawk nest

February 1— July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Other raptor nests

February 1— July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Active raptor nests

Year round

Within 825 feet (ferruginous hawks, 1,200
feet)

Alternative 2

Big game crucial winter ranges

None

None

Parturition areas

None

None

Greater sage-grouse and
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
breeding and nesting habitat

None

None

Greater sage-grouse and
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse leks

None

None

Greater sage-grouse and
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
winter concentration areas

None

None

Mountain plover

April 1 0— July 10

Occupied habitat

Yellow-billed cuckoo

None

None

Barn owl nest

February 1— July 15

Within Va-mile radius

Burrowing owl

April 15-September 15

Within Va-mile radius

Cooper’s hawk nest

April 1-August 31

Within Va-mile radius

Ferruginous hawk nest

March 1-July 31

Within Va-mile radius

Golden eagle nest

February 1 —July 15

Within Va-mile radius

Goshawk nest

April 1-August 31

Within Va-mile radius

Great horned owl nest

February 1— July 15

Within Va-mile radius

Kestrel nest

April 1 —July 31

Within Va-mile radius

Long-eared owl nest

March 1— July 31

Within Va-mile radius

Merlin nest

April 1 —July 31

Within Va-mile radius

Northern harrier nest

April 1 —July 31

Within Va-mile radius

Osprey nest

April 1— July 31

Within Va-mile radius

Peregrine falcon nest

March 1— July 31

Within Va-mile radius

Prairie falcon nest

April 1— July 31

Within Va-mile radius

Red-tailed hawk nest

February 1— July 15

Within Va-mile radius

Screech owl nest

March 1— July 31

Within Va-mile radius

Sharp-shinned hawk nest

April 1 —July 31

Within Va-mile radius

Short-eared owl nest

March 1— July 31

Within Va-mile radius

Swainson’s hawk nest

April 1— July 31

Within V>-mile radius

Other raptor nests

February 1— July 15

Within Va-mile radius

Rawlins RMP

2-159

Chapter 2-Seasonal Wildlife Stipulations

Final EIS

Affected Areas

Restriction

Restricted Area

Active raptor nests

None

None

Alternative 3

Big game crucial winter ranges

November 1 5— April 30

Antelope, elk, moose bighorn sheep, and
mule deer crucial winter ranges

Parturition areas

Prohibited year round

Identified parturition areas

Greater sage-grouse and
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
breeding and nesting habitat

(1) Prohibit surface
disturbance/occupancy year
round; March 1-May 20 avoid
human activity 6:00 p.m.-9:00
a.m.

(2) Avoid surface disturbing
activities March 1 5— July 15

(1 ) Within % mile of occupied greater
sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse nesting habitat

(2) Within 2-mile radius for greater sage-
grouse and within 1-mile radius for
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse identified
nesting/early brood rearing habitat

Greater sage-grouse and
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse leks,
breeding and nesting habitat

(1) Prohibit surface
disturbance/occupancy year
round; March 1-May 20 avoid
human activity 6:00 p.m.-9:00
a.m.

(2) Avoid surface
disturbance/occupancy March
1-July 15

(1 ) Within % mile of perimeter of
occupied greater sage-grouse and
Colombian sharp-tailed grouse leks east
of State Highway 789, south of Interstate
80, west of State Highway 71 and Carbon
County Road 401, and north of State
Highway 70

(2) Within 4-mile radius for greater sage-
grouse and within 2-mile radius for
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse lek or
identified nesting/early brood-rearing
habitat

Greater sage-grouse and
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
winter concentration areas

November 15-March 14

Within identified winter habitat

Mountain plover

April 1 0— July 10

Potential and occupied habitat

Yellow-billed cuckoo

April 15-August 15

Within 14-mile radius

Barn owl nest

February 1 —July 15

Within ll/2-mile radius

Burrowing owl

April 15-September 15

Within iy2-mile radius

Cooper’s hawk nest

April 1-August 31

Within 114-mile radius

Ferruginous hawk nest

March 1 —July 31

Within 114-mile radius

Golden eagle nest

February 1— July 15

Within 114-mile radius

Goshawk nest

April 1-August 31

Within 114-mile radius

Great horned owl nest

February 1— July 15

Within 114-mile radius

Kestrel nest

April 1 —July 31

Within 114-mile radius

Long-eared owl nest

March 1-July 31

Within 114-mile radius

Merlin nest

April 1-July 31

Within 114-mile radius

Northern harrier nest

April 1-July 31

Within 114-mile radius

Osprey nest

April 1-July 31

Within 114-mile radius

Peregrine falcon nest

March 1-July 31

Within 114-mile radius

Prairie falcon nest

April 1-July 31

Within 114-mile radius

Red-tailed hawk nest

February 1-July 15

Within 114-mile radius

2-160

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2-Seasonal Wildlife Stipulations

Affected Areas

Restriction

Restricted Area

Screech owl nest

March 1 —July 31

Within 1!/2-mile radius

Sharp-shinned hawk nest

April 1— July 31

Within 1V2-mile radius

Short-eared owl nest

March 1 —July 31

Within 1V2-mile radius

Swainson’s hawk nest

April 1— July 31

Within 1!4-mile radius

Other raptor nests

February 1 —July 15

Within 1V2-mile radius

Active raptor nests

Year round

Within % mile (1,320 feet)

Alternative 4

Big game crucial winter ranges

November 1 5— April 30

Antelope, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, and
mule deer crucial winter ranges

Parturition areas

May 1-June 30

Identified parturition areas

Greater sage-grouse and
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse leks,
breeding and nesting habitat

(1) Prohibit surface
disturbance/occupancy year
round; March 1-May 20 avoid
human activity 6:00 p.m.-9:00
a.m.

(2) Avoid surface disturbing
activities March 1 5— July 15

(1 ) Within % mile of occupied greater
sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse leks

(2) Within 2-mile radius for greater sage-
grouse and within 1-mile radius for
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse identified
nesting/early brood rearing habitat

Greater sage-grouse and
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse leks,
breeding and nesting habitat

(1) Prohibit surface
disturbance/occupancy year
round; March 1-May 20 avoid
human activity 6:00 p.m.-9:00
a.m.

(2) Avoid surface
disturbance/occupancy March
1— July 15

(1 ) Within !4 mile of perimeter of
occupied greater sage-grouse and
Colombian sharp-tailed grouse leks east
of State Highway 789, south of Interstate
80, west of State Highway 71 and Carbon
County Road 401, and north of State
Highway 70

(2) Within 2-mile radius for greater sage-
grouse and within 1-mile radius for
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse lek or
identified nesting/early brood-rearing
habitat

Greater sage-grouse and
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
winter concentration areas

November 15-March 14

Within identified winter habitat

Mountain plover

April 10— July 10

Potential and occupied habitat

Yellow-billed cuckoo

April 15-August 15

Within Vi-mile radius

Barn owl nest

February 1 —July 15

Within 3/4-mile radius

Burrowing owl

April 15-September 15

Within 3/4-mile radius

Cooper’s hawk nest

April 1-August 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Ferruginous hawk nest

March 1— July 31

Within 1-mile radius

Golden eagle nest

February 1 —July 15

Within 1-mile radius

Goshawk nest

April 1-August 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Great horned owl nest

February 1— July 15

Within 3/4-mile radius

Kestrel nest

April 1— July 31

Within 3/i-mile radius

Long-eared owl nest

March 1 —July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Merlin nest

April 1— July 31

Within %-mile radius

Rawlins RMP

2-161

Chapter 2-Seasonal Wildlife Stipulations

Final EIS

Affected Areas

Restriction

Restricted Area

Northern harrier nest

April 1 —July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Osprey nest

April 1— July 31

Within %-mile radius

Peregrine falcon nest

March 1 —July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Prairie falcon nest

April 1— July 31

Within %-mile radius

Red-tailed hawk nest

February 1— July 15

Within %-mile radius

Screech owl nest

March 1— July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Sharp-shinned hawk nest

April 1 —July 31

Within %-mile radius

Short-eared owl nest

March 1— July 31

Within 3/4-mile radius

Swainson’s hawk nest

April 1 —July 31

Within %-mile radius

Other raptor nests

February 1— July 15

Within 3/4-mile radius

Active raptor nests

Year round

Within 825 feet (ferruginous hawks, 1,200
feet)

2-162

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 2-Recreation Benefits

Table 2-11. Benefits of Recreation Experiences in SRMAs

Benefits of Recreation Experiences in SRMAs

Learning and developing skills, abilities, and knowledge

Exploring on your own, having a sense of independence and adventure

Getting closer to family

Participating in group activities

Having access to natural landscapes

Relating to the land

Getting physical exercise

Escaping everyday responsibilities and urban stress

Developing a sense of stewardship for public lands

Achieving better mental and physical health

Developing and growing personally

Appreciating nature and aesthetics

Viewing wildlife in its natural habitat

Appreciating your natural heritage

Improving lifestyle

Appreciating the region in which you live

Maintaining local recreation-tourism niche

Increasing the desirability of the area as a place to live

Protecting plant, wildlife, and fisheries habitats

Reducing recreational impacts in the SRMA

Rawlins RMP

2-163

Final EIS

Chapter 3

CHAPTER 3— AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Introduction

This chapter characterizes the existing environment of the Rawlins Resource Management Plan Planning
Area (RMPPA). Although all environmental resources are described to some degree, emphasis is placed
on those resources that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or are substantially
influenced by BLM’s management actions. Further, one or more of the management alternatives under
consideration in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Rawlins Resource Management Plan
(RMP) development process places emphasis on those resources that have the highest potential to be
impacted. For ease of reference, the sections below are arranged alphabetically.

No new environmental data collection efforts were conducted on BLM-administered lands specifically for
this RMP. The BLM uses the best data available at the time the document is prepared. Environmental
components that would not be affected or that are not essential to the resolution of planning issues are not
covered in detail. Certain information was unavailable for use in developing this plan, because inventories
either have not been conducted or were not complete. However, conducting surveys and studies to obtain
all unavailable information for inclusion in this EIS would require additional time frames and incur
exorbitant costs.

When encountering issues related to unavailable information, it is appropriate to pose the question
implicit in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations
[CFR] 1 502.22 [a]) on incomplete or unavailable information: Is this information “essential to a reasoned
choice among alternatives”? While additional information would often add precision to estimates, the
basic data and central relationships in the RMPPA are sufficiently well established that any new
information would not likely reverse or nullify relationships. Although new information would be
welcome, no missing information is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives.

Changes Between the RMP Draft EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS

Changes in this chapter that have occurred from the draft EIS to the final EIS are primarily inclusions of
additional information that either more clearly describe specific areas within the RMPPA or incorporate
more current and accurate data reflective of the area. Specific resource sections that have been updated
include, but are not limited to, the socioeconomic, wild horse, vegetation, and wildlife sections.

Other changes in this chapter include the descriptions of areas that were not identified in the draft EIS.
These are areas for which management actions have been incorporated into the final EIS that were not
included in the draft EIS. New descriptions are primarily found in the following sections: Special
Recreational Management Areas (SRMA) (Section 3.11.2), Special Designations and Management Areas
section (Section 3.13), Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) (Section 3.13.4), and Wildlife Habitat
Management Areas (WHMA) (3.13.2).

Rawlins RMP

3-1

Chapter 3 — Air Resources

Final EIS

3.2 Air Resources

3.2.1 Climate

The climate of the RMPPA is classified as desert and semi-arid steppe, with areas of mid-latitude
highland or alpine (Trewartha and Horn 1980; Martner 1986).

Steppe climate is characterized by large seasonal variations in temperature (cold winters and warm
summers) and by precipitation levels that are low but still sufficient for the growth of short, sparse grass.
The dryness of the mid-latitude steppe climate of southeastern Wyoming is caused by the area’s distance
from the Pacific Ocean, the main source of precipitation for storms in the western portion of the Rawlins
Field Office (RFO). This aridity is intensified by the Sierra Nevada, Pacific Coast, and Rocky Mountain
Ranges, which intercept the flow of humid coastal air. In addition, annual rainfall amounts can vary
greatly from year to year.

Mountainous areas within the RMPPA are classified as alpine. Alpine climate is characterized by large
variations in local climates depending on altitude and slope exposure, but it is generally a similar but
cooler version of the nearby lowland climate (Trewartha and Horn 1980). Temperature and precipitation
vary as a function of several factors, including season, time of day, and elevation.

Weather stations in the RMPPA include stations located in Encampment and Rawlins in Carbon County,
Wamsutter in Sweetwater County, and Centennial in Albany County. Rawlins is located at an elevation of
6,736 feet and is in the western part of the RMPPA. Centennial is located at an elevation of 8,140 feet and
is in the southeastern part of the RMPPA. Meteorological data available from the Rawlins weather station
from 1951 through 2000 and from the Centennial weather station from 1948 through 2000 form the basis
of the climate characterization below.

3.2.2 Temperature

Diurnal (morning to night) and seasonal (summer to winter) ranges in temperature are greater in valleys
than on slopes (Martner 1986). Mean annual temperatures range from 43 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in
Rawlins to 40 °F in Centennial. Mean maximum summer temperatures are 80 °F in Rawlins and 74 °F in
Centennial. Mean minimum winter temperatures are 14 °F in Rawlins and Centennial. Figure 3-1 shows
mean monthly temperatures at Rawlins and Centennial (Western Regional Climate Center 2002). Figure
3-2 shows trends in temperature changes per decade across the United States. These data show that
Wyoming has warmed about 0.25 °F per decade since 1966.

The mean maximum monthly temperatures in Rawlins and Centennial reflect over time a slight warming
in Rawlins (Figure 3-3) and a very slight cooling in Centennial (Figure 3-4) (Western Regional Climate
Center 2002).

3.2.3 Precipitation

High elevations generally experience greater amounts of precipitation than lower elevations. Mean annual
precipitation is 9 inches in Rawlins and 14.5 inches in higher elevation Centennial. Mean annual
precipitation in Rawlins ranges from 5 inches in dry years to 13 inches in wet years. In Centennial, mean
annual precipitation ranges from 9 inches in dry years to 20 inches in wet years (Western Regional
Climate Center 2002). Precipitation in western Wyoming has stayed about the same, although
precipitation in eastern Wyoming has increased up to 0.6 inches per decade (NOAA Climate Prediction
Center).

3-2

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Air Resources

Figure 3-5 shows the mean monthly water content of precipitation in Rawlins and Centennial. Mean
monthly precipitation varies from 0.5 to 1.4 inches throughout the year in Rawlins and from 0.8 to 1.7
inches in Centennial (Western Regional Climate Center 2002).

Mean total snowfall is 4.3 feet in Rawlins and 9.5 feet in Centennial, with the greatest snowfall occurring
from November through April. Figure 3-6 shows mean monthly winter snowfall ranging from 7 to 8
inches in Rawlins and from 15 to 20 inches in Centennial (Western Regional Climate Center 2002).
Figure 3-7 shows long-tenn precipitation changes nationwide.

Data for mean monthly water content of precipitation in Rawlins and Centennial since 1951 show a very
slight precipitation increase (<0.3 inch) in most months in Rawlins (Figure 3-8) and a variable pattern in
Centennial (Figure 3-9). Data for mean annual total water content of precipitation in Rawlins and
Centennial since 1951 (Figure 3-10) show a very slight increase in precipitation in Rawlins and an
extremely slight decrease in Centennial (Western Regional Climate Center 2002).

3.2.4 Dispersion

Atmospheric stability is a measure of the atmosphere’s capacity to disperse pollutants. Although stability
data are not available for the RMPPA, they are available for Rock Springs, Wyoming (about 1 00 miles
west of Rawlins). Figure 3-11 shows that mean annual dispersion at Rock Springs is very strong to
moderate less than 20 percent of the time, weak to very weak about 20 percent of the time, and fair more
than 60 percent of the time (USDI, BLM 1999).

3.2.5 Wind Velocity

Wind speed and direction are highly variable because of the effect of local topography in the RMPPA.
Wind data are often presented graphically by a “wind rose,” which shows the occurrence frequency of
wind speeds and wind directions. Figure 3-12 shows a wind rose for Centennial. In mountainous areas
such as Centennial, local topography can strongly affect wind direction, particularly at night and under
low wind speed conditions. Figure 3-13 shows a wind rose for Rawlins. The annual average wind speed
in Rawlins is relatively strong at 12 miles per hour (Martner 1986), and annual wind direction is generally
from the west-northwest, west, or west-southwest (USDI, BLM 1999).

3.2.6 Air Quality

Elements of air quality addressed in this analysis include ambient air quality concentrations, visibility,
and atmospheric deposition. Regulations governing these air quality elements are provided in Appendix 4.

Ambient Air Quality Concentrations

Ambient air concentration refers to the amount of pollutants present in a volume of air, and it can be
reported in units of micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3) or in parts per billion (ppb). For comparison,
both units are shown only in the ambient air quality standards tables in the Air Quality Technical Support
Document (AQTSD). Data provided by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality
Division (WDEQ-AQD) are used to establish background air quality levels. Information collected from
the nearest applicable monitoring stations indicate that current concentrations comply with applicable
standards. However, current and complete data on the concentrations of criteria air pollutants for the
RMPPA are not available. Ambient air concentrations of criteria air pollutants provided by the WDEQ-
AQD for the Rawlins region are shown in Table 3-1.

Rawlins RMP

3-3

Chapter 3 — Air Resources

Final EIS

Table 3-1. Concentrations of Criteria Air Pollutants — West-Central Wyoming, Rawlins

Pollutant/

Averaging

Time

Measured

Background

Concentration

(pg/m3)

Percentage of Standards (%)
NAAQS WAAQS

Data Source

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

8-hour

1,381

14

14

Data collected by Amoco at Ryckman
Creek for an 8-month period during
1978-1979, summarized in the Riley
Ridge EIS (USDI, BLM 1983)

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Annual

3.4

3

3

Data collected at Green River Basin
Visibility Study site, Green River,
Wyoming, during January-December
2001 (ARS 2002)

Ozone (O3)

1-hour

169

72

72

Data collected at Green River Basin
Visibility Study site, Green River,
Wyoming, during June 10, 1998-
December 31 , 2001 (ARS 2002)

8-hour

147

94

94

Particulate Matter (PM10)

24-hour

47a

31

31

Data collected by WDEQ at Emerson
Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 2002
(WDEQ)

Annual

16b

NAb

32

Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

24-hour

15c

42

23

Data collected by WDEQ at Emerson
Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 2002
(WDEQ)

Annual

5

33

33

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

3-hour

132

10

19

Data collected at LaBarge Study Area at
the Northwest Pipeline Craven Creek
site, 1982-1983

24-hour

43

12

17

Annual

9

11

15

a 47 pg/m3 is the first maximum concentration of PM10.

On September 21, 2006, EPA announced final revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter,
which were published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006, and took effect on December 18, 2006. The revisions
strengthened the 24-hour PM25 standard from 65-35 pg/m3 and revoked the annual PM10 standard of 50 pg/m3. EPA retained
the existing annual PM25 standard of 15 pg/m3 and the 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 pg/m3. After the final rule becomes
effective, the State of Wyoming will enter into rulemaking to revise the Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards.

c 15 pg/m3 is the second maximum concentration of PM25.

Data provided by the WDEQ-AQD.

Note: pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide (CO) data were collected at Ryckman Creek by Amoco in conjunction with the
proposed oil and gas development of the late 1970s. Because CO data are generally collected only in
urban areas where automobile traffic levels are high, recent data are often unavailable for rural areas
(Table 3-1).

3-4

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Air Resources

Nitrogen Dioxide and Other Nitrogen Compounds

For the criteria pollutant nitrogen dioxide (N02), concentration data were collected at the Green River
Basin Visibility Study site from January to December 2001. Annual N02 concentrations were 3 percent of
both the Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) (Table 3-1).

Monitoring of nitrogen-containing pollutants in Centennial and Rocky Mountain National Park shows
that concentrations of nitric acid (HN03), nitrate (NCV), and particulate ammonium (NH4+) are fairly low
and are not increasing over time.

The Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) has measured concentrations of nitrogen-
containing pollutants (HN03, NCV, and NH4+) and sulfur-containing pollutants (sulfur dioxide [S02],
sulfate [S04 2]), and ozone [03]) in the United States since the late 1980s. There are three CASTNet
stations in Wyoming (Centennial, Yellowstone National Park, and Pinedale) and several stations in
Colorado, including one in Rocky Mountain National Park. CASTNet data are available for Centennial
from 1989 and for Rocky Mountain National Park from 1995.

Figures 3-14 and 3-15 show mean annual CASTNet concentrations of nitrogen-containing pollutants in
Centennial and Rocky Mountain National Park. Mean annual concentrations of HN03 are less than 0.5
ppb at Centennial (Figure 3-14) and less than 0.7 ppb in Rocky Mountain National Park (Figure 3-15).
HNO3 concentrations typically range from 0.02 to 0.3 ppb in remote areas and from 3 to 50 ppb in urban
areas (Seinfeld 1986). Although HN03 concentrations are well below urban levels, concentrations are
slightly above levels typical in remote areas.

Mean annual concentrations of NO3' are less than 0.2 ppb in Centennial and less than 0.4 ppb in Rocky
Mountain National Park. NCV concentrations are typically about 0.2 ppb in remote areas and 1 ppb in
urban areas (Stem et al. 1973). Although N03‘ concentrations are well below urban levels, concentrations
in Rocky Mountain National Park are above levels typical in remote areas.

Mean annual concentrations of NFLy are less than 0.3 ppb in Centennial and 0.4 ppb in Rocky Mountain
National Park. NH4+ concentrations are typically 0.3 ppb in remote areas and 1.4 ppb in urban areas
(Stem et al. 1973).

The Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System (WARMS) has measured concentrations of N03‘ and
NH4+ in Wyoming since 1999. There are five WARMS stations in Wyoming: Centennial (discontinued in
2003), Buffalo, Sheridan, Newcastle, and Pinedale. Figures 3-16 and 3-17 show, respectively, that weekly
concentrations of NCV in Centennial are below 2 pg/m3 and that weekly concentrations of NH4f are
below 0.6 pg/m3. Because of the chemistry of nitrogen- and sulfur-containing compounds and the manner
in which data are collected, it would not be appropriate to compare CASTNet and WARMS data to
ambient air quality standards. In addition, there are questions concerning a lack of data consistency in
WARMS.

Sulfur Dioxide and Other Sulfur Compounds

For the criteria pollutant S02, data were collected in the LaBarge Study Area at the Northwest Pipeline
Craven Creek site during 1982-1983 (Table 3-1).

More recent S02 data, as well as S04‘2 data, were collected by CASTNet in Centennial and Rocky
Mountain National Park, and by WARMS in Centennial.

Figures 3-18 and 3-19 show mean annual CASTNet concentrations of S02 and S04'2 in Centennial and
Rocky Mountain National Park. Concentrations of S02 are 0.6 ppb or less in Centennial (Figure 3-18) and
less than 0.6 ppb in Rocky Mountain National Park (Figure 3-19). S02 concentrations typically range
from 1 to 10 ppb in remote areas and from 20 to 200 ppb in urban areas (Seinfeld 1986). S02

Rawlins RMP

3-5

Chapter 3 — Air Resources

Final EIS

concentrations in Centennial and Rocky Mountain National Park are consistent with concentrations
typical of remote areas.

Mean annual concentrations of S04"2 are below 0.8 ppb in Centennial and Rocky Mountain National Park.
S04'2 concentrations are typically about 0.6 ppb in remote areas and about 2.5 ppb in urban areas (Stem et
al. 1973). S04 concentrations in Centennial and Rocky Mountain National Park are consistent with
concentrations typical of remote areas.

Figures 3-20 and 3-21 show weekly WARMS concentrations of S02 and S04'2, respectively, in

-3 o

Centennial from mid- 1999 to be less than 1.1 pg/m ; S04‘ concentrations alone are also less than 1.5
pg/m3 but are closer to that value. It would be inappropriate to compare weekly WARMS concentrations
directly with mean annual concentrations. 1

Ozone

Ozone concentration data were collected at the Green River Basin Visibility Study site from June 10,
1998, to December 31, 2001. O3 concentrations were 94 percent of the WAAQS and NAAQS 8-hour
standard (Table 3-1).

Ozone levels of concern (LOC) have been estimated for several areas, including the Bridger Wilderness
in Wyoming (Fox et al. 1989). Estimated total deposition LOC include the “red line” (defined as the
ozone concentration the area can tolerate) and the “green line” range (defined as the acceptable level of
ozone). The ozone LOC for Bridger includes the green line (set at 35-75 ppb/year).

CASTNet stations in Pinedale, Centennial, and Rocky Mountain National Park also collected 03 data.
Figure 3-22 shows that mean annual 03 concentrations have remained steady in Centennial since 1989
and in Rocky Mountain National Park since 1995, which is typical of remote areas in the western United
States (Singh et al. 1978), and are within the LOC as an acceptable level of ozone (green line range).

Particulate Matter

Particulate matter (PMi0, PM2.5) concentration data were collected in Cheyenne, Wyoming, in 2002. PMi0
concentrations were 32 percent or less than the existing WAAQS and NAAQS. PM2.5 concentrations were
33 percent or less than the existing WAAQS and NAAQS (Table 3-1). On September 21, 2006, EPA
announced final revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter, which were published in the Federal
Register on October 17, 2006, and took effect on December 18, 2006. The revision strengthened the 24-
hour PM2.5 standard from 65-35 pg/m3 and revoked the annual PMi0 standard of 50 pg/m3. EPA retained
the existing annual PM2.5 standard of 15 pg/m3 and the 24-hour PMi0 standard of 150 pg/m3. After the
final mle becomes effective, the State of Wyoming will enter into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS.

Hazardous Air PoSSutants

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) data do not exist for the RMPPA. There are no ambient air quality
standards for HAPs. WDEQ-AQD regulates HAP emissions through the New Source Review permitting
process and applicable National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. However, HAP emissions will be addressed in
Section 4.2, Air Resources.

Because of the chemistry of nitrogen- and sulfur-containing compounds and the manner in which data are collected, it would
not be appropriate to compare CASTNet and WARMS data to ambient air quality standards. In addition, there are questions
concerning a lack of data consistency in WARMS.

3-6

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Air Resources

Visibility

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) has measured visibility in
national parks and wilderness areas in the United States since the 1980s. There are six IMPROVE aerosol
monitoring stations in Wyoming: Brooklyn Lakes (near Centennial), Bridger Wilderness (near Pinedale),
Yellowstone National Park, North Absaroka Wilderness (near Dead Indian Pass), Cloud Peak, and
Thunder Basin. Of the six stations, the Bridger Wilderness and Yellowstone National Park stations are
located within PSD Class I areas. Some of the best visibility monitored in the contiguous United States is
at the Bridger Wilderness station in western Wyoming. Visibility can be expressed in terms of deciviews
(dv), a measure for describing perceived changes in visibility. One dv is defined as a change in visibility
that is just perceptible to an average person, about a 10-percent change in light extinction.

Monitored aerosol concentrations are used to reconstruct visibility conditions for each day monitored,
ranked from clearest to haziest. Conditions are reported in three categories:

• Twenty Percent Clearest. Mean visibility for the 20 percent of days with the best visibility

• Average. Annual mean visibility

• Twenty Percent Haziest. Mean visibility for the 20 percent of days with the poorest visibility.

Figure 3-23 shows annual visibility in Rocky Mountain National Park since 1991. Visibility on the 20
percent clearest days varies from 1.8 to 4 dv (visual range of about 150 to 190 miles). Average visibility
varies from 7 to 9 dv (about 100 to 114 miles). Visibility for the 20 percent haziest days varies from 12 to
16 dv (about 50 to 70 miles). Trend analysis of Rocky Mountain National Park visibility data reveals no
significant worsening of visibility since 1991. Figure 3-24 shows annual visibility in the Bridger
Wilderness since 1989. Visibility on the 20 percent clearest days varies from 1.6 to 3.5 dv (visual range of
about 160 to 190 miles). Average visibility varies from 5 to 7 dv (about 1 14 to 135 miles). Visibility for
the 20 percent haziest days varies from 9 to 12 dv (about 72 to 94 miles). Also, for comparison, Figure 3-
25 provides the reconstructed fine mass data (l-year average) for Rocky Mountain National Park since
1991. As with the visibility data, no upward trend was noted.

An IMPROVE monitoring station visibility station was installed in 2001 near Centennial (Brooklyn
Lakes). The visibility data through 2004 include the following ranges:

• Twenty Percent Clearest Days. 184-201 miles

• Mean Days. 124-133 miles

• Twenty Percent Haziest Days. 85-78 miles.

These data indicate that visibility was better than that measured in Rocky Mountain National Park in
2001, but was in the range of visibility measured in Rocky Mountain National Park over the past 10
years. Visibility data from the Long-Term Study (Wyoming 2003) suggest that visibility is comparable to
visibility at other sites around Wyoming.

Atmospheric Deposition

Atmospheric deposition refers to the processes by which air pollutants are removed from the atmosphere
and deposited in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. It is reported as the mass of material deposited on an
area (kilograms per hectare [kg/ha]) per year (-yr). Air pollutants are deposited by wet deposition
(precipitation) and dry deposition (gravitational settling of particles and adherence of gaseous pollutants
to soil, water, and vegetation). Substances deposited include —

• Nitrogen and sulfur compounds (nitrates, nitrites, and sulfates and sulfites)

• Acids, such as sulfuric acid (FLSCfi) and HN03; this acid deposition is sometimes referred to as
acid rain

Rawlins RMP

3-7

Chapter 3 — Air Resources

Final EIS

• Air toxics, such as pesticides, herbicides, and volatile organic compounds (VOC)

• Nutrients, such as N03" and NH4+.

Estimation of atmospheric deposition is complicated by contribution to deposition of several components:
rain, snow, cloud water, particle settling, and gaseous pollutants. Deposition varies with precipitation,
which, in turn, varies with elevation and time.

Wet Deposition

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) assesses wet deposition by measuring the
chemical composition of precipitation (rain and snow). There are eight NADP stations in Wyoming.
Figure 3-26 shows the precipitation acidity (pH) in the Snowy Range, Brooklyn Lakes, and South Pass
City through 2002. The natural acidity of rainwater is generally considered to have a pH of 5. 0-5. 6
(Seinfeld 1986). Precipitation pH in Wyoming ranged from 5.0 to 5.3 in 2004. Areas of significantly
lowered precipitation pH (4.6 — 4.3) are mainly in the northeastern United States (Figure 3-27).
Precipitation pH in the Snowy Range, Brooklyn Lakes, and South Pass City has been above 4.8 since
1989.

Figures 3-28 and 3-29 show mean annual wet deposition of NH4+, NO3", and S042 at the Snowy Range
and Brooklyn Lakes NADP stations. Wet ammonium deposition values are low (below 2.0 kg/ha-yr) in
the Snowy Range and in Brooklyn Lakes.

Wet deposition of both NO3" and S04'2 at the Snowy Range station is elevated. Wet N03' deposition
ranged from 3 to 14 kg/ha-yr, and wet S04"2 deposition ranged from 3 to 10 kg/ha-year (Figure 3-28).

Wet deposition of NH4+ is low (below 2 kg/ha-yr), S04 2 is below 7 kg/ha-yr, and N03" is below 9 kg/ha-
yr at Brooklyn Lakes (Figure 3-29). Deposition values from 1992 through 2005 were steady, indicating
that deposition did not worsen or improve during that time.

Dry Deposition

Dry deposition refers to the transfer of airborne gaseous and particulate material from the atmosphere to
the Earth’s surface. CASTNet measures dry deposition of S02, HN03, SOf2, NO3', and NH4+. Figures 3-
30 and 3-31 show mean annual dry deposition of sulfur- and nitrogen-containing compounds for
Centennial since 1989 (Figure 3-30) and for Rocky Mountain National Park from 1995 (Figure 3-31).

Dry deposition values in Centennial have been low and steady for all pollutants except HN03. Dry HN03
deposition ranged from 1.9 to about 3.7 kg/ha-yr. Dry deposition for other pollutants was less than 1
kg/ha-yr.

Dry deposition values in Rocky Mountain National Park were also low and steady for all pollutants
except HNO3. Dry HN03 deposition ranged from 1.5 to 4.7 kg/ha-yr. Dry deposition for other pollutants
was less than 1 kg/ha-yr.

Total Deposition

Total deposition refers to the sum of airborne material transferred to the Earth’s surface by both wet and
dry deposition. Total deposition guidelines have been estimated for several areas, including the Bridger
Wilderness in Wyoming (Fox et al. 1989). Estimated total deposition LOC include the “red line” (the total
deposition that the area can tolerate) and the “green line” (the acceptable level of total deposition). Total
nitrogen depositions LOC for Bridger include the red line (set at 10 kg/ha-yr) and the green line (set at 3-
5 kg/ha-yr). Total sulfur depositions LOC for Bridger include the red line (5 kg/ha-year) and the green
line (20 kg/ka-yr). The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has proposed a LOC for total nitrogen deposition of
1.5 kg/ha-year (Baron 2006).

3-8

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Air Resources

Figures 3-32 and 3-33 compare total deposition in the Snowy Range near Centennial, Wyoming, with the
total deposition LOC proposed for the Bridger Wilderness. Total nitrogen deposition is about equal to the
existing LOC since 1992, although the measured nitrogen deposition has exceeded the proposed LOC
since 1993 (Figure 3-32). Total sulfur deposition has been well below LOC for the same period (Figure 3-
33).

Summary of Existing Air Quality

Air quality monitoring data provided by the State of Wyoming show that air quality in the Rawlins region
is considered to be in compliance with state and federal ambient air quality standards (Table 3-2).
Monitored total nitrogen deposition is within the Fox green line LOC, but above the USFS-proposed
nitrogen LOC.

Table 3-2. Summary of Air Quality in the Vicinity of the RMPPA

Air Quality
Component

Comment

Air Pollutant Concentrations

Criteria Air Pollutants

Concentrations are in compliance with NAAQS and WAAQS.

Nitrogen Compounds

• Nitric acid (HNO3) concentrations in Centennial and Rocky Mountain National Park
are slightly higher than concentrations in other remote areas.

• Ammonium (NH4) concentrations are consistent with other remote areas.

• Nitrate (NO3) concentrations in Centennial are consistent with other remote areas,
while concentrations in Rocky Mountain are slightly higher than concentrations in
other remote areas.

Sulfur Compounds

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfate (S04'2) concentrations in Centennial and Rocky
Mountain National Park are consistent with concentrations in remote areas.

Visibility

Visual Range

Rocky Mountain National Park

• 20 percent cleanest: 154-187 miles

• Average: 100-1 14 miles

• 20 percent haziest: 50-73 miles
Bridger Wilderness

• 20 percent cleanest: 160-190 miles

• Average: 1 14-135 miles

• 20 percent haziest: 72-94 miles

Atmospheric Deposition

Precipitation pH

• Precipitation pH was above 4.8 from 1989 through 2004.

Total Deposition

• Total nitrogen deposition is consistent with the existing LOC; however, it exceeds the
USFS-proposed LOC.

• Sulfur deposition is well below LOC.

1 Total nitrogen deposition LOC range from 3 to 5 kg/ha-yr (Fox et al. 1989). The USFS-proposed total nitrogen deposition LOC
is 1.5 kg/ha-yr (Baron 2006).

2 Proposed acceptable sulfur deposition is 5 kg/ha-yr (Fox et al. 1989).

Rawlins RMP

3-9

Chapter 3 — Wildland Fire and Fuels

Final EIS

3.3 Cultural Resources

3.3.1 Introduction

Archeological investigations in the RMPPA indicate that prehistoric people have inhabited the area for at
least 12,000 years, from Paleoindian occupation to the present. Although prehistoric sites represent the
largest percentage of cultural resource sites within the RMPPA, historic-age sites including expansion-era
trails, freight roads, and stage stations are quite common throughout the area.

As of December 2005, approximately 15,643 cultural resource sites had been documented. These sites
include prehistoric and protohistoric archeological sites, historic sites, linear historic sites, and properties
that are sacred to Native American cultures (e.g., Traditional Cultural Properties [TCP]). The majority of
cultural resource sites have been documented during compliance-related activities resulting from federal
management actions. The largest number of federal management actions within the Rawlins RMPPA has
been related to oil and gas development, which is centered in the western portion of the RMPPA. This has
resulted in an increased knowledge of cultural resources, particularly those located in the western portion
of the RMPPA.

The entire RMPPA is within the larger Northwestern Plains cultural area (Frison 1991). Prehistoric sites
throughout the RMPPA exhibit numerous similarities with respect to artifact assemblages, feature types,
and function but can also exhibit differences based on ecological setting and cultural influences from
surrounding regions. The RMPPA has been further broken down geographically into 14 subregions.
These subregions are identified by geographic features and allow for a better understanding of how
prehistoric inhabitants used the greater region. Table 3-3 identifies the subregions, the number of sites
located within each subregion, and overall site density.

Table 3-3. Summary of Cultural Subregions

Subregion

Total

Acres

BLM

Acres

BLM %

Total
Number
of Sites

Prehistoric

Sites

Historic

Sites

Sites

Per

Acre

Great Divide Basin

1,008,105

706,925

65.0%

3,012

2,807

393

1/37

Washakie Basin

812,122

667,673

82.2%

3,991

3,793

407

1/17

Separation Flats/
Rawlins Peak

510,934

293,393

57.4%

1,197

(940)

656

367

1/29

Sierra Madre
Uplands

954,124

470,744

49.3%

1,319

992

427

1/70

Hanna Basin

580,815

250,096

43.1%

1,171

1,033

206

1/53

Upper North Platte

592,277

199,313

33.7%

431

295

150

1/27

Shirley Basin

561,817

199,705

35.5%

148

132

23

1/47

Middle Medicine Bow

469,287

88,207

18.8%

591

424

199

1/50

Laramie Basin

853,260

77,459

9.1%

333

113

231

1/17

Sweetwater Arch

661,008

395,093

59.8%

166

147

33

1/77

Laramie Mountains

994,354

114,778

1 1 .5%

371

204

180

1/23

Eastern Plains

1,558,698

1,576

0.1%

2,781

376

2,427

1/14

Bates Hole

48,160

29,480

61.2%

12

10

4

1/10

Medicine Bow
Mountains

374,132

74,624

19.9%

120

48

74

1/61

3-10

Ralins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildland Fire and Fuels

Site densities may be skewed due to the presence of historic period buildings in urban settings. For
example, the Eastern Plains region has one of the lowest site densities in the RMPPA. However, the
majority of sites in this area are historic buildings in Cheyenne. Therefore, the site densities reflected in
the column “Sites Per Acre” do not accurately represent total site densities. The columns “Prehistoric
Sites” and “Historic Sites” are not additive to correlate with the total number of sites for each subregion,
as numerous sites are recorded with prehistoric and historic components.

3.3.2 Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric sites in the RMPPA are known to date from approximately 12,000 years before present (B.P.)
to the time of European contact (roughly 1650 A.D.). Native American sites dating after 1650 A.D. are
often assigned to the protohistoric period, in which material culture consists of traditional Native
American artifacts and European trade goods. Site types in the RMPPA include lithic scatters, lithic
material quarries, open camps, stone circles, rock shelters, house pits, rock cairns and alignments, game
drive lines and kill sites, brush or pole structures, rock art, and human burials.

Most significant cultural resources are found along major ephemeral drainages and along the lower
benches of escarpments found commonly throughout the western half of the RMPPA. Certain
topographic settings have higher archeological sensitivity, such as aeolian deposits (sand dunes, sand
shadows, and sand sheets), alluvial deposits along major drainages, and colluvial deposits along lower
slopes of ridges.

Prehistoric sites represent a wide range of human activities. Many of the sites are surface manifestations
of hunter-gatherer campsites representing repeated, inseparable occupations over hundreds or thousands
of years. Other sites are buried and contain intact, vertically separated cultural components. The most
common site types are short-term occupation sites with limited activity loci. At these locations, stone
tools were made or repaired, plant resources were processed, or animals were killed or butchered. These
site types were common throughout prehistory and are found across the RMPPA. The most common type
of short-term occupation sites is a lithic scatter containing flaked stone tools and debitage (waste flakes
and debris) but little evidence of subsistence strategies.

Open camps contain evidence of a broad range of activities, including subsistence-related activities.
Cultural remains at these site types include formal features, lithic debris, chipped stone tools, and
evidence of milling/vegetable processing activities. Remains from animal butchering activities, including
bones and lithic tool types, also are often found at open campsites. Open campsites often show evidence
that they were occupied for longer periods of time or were used repeatedly.

Lithic procurement areas are quite common in the RMPPA. These are manifested as lithic scatters
resulting from testing, procurement, and reduction of toolstone at their sources. Source stones are
primarily cherts and quartzites, occurring in either secondary gravel and cobble deposits or in primary
bedrock exposures. Secondary lithic procurement sites are the most common in the RMPPA. They often
occur diffusely over large areas as lithic “landscapes.” Major sources of high-quality Green River
Formation cherts occur in portions of the Washakie Basin, which makes lithic procurement sites common
in the area (Michaelsen 1983; Miller 1991).

Stone circle sites are in most instances another type of campsite. Also known as “tipi rings,” stone circles
are widely believed to be the result of rock placement along the bases of tipis or other similar habitation
structures. The possibility that at least some stone rings are the result of ritualistic/spiritual functions
rather than habitation activities has also been proposed (Davis 1983). These site types are relatively
common on ridge tops, upper stream terraces and benches, and mountain foothills in the North Platte
River region and the Eastern Plains. They are considerably rarer in the western basins. Lithic debris and
formal tools (e.g., flaked stone artifacts) are often found in conjunction with stone circles, although
usually in low densities. Other types of rock features, such as cairns and alignments, may be present as
well. These sites are often found to be sacred to Native American groups and may be designated as TCPs.

Rawlins RMP

3-11

Chapter 3 — Wildland Fire and Fuels

Final EIS

House pits, although still relatively uncommon, are increasingly being recognized and documented in
portions of the RMPPA. Recent analyses suggest that many of these structures were occupied for short
periods in more than one season and were repeatedly used over a number of years (Smith 2003).
Archeological remains usually include a large circular area of charcoal-stained sediment that upon
excavation reveals a generally shallow, basin-shaped living floor containing internal features, including
hearths and storage pits. There is generally a paucity of artifacts within the house pits, although flaked
stone, groundstone, and bone have been recovered. House pits have been found in the intermontane basins
of the western and central portions of the RMPPA, with a particularly large sample identified and
investigated in the Bairoil oil fields in the northeastern Great Divide Basin (Reust et al. 1993).

Less common site types in the RMPPA include rock shelters, rock art, mass kill sites, brush and pole
structures (i.e., wickiups or “war lodges”), burials, and certain types of rock features such as medicine
wheels, drive lines, or cairn lines. These less common site types are often found to be sacred to Native
American groups and are designated as TCPs.

Paleoindian Period

The oldest period for which there is archeological evidence is the Paleoindian, beginning approximately
12,000 years B.P. and ending around 8500 B.P. This is the transition period from the periglacial
conditions of the Wisconsin ice advance during the terminal Pleistocene to the warmer and drier climatic
conditions of the Holocene. A savanna-like environment with higher precipitation than occurs today was
prevalent in southwest Wyoming. Understanding paleoenvironmental conditions operating at the end of
the Pleistocene and into the Holocene provides insights into the articulation between human populations
and the environment (Thompson and Pastor 1995).

The archeological record indicates that a highly nomadic, hunting lifeway persisted throughout the
Paleoindian period. Primary subsistence strategies appear to have focused on the procurement of large
animals, with increasing dependence on small mammal and wild plant foods toward the end of the
Pleistocene (Creasman et al. 1982).

The practical difficulty of locating and identifying Paleoindian sites, which tend to be deeply buried, is
compounded by the small number of sites likely to be preserved through time. A current compilation of
radiocarbon dates from archeological sites in Wyoming indicates that less than three percent of excavated
sites contain datable Paleoindian components. Because of this small and unrepresentative sample, very
little is known at this time of Paleoindian culture dynamics, subsistence strategies, and demography in the
RMPPA.

Radiocarbon-dated Paleoindian sites or components within the RMPPA include the Union Pacific
Mammoth site (Frison 1978, 1991), the James Allen site (Mulloy 1959), the Rattlesnake Pass site (Smith
and McNees 1990), the China Wall site (Waitkus and Wimer 2002), and the Pine Bluffs site (Frison
1991). A few other sites reportedly have yielded early dates; however, data on these are limited. Isolated
surface finds of Paleoindian projectile points are not uncommon in the RMPPA and suggest that site
preservation may be a major factor affecting the number of known sites.

Archaic Period

The Archaic period dates from approximately 7,500 to 1,500 years B.P. and is split into Early, Middle,
and Late Archaic periods based on Frison’s chronology (Frison 1978, 1991) for the Northwestern Plains.
The term “Archaic” refers to both a temporal segment in the prehistoric record and a particular lifeway.
The demise of the Paleoindian big game hunting cultures, resulting from the extinction of the late
Pleistocene megafauna by approximately 7,000 B.P., marks the onset of the Archaic period. The
environmental change at the end of the Paleoindian period led to a pattern of broad spectrum resource
exploitation, reflected in the subsistence and settlement practices of the Archaic period, which became
more diverse over time.

3-12

Ralins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildland Fire and Fuels

Archaic period sites generally exhibit more diverse assemblages of cultural remains, indicating a broader
range of subsistence practices compared to the big game hunting focus of the preceding Paleoindian
period. Archaic period subsistence involved the exploitation of both plant and animal resources to a
greater extent than the Paleoindian period, and hunting involved a greater variety of animal species.

Slab-lined plant processing pits, characteristic of Early Archaic occupations, progressively decrease in
frequency in the archeological record during the Middle Archaic period. A decrease in the overall
frequency of groundstone artifacts is also noted. These trends have been interpreted by Creasman et al.
(1983: 160-161) as indicating a balanced hunting and gathering subsistence strategy, with less emphasis
on small mammal and wild plant foods.

Settlement and subsistence patterns for the Late Archaic in the RMPPA are poorly understood. The mixed
hunting/plant-gathering orientation that characterized the preceding period seems to continue into the Late
Archaic, although perhaps more emphasis was placed on big game hunting during the last 500 years of
this period (2000-1500 B.P.). The paleoenvironmental record for the area suggests gradual cooling, with
conditions, on average, not much different from today.

Numerous sites have been dated to the Archaic period in the RMPPA, particularly the Middle and Late
Archaic periods. Important sites include the Seminoe Beach site (Frison 1991), the Scoggin site (Lobdell
1973), the Muddy Creek site (Hughes 1981), the Mill Creek Bison Jump, and Sorenson Shelter. The
China Wall and Pine Bluffs sites also contained Archaic components. Archaic sites containing house pits
include the Medicine House site (Miller and McGuire 1997), the Shoreline site (Walker et al. 1997), the
Sinclair site (Smith and Reust 1992), and several sites at Bairoil, most notably the Bald Knob site (Reust
et al. 1993).

Late Prehistoric Period

The Late Prehistoric period began approximately 1,500 years B.P. and continued until European contact
at around 1650 A.D. The beginning of this period is marked by the introduction of the bow and arrow
and, consequently, an overall reduction in projectile point sizes. Pottery begins to appear (although rarely)
in Late Prehistoric assemblages, and stone circles become an increasingly common element of sites,
particularly east of the Wyoming Basin. House pits are less common than in earlier periods, although they
have been identified.

An increase in aboriginal populations apparently began toward the end of the Archaic period and
continued through the first half of the Late Prehistoric period (Frison 1991). Consequently, there is a
dramatic increase in sites radiometrically dated (as well as cross-dated through diagnostic artifacts) to this
period. A large percentage of excavated sites in the RMPPA either date to the Late Prehistoric period or at
least have a Late Prehistoric period component overlying older components.

Aside from the overall increase in site frequency, Late Prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns do
not appear to have diverged markedly from those of the Late Archaic (Creasman et al. 1983: 161). Large
mammal resources, including antelope and bison, were of primary importance, while plant foods
continued as a significant dietary element. Ash-filled basins and cobble-filled hearths are dominant
feature types.

Protohistoric Period

The Protohistoric period began at first contact between Native Americans and Euro-Americans around
1650 A.D. in the RMPPA. Ever-increasing contact led to the introduction of the horse to Native
Americans and the appearance of trade goods such as beads and metal items in the archeological record.

The adoption and use of horses significantly increased the mobility of Native Americans in the area.
Groups that acquired horses early gained a decided advantage over groups that did not.

Rawlins RMP

3-13

Chapter 3 — Wildland Fire and Fuels

Final EIS

Historic Period

The historic era began in earnest by the early 1800s, with the arrival of well-organized fur trading
expeditions in the region. Major themes represented by historic cultural resources in the RMPPA include
ranching, transportation, and mining.

Historic sites in the RMPPA include emigrant trails; stage and freight roads; stage stations; railroads and
sidings; early automobile roads; ranches and ranching-related features; cabins, buildings, and other
structures; towns and camps; dams and irrigation ditches; stockherder camps and trash scatters; trash
dumps; mines and mining facilities and debris; and oil and gas facilities.

Ranching

Although pioneering efforts were started in western Wyoming, the focus of the cattle industry was on
southeastern Wyoming. In 1862, the Homestead Act enabled ranchers to obtain 160 acres of free land;
additional acreage could be acquired under the Timber Culture Act of 1873 (160 acres), Preemption Act
of 1841 (160 acres at $1.25 per acre), and Desert Land Act of 1877 (640 acres at $1.25 per acre).
Ranchers usually patented land along a waterway to use as a base of operation while grazing their cattle
on surrounding public domain.

In the 1870s and 1880s, foreign capital was invested in the Wyoming cattle industry and syndicate
ranches began. British and Scottish interests invested $45 million in the American cattle business, much
of it in the Wyoming territory.

Competition and an increase in cattle diseases led to the erection of barbed-wire fences in Wyoming. The
continually growing cattle herds rapidly overstocked the range in tenns of grasses and available water,
and the hard winters of 1884-1887 caused tremendous losses of cattle. The open range system collapsed
as the large companies withdrew and paved the way for small ranchers.

Wyoming’s Red Desert became a traditional winter range for sheep, where flocks arriving from the west
in run-down condition regained their vigor before moving to higher summer pastures. Sheep adapted to
semi-desert country better than cattle because of their ability to go longer without water. Sheep could
obtain moisture by eating snow and could exist for a long time on dew collected on desert vegetation
(Wentworth 1948). Cattle empires had existed for at least 10 years prior to the advent of sheep ranching
in Wyoming (Vass and Pearson 1927), securing prime areas of grass and water. The one exception was
the vacant Red Desert; sheepmen quickly filled this void and remained there throughout Wyoming’s
history (Wentworth 1948).

By 1880, nearly all of the early sheep operations were located along the Union Pacific tracks for shipping
purposes (Rollins 1951; Wentworth 1948). Forty thousand head of sheep were shipped out of Wyoming
that year. With the decline of the cattle industry after the devastating blizzard of 1886, the sheep industry
made significant gains, and by 1900 there were 3.3 million head of sheep in Wyoming (Wentworth 1948).
The biggest jump in the number of sheep raised in Wyoming started in 1 897 when the market value of
sheep increased. By 1901, the price of sheep had doubled. Numbers reached an all-time high of 7 million
in 1910. Wyoming retained its position as one of the chief sheep producers in the country, and 25 percent
of the state’s sheep were raised in the Red Desert region (Ankeny 1956).

Today, evidence of both cattle and sheep ranching in the RMPPA can be found through homesteads,
ranches, sheepherder camps, and sheepherder cairns (sometimes used to demarcate grazing boundaries).

Transportation Routes

Transportation routes (i.e., trails, roads, and railroads) command a great amount of management attention
because of their overall historic importance in western settlement and expansion and their presence over
long distances within the RMPPA. Some of these properties are encountered on a frequent basis during

3-14

Ralins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildland Fire and Fuels

cultural resource inventories. The general locations of selected National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP)-eligible linear properties across the RMPPA are shown on Map 2-46.

The affected environment of historic trails — including the Overland Trail, Cherokee Trail, Rawlins to
Baggs Freight Road, and Rawlins to Fort Washakie Freight Road — is discussed in the historic trails
section of the document (3.13.2.2).

Union Pacific Railroad

U.S. Government surveys conducted for the transcontinental railroad in 1865 and 1866 located 10
possible routes for crossing the north/south-trending Continental Divide within a 300-mile area between
South Pass to the north and Pikes Peak to the south; most were impractical due to high elevations and
rough mountain terrain. Chief Engineer General Grenville Dodge recognized the South Pass emigrant
route to the north as the best from an engineering perspective, but the southern route had abundant coal
deposits, and it was 40 miles shorter and closer to Denver. The Lodgepole Creek route north of Cheyenne
and the Cache la Poudre River route were deemed the most satisfactory for crossing the Divide until, in
1 866, General Dodge located the final route west over the Laramie Range via Lodgepole Creek, Crow
Creek, and a natural ridge or gangplank that ascended gently to the summit. This route was shorter and
possessed less gradient per mile for construction to reach the summit at Evans Pass (renamed “Sherman
Pass”). The deep ravine at Dale Creek was an obstacle that required the construction of one of the largest
timber trestle bridges ever built; it was replaced with a steel bridge in 1876 (U.S. Congress, Senate 1866:
18-24; Beard 1933: 170; Larson 1978: 38-39; Homsher 1965: 18-20, 22).

Stansbury and Bryan had determined the practicality of an overland route around Elk Mountain in the
1 850s, and the discovery of coal deposits dictated the route of the Union Pacific (UP) through southern
Wyoming west of the Laramie Range. Geologist David Van Lennep discovered the initial coal deposit
near the future Carbon town site in 1867 (Klein 1987: 116), and Ferdinand V. Hayden’s scientific
exploration in 1868 located, surveyed, and recorded the prominent coal outcrops in the Carbon Basin, the
Medicine Bow River Valley, and west across southern Wyoming. This exploration finalized the route for
the UP portion of the transcontinental railroad already pushing west from Laramie in the spring of 1868
(Hayden 1873: 95; Dobbin et al. 1929: 3-4). Placement of the main line depended on the utilization of
coal resources located in a region devoid of timber (U.S. Congress, Senate 1886: 86, 179; Larson 1978:
39). The first coal mining operation in Wyoming Territory was at Carbon, and the problem of a
dependable fuel supply was alleviated by further coal discoveries at Rock Springs and Almy (Union
Pacific Coal Company 1940: 18, 27).

Construction of the UP and commercial coal development in the Carbon Basin began simultaneously. The
town of Carbon, with its associated mines, sprang up overnight in 1868 and provided employment to
those who came west. Homesteads were squatted and freighting continued along the Overland Trail for
another decade, connecting the small communities along the trail and outlying ranches with the UP
railheads to the north.

UP Railroad Construction Within the RFO RMPPA

The UP was constructed through southern Wyoming Territory during 1867 and 1868. Cheyenne was
established as an end-of-track town in July 1867 and remained so for 6 months, with Fort D.A. Russell
providing protection and an element of law and order. Laramie City was established in May 1868 as the
headquarters for construction throughout the year, with Fort Sanders (1866) offering protection. Benton
was established in July 3 miles west of Fort Steele (1868), but it lasted only a few months before it was
abandoned in late October/early November 1868. The UP was constructed to Evanston in December
1868, and the transcontinental line was completed at Promontory Summit, UT, on May 10, 1869 (Beard
1933: 169-179; Pence and Homsher 1956: 53-57; Homsher 1965; Larson 1978: 41-59, 62).

The original UP Railroad (RR) grade was abandoned in 1901, the tracks and ties were removed, and the
railroad was realigned and rebuilt. Much of the original grade has been impacted by pipelines, roads, and

Rawlins RMP

3-15

Chapter 3 — Wildland Fire and Fuels

Final EIS

other developments over time (as well as by the Lincoln Highway and the modem UPRR), but portions of
the original grade still remain and have been recorded in the RMPPA.

The Lincoln Highway

The origin of the modem highway system in Wyoming can be traced to the Session Laws of 1911, the
creation of the voluntary Wyoming Highways Association in 1912, and the national coast-to-coast
Lincoln Highway that was proposed in 1912-1913. Legislation passed in 1911 proposed several highway
routes that constituted the first system of state highways in Wyoming; these routes were designed to
systematically connect the vast interior regions of the state. Listed as the first of seven proposed highways
described in the Session Laws was a route to Yellowstone National Park from Cheyenne to Cody
(Wyoming State Legislature 1911: 58-59).

The Lincoln and Yellowstone Highways traversed diverse geographical regions of Wyoming and fostered
increased visitation to Wyoming. As a result, Yellowstone Park was opened to automobile traffic in 1915.
Both the state highway department and state highway commission were established in 1917 and
authorized to accept federal aid for road constmction on a matching basis. Funding for Wyoming highway
constmction was augmented in 1920 with the passage of the Oil and Gas Leasing Act, which paid
royalties to the state producing the oil and gas to be used for highway constmction (Beard 1933: 602-603,
626-628; Larson 1978: 407, 423^25, 431).

The route chosen in 1913 followed the basic course laid down by travelers on the Overland Trail and later
the UP railroad grade. Between 1919 and 1924, Wyoming completed its portion of the Lincoln Highway,
which realigned the 1913 route in many places. As of 1924, the most topographically direct route across
the state totaled 427 miles from Pine Bluffs west to Evanston and beyond to the Utah border. Instead of
using the Lincoln Highway Association’s engineering standards, Wyoming chose a design that met the
demands of the day and of the state’s budget. Within the right of way, the graded surface measured 24
feet wide, in the center of which was 16 feet of gravel, 5 inches thick. Drainage structures were of
corrugated metal or reinforced concrete. All bridges were constmcted of reinforced concrete.

From its inception, the Lincoln Highway from Pine Bluffs to Laramie was “good gravel” except the
portion between Buford and the Summit that was “graded gravel.” Between 1919 and 1920, the Wyoming
Highway Department completed an entirely new road between Cheyenne and Laramie eliminating many
difficult grades. The road was surfaced with Sherman gravel. Between Laramie and Medicine Bow, the
highway followed the road previously in existence; it was maintained in good repair (Lincoln Highway
Association 1924: 409^-16).

Wyoming completed a new road of “graded gravel” from Medicine Bow west to Rawlins during the early
1920s; an 80-foot bridge was built over the Medicine Bow River. At this time, there was criticism by
those who felt that the Lincoln Highway should pass through their respective towns or cities. In
Wyoming, a bitter struggle over the proposed route between Laramie and Rawlins was resolved only
when Governor Joseph M. Carey (1911-1915) issued a formal proclamation establishing the route as laid
out by the Association (Lincoln Highway Association 1935: 158; Beard 1933: 569).

Between 1920 and 1924, the state highway department reconstructed the road between Rawlins and
Wamsutter. The state appropriated the abandoned UP rail bed constructed of Sherman gravel. Bridges
were built and the rail bed was scraped down to provide additional width and crowned for highway traffic
(Larson 1978: 407; Lincoln Highway Association 1935: 238; 1924: 417-19). The road was reconstructed
between Wamsutter and Red Desert Station in 1920 following the existing road. From Red Desert Station
to Thayer Junction, the road was entirely relocated and reconstructed, including the addition of three
concrete bridges over 20 feet in length. From Thayer Junction to Rock Springs another new alignment
was constructed on the north side of the UP line, eliminating two grade crossings of the main line
(Lincoln Highway Association 1924: 421-24).

3-16

Ralins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildland Fire and Fuels

Portions of the highway were upgraded, rebuilt, and realigned in each succeeding decade up through the
1940s culminating in the construction of U.S. Highway 30. Remnants of the various grades are frequently
encountered in the RMPPA, although many have been altered or destroyed by Interstate 80 (1-80) and
U.S. Highway 30.

3.3.3 Native American Cultural Resources

Cultural resources that are considered sensitive and potentially sacred to modem Native American tribes
include burials, rock art, rock features and alignments (such as caims, medicine wheels, and stone
circles), Indian trails, and certain religiously significant natural landscapes and features. Some of these
resources may be formally designated as TCPs or Indian Sacred Sites. A TCP is a site considered eligible
for inclusion on the NRHP because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living
community that are (a) rooted in that community’s history and (b) important in maintaining the
continuing cultural identity of the community.

Indian Sacred Sites, as defined in Executive Order (EO) 13007, are “any specific, discrete, narrowly
delineated location on federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe, or Indian individual determined to
be an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established
religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion.” Indian Sacred Sites are not always
eligible for the NRHP; however, pursuant to the guidelines in EO 13007, they receive the same protective
measures as NRHP-eligible historic properties.

A cultural resource site is designated as a TCP or Indian Sacred Site only after consultation with tribal
representatives has occurred (Appendix 5). While archeologists may identify sites or specific site types as
potential TCPs or Indian Sacred Sites, identification and designation of such sites relies heavily on
information from tribal representatives. Likewise, one tribe may view a locality as a TCP or Indian Sacred
Site while another may not, depending on the cultural practices or beliefs of individual tribes.

3.3.4 Cultural Resource Management Use Allocations

As mandated in BLM Manual 8130, all cultural resources in the RMPPA must be allocated to a use
category. These categories include —

a. Scientific Use

b. Conservation for Future Use

c. Traditional Use

d. Public Use

e. Experimental Use

f. Discharged from Management.

The majority of prehistoric age cultural resources in the RMPPA are allocated to category (a), Scientific
Use, as this pertains to most historic and prehistoric archeological resources that are evaluated for
nomination to the NRHP under 36 CFR 60.4, Criterion D. NRHP-eligible cultural properties of this type
are significant for the scientific information they contain. These sites are preserved until their research
potential is realized, generally through data recovery investigations.

Archeological resources allocated to category (f), Discharged from Management, are those sites which
have no remaining identifiable use. Properties discharged from management remain in the inventory, but
they are removed from further management attention and do not constrain other land uses. Particular
classes of unrecorded cultural properties may be named and described in advance as dischargeable upon
documentation, but specific cultural properties must be inspected in the field and recorded before they
may be discharged from management.

Rawlins RMP

3-17

Chapter 3 — Wildland Fire and Fuels

Final EIS

Cultural resources in category (b), Conservation for Future Use, include significant properties that are
deemed worthy of segregation from all other land or resource uses, including cultural resource uses, that
would threaten the maintenance of present conditions or setting as pertinent. Properties assigned to this
category will remain in this use category until specified provisions are met in the future. One property in
the RMPPA, the Aimee Eaton Buffalo Kill Site, is allocated to this use category. Pursuant to a
memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer and BLM,
RFO, the site will remain under the jurisdiction of BLM until adequate mitigation measures have been
carried out. In addition, annual monitoring of the site will occur to determine whether any natural
erosional processes have adversely impacted the site.

Cultural resources in category (c), Traditional Use, include those properties that are important to the
identity, heritage, or well-being of specific social and/or cultural groups. In the RMPPA, this use category
pertains primarily to Native American sensitive sites and TCPs.

Category (d), Public Use, includes cultural properties appropriate for interpretative, educational, or
recreational uses by the general public. In the RMPPA, these would include the Overland Trail and other
select historic emigrant trails and associated properties. The JO Ranch, a private historic ranch complex
that is currently part of an ongoing exchange proposal, would be developed for public use once the
exchange is complete and the JO Ranch becomes public land.

Category (e), Experimental Use, would include cultural properties retained for controlled experimental
studies, generally using experimental techniques that would result in at least partial alteration or
destruction of the cultural resource. There are no cultural properties currently allocated to this use
category in the RMPPA.

3.4 Wildland Fire and Fuels

Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in the wildland fire and fuels management program.
Wildland fires in the RMPPA occur as the result of an act of nature, such as lightning, or are caused by
humans either accidentally or with the intent to cause damage. Prescribed fire is used for beneficial
purposes (such as reducing hazardous fuel accumulation) in a controlled manner under a specific
prescription and planned effort. Wildland fires resulting from an act of nature can sometimes be managed
to achieve resource objectives.

The response to a wildland fire is based on an evaluation of risks to firefighter and public safety; the
circumstances under which the fire has occurred, including weather and fuel conditions; natural and
cultural resource management objectives; protection priorities; and values to be protected. Wildland fire
can be used to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and, as nearly as possible, can be allowed to
function in its natural ecological role. The evaluation must also include an analysis of the context of the
specific fire within the overall local, geographic area, or national wildland fire situation. The full range of
fire management activities will be used to help achieve ecosystem stability, including its interrelated
ecological, economic, and social components.

3.4.1 Wildland Fire Occurrence and Ignition Sources

Lightning is the primary natural cause of wildland fire in the RMPPA. Natural ignitions occur throughout
the RMPPA, although some areas, such as the Seminoe Mountains and Laramie Range, have higher
wildland fire frequencies from lightning ignitions. Human-caused fires in the RMPPA have also been
widespread. The majority of human-caused fires have occurred along the 1-80 and railroad corridors,
primarily in sagebrush and grassland communities. Historically, wildland fires have also occurred in
camping and woodcutting areas by accidental ignition caused by fireworks, outdoor recreation fires, and

3-18

Ralins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildland Fire and Fuels

machinery. Fireworks and railroad-associated fires account for the majority of human-caused ignitions in
the RMPPA.

3.4.2 Fuels Management

Vegetation treatments are used in the Rawlins RMPPA to control the buildup of fuels and to meet the
needs of other resources (including rejuvenating areas where vegetation has become decadent and setting
back local succession so that diverse patches of habitat are present). Areas dominated by cheatgrass or
other invasive species are examined case by case during planning of prescribed bums. For more complete
discussion of prescribed fire and mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments, see Appendix 19.

3.4.3 Use of Wildland Fire

The use of wildland fire for resource benefit reduces fuel loading and the amount of effort needed to
control large fires, and allows wildland tire to function in its natural ecological role where possible. Map
2-1 designates areas where the use of wildland fire for resource benefit is most likely to occur.
Opportunities to use wildland fire in the checkerboard and mixed land ownership areas are limited but
would be pursued when wildland fire would not endanger private property.

3.4.4 Wildland Urban Interface

Approximately 215,000 acres have been identified in the Rawlins RMPPA as having Wildland Urban
Interface (WUI) characteristics (Map 2-1). WUIs are defined as communities in which humans and their
development meet or intermix with wildland fuel, where there is a high probability of wildland fire
occurrence. These areas contain large numbers of dispersed ranches and first and second homes. Sixty-
one at-risk communities are located in the RMPPA (Map 2-1). WUIs and other at-risk communities
receive priority for hazardous fuel reduction treatments. In addition, industrial developments located in
the RMPPA that are at risk from wildland fire also receive priority for fuel reduction treatments.

3.4.5 Community Assistance

Community assistance in the Rawlins RMPPA consists of cooperative agreements, training, rural
assistance, and monetary grants. There are currently six cooperative agreements concerning suppression
of wildland fires. Wildland fire training is coordinated with cooperators to meet their training needs.
Rural assistance and monetary grants have averaged between $80,000 and $110,000 annually. These
grants are designed to improve the training and equipment of cooperating fire departments for firefighter
and public safety.

3.4.6 The Role of Wildland Fire in Plant Communities of the RMPPA

Fire frequency and severity vary by plant community, and extensive suppression has altered natural fire
cycles in some areas. In some plant communities in the RMPPA, this accumulation has changed the
structure and composition of the vegetation community (i.e., resulted in the reduction of the natural
variation of vegetative communities) and could result in undesirable fire behavior and fire effects.
Drought also affects fire behavior and fire effects in many ways, such as by reducing the amount of fine
fuels and reducing fuel moisture content.

Using the ecological provinces described in the vegetation section, the Intermountain Semi-Desert
Province of shrublands, with pockets of aspen, limber pine, and juniper, historically would have
experienced fire frequencies of 3 5- 100-plus years, resulting in a mixed severity of effects on the
vegetation (Fire Regime III). The Great Plains Dry Steppe Province of mixed and short grass prairies
would have experienced a fire frequency of 0-35 years, with stand replacement effects (Fire Regime II).
The Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe-Open Woodland-Coniferous Forest Province consists of mixed

Rawlins RMP

3-19

Chapter 3 — Wildland Fire and Fuels

Final EIS

shrub communities, forests of pine and spruce in seven mountain ranges in the RMPPA, and alpine
tundra. Depending on the species, shrub communities would have experienced fire frequencies of 0-35
years with stand replacement severity (Fire Regime II) or frequencies of 3 5- 100-plus years with mixed
severity (Fire Regime III). The pine forests likely experienced fire frequencies of 35-100-plus years with
either mixed severities (Fire Regime III) or stand replacement severity (Fire Regime IV). Spruce forests
and alpine tundra areas with patches of spruce and fir trees burned with a 200-plus-year frequency with
stand replacement severity (Fire Regime V).

As noted above, unnatural fuel loading in forest stands and other vegetative types would be reduced
through prescribed fire and mechanical, chemical, or biological treatments for the purpose of restoring
ecological conditions or other desired vegetative conditions. Most prescribed bums in sagebmsh and
mountain shrub communities will occur in areas where the percentage cover of shrubs exceeds 30 percent.
To achieve objectives for prescribed fire in aspen stands in the RMPPA, the stand should have less than
40 percent canopy cover of aspen and at least 15 percent cover of sagebmsh, or have 40 percent to 60
percent conifer cover in the stand.

3.4.7 Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Fires will be evaluated as to whether emergency stabilization (actions to stabilize and prevent
unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural resources, minimize threats to life or property from the
effects of fire, or repair/replace/constmct physical improvements) is necessary to prevent degradation of
land or resources. The need for rehabilitation (efforts to repair or improve lands unlikely to recover to a
management-approved condition from wildland fire damage, or to repair or replace minor facilities
damaged by fire), including planting trees to reestablish burned habitat, reestablishing native tree species
lost in fire, repairing damage to minor facilities (campgrounds, exhibits, fences, guzzlers, etc.), restoring
habitat, treating invasive plants, maintaining roads/trails, restoring heritage sites, and replacing fences
when such damage is cause by wildland fire, will also be evaluated.

3-20

Ralins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Forest Management

3.5 Forest Management

Forested areas within the RMPPA boundaries mainly are located within several mountainous areas:
Shirley Mountain, located in the north-central part of the RMPPA; Elk Mountain, located in the south-
central part of the RMPPA; Ferris Mountains Wilderness Study Area (WSA), located in the north-central
part of the RMPPA; Seminoe Mountain; Bennett Mountain; Powder Rim; and the Laramie Peaks area.
There are also a number of forested areas on the fringe of the national forest boundaries (Map 3-1). Forest
acreage within the RMPPA is small compared with the RMPPA’ s total area. Total acreage of forested
land managed by BLM within the RMPPA is 196,934, or approximately 1 percent of the total area.

The condition or health of forest stands varies by location. The general absence of large fires over the past
80 years has made forests more susceptible to disease such as dwarf mistletoe, mountain pine beetle
infestations, and newly introduced diseases such as white pine blister rust, which has increased the
mortality rate and the amount of dead standing timber in federal forests. In addition, species such as
lodgepole pine (Appendix 28) have not experienced the natural regenerative properties of fire. Conifers
are encroaching on aspen stands, limiting aspen regeneration. Along with conifer encroachment, disease
and insect damage are also playing a major role in the increasing mortality rate of older mature aspen
clones. There has also been a decline in timber harvesting over the past decade, allowing for additional
buildup of overall biomass. The majority of commercial timber in the RMPPA is located within the
Shirley Mountain and Elk Mountain areas. Descriptive summaries of the forest resources within these two
areas follow.

3.5.1 Shirley Mountain Forest

The Shirley Mountains are a relatively isolated mountain range in the northern portion of Carbon County
in south-central Wyoming. They are located entirely within the RMPPA and contain a mixture of BLM-
managed public lands, state lands, and private land parcels. This forest encompasses approximately
22,843 acres of federal lands within the RMPPA. The Shirley Mountains provide diverse resource values
and uses, such as forests, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, minerals, watershed, livestock
grazing, communication sites, and cultural resources.

The condition of forest resources in the Shirley Mountain Forest is discussed below by forest type.
Because of differences in forest management practices, the condition of BLM-managed public parcels and
private parcels that have been timbered differs markedly. Diversity is low not only from the standpoint of
relative acreage in the different forest types but also because of diversity within different successional
stages for all these forest types. This condition is primarily due to the lack of stand-replacing disturbances
over the past 80 years.

Lodgepole Pine Forest

The lodgepole pine forest type, comprising approximately 9,860 acres, is the result of past stand-replacing
wildland fires, dating from the 1860s to the 1910s. This forest type is generally healthy but will decline in
vigor and productivity as the forest becomes more decadent. In addition, there are insect and disease
concerns that may compromise future health. Infestations of pine beetles and dwarf mistletoe are
apparent. Current age class distribution is heavily unbalanced toward the mature age class, reflecting the
long period since the last fires.

Spruce-Fir Forest

The major species component of the spruce-fir forest type is subalpine fir, with occasional Engelmann
spruce. This forest type is found on only about 330 acres of the Shirley Mountain Forest. It is even-aged
and fairly young considering the longevity of Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir. Spruce-fir exists as

Rawlins RMP

3-21

Chapter 3 — Forest Management

Final EIS

small, isolated stands away from the large acreages of dense lodgepole pine and has the same date of
origin as its neighboring stands. Old, remnant lodgepole pine trees are not found in the spruce-fir stands.
Occurrence of the spruce-fir forest type is probably a result of less-intense wildland fire in the area and an
available seed source. There is also an established understory (more than 50 trees per acre) of young
subalpine fir seedlings and/or saplings on about 5,877 acres of lodgepole pine and aspen forest. These
forested areas will convert to subalpine fir forests, but this process may take 1 00 years or more and will
occur only if there are no wildland fires.

Aspen Forest

Comprising about 810 acres, the aspen forest type, like the spruce-fir type, is not well represented in the
area. Aspen are found primarily on steep, rocky slopes or in low, wet areas; therefore, opportunities for
management are limited. In addition, conifer invasion is occurring in most of the aspen stands, which
could result in further reductions in aspen presence. Barring major surface disturbance (e.g., fire,
mechanical treatment), the majority of the aspen stands will eventually be replaced by conifers. However,
this conversion is not anticipated to occur within the next 20 years. Aspen is a minor component in more
than one-third of the lodgepole pine stands. Removal of the conifers would promote aspen regeneration.

Woodland Forest

The majority (11,843 acres) of the forested land in the Shirley Mountains is woodland forest type. The
most common tree species is limber pine. Juniper woodlands also occur. The trend in vegetative structure
in this type of forest is toward increasing tree density. The existing vegetation allows seedlings to
establish in previously open areas. This filling-in will increase crown cover and reduce forage for wild
and domestic ungulates.

3.5.2 Elk Mountain Forest

Elk Mountain is located in the southeast quarter of Carbon County, just north of the Medicine Bow
National Forest. BLM administers approximately 5,670 acres of forested land in this area.

Forest types in this area change in relation to elevation. In the subalpine zone, at 9,000 to 11,000 feet,
Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir dominate. In the area below this elevation, the forest type is almost
exclusively lodgepole pine. Below the lodgepole pine is an area of mixed lodgepole pine and Douglas fir.
Aspen, limber pine, scattered ponderosa pine, some Douglas fir, and lodgepole pine predominantly cover
the foothills of Elk Mountain. The more productive forest stands are located on areas with a north-to-
northeast aspect. Stands that occur on the west and south slopes of the mountain are not as productive.

Forests on Elk Mountain are not in good condition. Past cutting practices, often in the form of high
grading, along with past insect infestations and fire suppression have resulted in a deteriorating forest
resource on Elk Mountain on both public and private land. Many acres have had poor natural
regeneration. Dwarf mistletoe occurs on all coniferous species on Elk Mountain, with considerable
damage appearing in lodgepole pine. The condition of forest resources in the Elk Mountain Forest is
discussed below by forest type.

Lodgepole Pine Forest

On Elk Mountain, 1,083 acres consist of the lodgepole pine forest type. The majority of lodgepole stands
have reached their recommended rotation age of 100 years; thus, growth has slowed. Some patches have
severely deteriorated. Virtually all of the lodgepole stands owe their origin to fires that occurred in the
1 800s. Because of extensive even-aged lodgepole pine stand growth, overcrowding occurs. Lodgepole
pine is generally considered a long-lived serai species, with subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce being the
eventual climax species. Situations do exist, however, in which serai species remain on site instead of

3-22

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Forest Management

being replaced by normal climax species. In such situations, the lodgepole pine could be considered the
climax tree species.

The Douglas fir forest type is generally found in association with lodgepole pine in this area, on the lower
reaches of the mountain. Many of these trees are residual trees from prior stands.

Spruce-Fir Forest

Subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce are generally becoming established under much of the lodgepole
pine, following forest succession into a climax forest. There are large areas where subalpine fir constitutes
a major portion of the overstory. Engelmann spruce occupies a mixed conifer forest with subalpine fir, the
latter being the first species to grow. Spruce stands make up approximately 2,486 acres of the Elk
Mountain Forest.

Aspen Forest

Aspen occupy wet draws and drainages on Elk Mountain. Aspen stands generally provide an overstory for
subalpine fir seedlings, with the probability that the stand will eventually reach a spruce-fir climax
condition. Many of the aspen stands are disease-ridden and of poor quality.

Woodland Forest

Limber pine occupies the more exposed and harsh sites throughout the area. The drier south-facing slopes
on Elk Mountain are often covered with widely spaced limber pine. In some locations, the limber pine
appears to be invading sagebrush-covered meadows, competing successfully with the deep-rooted
sagebrush. After the limber pine has been established for several decades, a desirable environment for
other tree species, such as lodgepole pine, develops, and the species composition of the site changes.

Rawlins RMP

3-23

Chapter 3 — Lands and Realty

Final EIS

3.6 Lands and Realty

The RMPPA manages approximately 3.5 million acres of public land. Resources and uses of the land are
diverse, ranging from oil and gas development to grazing, wildlife habitat, and recreation. The current
land use environment is characterized by an increase in development by the oil and gas industry and in
private and urban development. The expected increase in oil and gas production, as well as the potential
for development of alternative energy sources such as wind energy, is likely to have a greater impact on
land distribution and use in the near future. Changes in the ownership of surrounding private land also
have an impact on the development of public lands. The most important characteristic of such ownership
changes may be the resultant fragmentation and isolation of segregated parcels of public land.

Land ownership within the RMPPA is shown in Map 1-2. The most prominent land resource feature in
the RMPPA is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. This swath
of land is approximately 40 miles wide and runs from east to west across the entire RMPPA. The
checkerboard pattern, with alternating sections of private and public land, runs 20 miles to the south and
20 miles to the north of the UP railroad line. Each section in the checkerboard is 1 mile square.
Ownership is divided among private land, BLM-managed public land, and state land.

Over time, little consolidation has taken place in the checkerboard area, the principal control and use of
the surface being by the livestock industry. However, over the past 20 years there has been a trend of
selling private lands to realtors, who then sell 40-acre tracts to willing buyers seeking to “own a piece of
the West.” As this ownership and land use changes in the future, there is potential for management of the
public lands to become much more complicated, with potential conflicts and increased impacts to BLM-
administered portions of the checkerboard. Over the past 12 years, Carbon County has developed a land
use plan and zoning regulations to guide land development for preserving values such as open space and
crucial wildlife habitat, protecting private property rights, and maintaining efficient services by promoting
rural expansion closer to existing communities and infrastructure. Where similar values exist, BLM
management prescriptions and permitted action should facilitate the planning and zoning implemented by
Carbon County. Values on adjacent public lands benefit from these policies but would be better protected
while ensuring that private land values are maintained if further land surface exchanges were to occur.

Land and mineral ownership acreages and whether they are covered by RMP decisions are shown in
Table 1-1. Generally, RMP decisions cover all BLM-managed federal surface lands and their underlying
minerals, whether the minerals are federally or nonfederally owned, and nonfederal surface underlain by
BLM-managed minerals. Federally owned mineral rights are shown in Map 1-3.

3.6.1 Land Ownership Adjustment

Under the disposal criteria of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), about
63,460 acres were identified for consideration of disposal. However, that acreage figure was reduced to
46,230 because parcels that contain legal access across them were eliminated from consideration for
disposal. Lands identified for disposal under Sections 203 and 206 of FLPMA and identified as such in
this plan are hereby classified for disposal under Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 as amended
(43 USC 315f) under EO 6910, and under 43 CFR 2400. Exchanges are subject to the procedures outlined
in CFR 43, Chapter II, Part 2200, Sections 0-6.

The RFO staff considers land exchanges on a case-by-case basis, as they are proposed. All lands
considered for disposal through FLPMA sale must meet one or more of the criteria outlined in Section
203(a) of FLPMA. These criteria characterize lands for potential disposal as lands that are difficult or
uneconomical to manage; lands acquired for a specific purpose but no longer required for that or another
federal purpose; or lands that will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to
expansion of communities and economic development, that outweigh other public objectives and values.

3-24

Ralins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Lands and Realty

3.6.2 Withdrawals/Classifications

Withdrawals and classifications are typically placed on land or minerals to protect resource values or
existing facilities, although they can selectively prohibit some management actions that would otherwise
protect additional resource values. Most of the withdrawals and classifications that have been put in place
at various times have prohibited mineral and agricultural entry and disposal, but some have also
prohibited nonmetal liferous mineral entry and disposal of coal, limited rather than prohibited mineral
entry, or protected water sources. Withdrawals and classifications are periodically reviewed to see
whether they are serving their intended purpose and may be revoked if they are not.

Current withdrawals of public land comprise approximately 935,530 acres (Table 3-4) within the RMPPA
(Valentine 2002). In the past, the largest withdrawals have been made for coal, oil shale, and stock
driveways, with coal representing the largest withdrawal at over 600,000 acres. Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR) lands and public water reserves constitute more than 120,000 acres. The remaining acres that have
been withdrawn include wildlife refuges, air navigation sites, power sites, and administrative sites.

Table 3-4. Withdrawal Summary

Type of Withdrawal

Acreage1

Stratton Hydrology

2,694

Administrative Sites (BLM)

93

Administrative Sites (USFS)

720

Reclamation (BOR)

73,290

Wildlife Refuges

3,915

Air Navigation Sites (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA])

440

Public Water Reserves2

46,095

Oil Shale

564,758

Coal Withdrawals

610,170

Power Sites3 4 5

5,150

Stock Driveways3

263,258

Total Existing Withdrawals4 5

935,530

Because of land surface overlaps, acreage figures for individual areas do not add up to the total
acreage value.

2 The original public water reserve withdrawals included segregation against the location of
nonmetalliferous minerals. Withdrawal review reports completed in 1982 revealed that this
segregation is unnecessary to protect the water sources. Public Water Reserve 107 also said
that all water sources existing on the date of the withdrawal order were protected and withdrawn
even if they were not noted to the official records. Therefore, 4,850 acres of previously
unrecorded water sources are included.

Public water reserves withdrawn under Secretarial Order 107 and other classification orders will
be reviewed to determine if they meet the retention requirements of legal opinions of the
Solicitor of the Department of the Interior and the agreement made between the State of
Wyoming and the Department of Justice (for the Department of the Interior) concerning the
adjudication of water rights. Withdrawals will be terminated on public water reserves that do not
meet retention requirements.

3 These withdrawals segregate the land against operation of the public land laws but not the 1872
General Mining Law.

4 Except for power sites and stock driveways, these withdrawals segregate the land against
operation of the public land laws and from mineral location under the 1872 General Mining
Law.

5 These withdrawals are scheduled for future review. Recommendations from the reviews will be
arrived at on a case-by-case basis. It is possible that portions of the BOR withdrawals may be

Rawlins RMP

3-25

Chapter 3 — Lands and Realty

Final EIS

revoked, returning the lands to the jurisdiction of BLM.

3.6.3 Utility/Transportation System

Leases and rights-of-way (ROW) grants are spread throughout the RMPPA. The majority of leases and
grants within the RMPPA are for oil and gas development. Wind energy rights-of-way (Map 3-2) on
BLM-managed land comprise approximately 17,000 acres, with 35 turbines (as of mid-2002) on public
land.

3.6.4 Transportation and Utility Right-of-Way Corridors

Existing major transportation and utility ROWs (Map 2-2) provide an adequate net (de facto corridor) for
the placement and development of future ROWs. Current ROWs are sufficient to meet the priorities for
interstate transmission of telephone communication, electric power, fluid mineral resources, and interstate
commercial and private travel. These facilities include —

• The state and interstate highway system (1-80 and 1-25), Federal Highway 287, and State Routes
789 and 230

• Major natural gas delivery systems (i.e., Sinclair pipeline system from Sinclair, Wyoming, to
Billings, Montana; CIG pipeline from Greasewood, Colorado, to Wamsutter, Wyoming; Lost
Creek pipeline from Crooks Gap to Wamsutter; Exxon/Frontier Pipeline in the northwest portion
of the RMPPA; Pioneer/Conoco pipeline from Croydon, Utah, to Sinclair, Wyoming, along the I-
80 corridor; and 1-80 and 1-25 highway routes utilized for major natural gas pipeline
transportation routes)

• Electric transmission lines (i.e., Wyoming Area Power Administration [WAP A] electric power
delivery system corridor from Seminoe Reservoir to Cheyenne; the power line located in the
northwest portion of the RMPPA, from 1-80 heading north-northeast to the RMPPA boundary;
the Spence-Bairoil-Jim Bridger 230 kV transmission line; and the electric transmission line
running northeast from Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Nebraska).

These corridors, with the exception of the WAPA line, Federal Highway 287, and State Route 789, satisfy
future needs for energy transmission and are identified by the 1993 Western Utility Group (WUG)
Western Regional Corridor Study.

3.6.5 Land Consolidations

Land is consolidated through fee or easement acquisition, exchange, condemnation, and donation
processes. Currently, there are no active efforts to consolidate land within the RMPPA. However,
proposals are currently being evaluated, and RFO staff members will consider any proposal in relation to
land exchange criteria (Appendix 6), determining future action based on the proposal’s merits.

3-26

Ralins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Livestock Grazing

3.7 Livestock Grazing

The livestock grazing on BLM-managed public lands are primarily cattle, but also include sheep, and to a
lesser extent horses and bison. The numbers of these grazing livestock have varied in response to their
economic value as a commodity (cattle, sheep, and bison) and their use in ranching operations (horses).

3.7.1 Historic Use

Livestock first entered Wyoming during the 1840s as people moved westward along the trails to
California, Oregon, and Utah. However, livestock associated with permanent ranching operations were
not established until the transcontinental railroad was constructed during the 1860s. Cattle initially were
the principal type of grazing animal, but the severe winter of 1886-87 opened the door for sheep
operations, which was the dominant livestock use until after World War II. Sheep numbers have steadily
declined since the 1940s and now amount to about one-third of the current cattle numbers. Figure 3-34
outlines the state trends in sheep and cattle numbers since 1920, which should also be representative for
the Rawlins RMPPA. In 1920, 24.1 percent of the livestock were cattle, dropping to 17.7 percent in 1940,
and then rising to 73.5 percent in 2000. Horses, although never as numerous as sheep and cattle, were
more common in the first half of the century before motorized vehicles reduced ranchers’ reliance on
them. Bison, which were nearly eliminated as a species prior to 1900, have been returned to their native
ranges by a few private operations since the 1 980s.

Congressional legislation has played an important role over time in guiding the management of public
rangelands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 ended the status of unregulated common lands by laying out
a process to establish livestock grazing districts and carrying capacities. Inventories conducted between
the 1940s and 1960s were used to adjust livestock stocking rates, and the first allotment management
plans in the RMPPA were developed in the late 1960s. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 defined BLM’s multiple-use mandate with management balanced among all resources values, and
led to more defined and standardized land use plans and inventories that were conducted from the late
1970s to the mid-1980s. Management of riparian and wetland habitat, which had been lacking in previous
allotment plans, became a focus for livestock management following these efforts.

3.7.2 Current Use

The percentage of actual use by cattle and sheep on public lands over a recent 10-year period ( 1 991—
2000) is presented in Table 3-5. The average use by all livestock in this table is about 274,000 animal unit
months (AUM), with a range from 187,755 to 344,572 AUMs. The rise in livestock use depicted in this
table occurred following a very dry period between 1988 and 1991. Although this region continues to
reflect a long-term hydrologic drought documented through river and stream flow measurements, the
amount and timing of precipitation through this period were generally good for forage growth to support
livestock grazing. Livestock use typically varies due to forage conditions, market prices, and changes in
livestock operations. Since most of these operations have existed for three to four generations, adjusting
to varying climate conditions, including drought, is a normal aspect of annual grazing management. In
addition to modifying livestock numbers and use, other practices include locating additional pasture,
weaning and/or shipping early, and increasing the use of irrigated, private lands.

Table 3-5. Livestock Actual Use in Animal Unit Months (AUM) tor the RMPPA

from 1991 to 2000

Year

Cattle Actual
Use (AUMs)

Sheep Actual
Use (AUMs)

Total Actual Use
(AUMs)

Percent Cattle
Use (AUMs)

1991

158,670

29,085

187,755

84.5%

Rawlins RMP

3-27

Chapter 3 — Livestock Grazing

Final EIS

Year

Cattle Actual
Use (AUMs)

Sheep Actual
Use (AUMs)

Total Actual Use
(AUMs)

Percent Cattle
Use (AUMs)

1992

173,422

29,015

202,437

85.7%

1993

212,129

37,496

249,625

85.0%

1994

224,270

32,503

256,773

87.3%

1995

228,893

31,172

260,065

88.0%

1996

280,655

31,433

312,088

89.9%

1997

278,748

30,977

309,725

90.0%

1998

273,561

26,591

300,152

91.1%

1999

318,098

26,474

344,572

92.3%

2000

294,329

21,855

316,184

93.1%

Mean Actual Use

244,278

29,660

273,938

89.2%

Several other recent factors that influence livestock numbers and management have been high numbers of
wild horses that exceeded appropriate management levels, large increases in elk populations across
Wyoming and neighboring states, and expansion of invasive poisonous plants due to surface disturbance
activities relating to oil and gas development. Voluntary nonuse of livestock AUMs in the Adobe Town
Wild Horse Herd Management Area (HMA) from 2002 to 2004 amounted to 50 percent, 80 percent, and
90 percent of the livestock preference (approximately 26,000 AUMs) in allotments within the HMA
boundary. Additional loss of AUMs occurred in allotments outside the HMA as wild horses moved to
find forage and water. Elk populations have increased several-fold across Wyoming, and interstate herds
move between this state and Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Utah. Elk prefer to eat grasses and therefore
have a high overlap in diet with both cattle and wild horses. Elk and wild horses often share the same
winter range and must be factored into livestock grazing management and range condition. Expansion of
poisonous invasive species like Halogeton may also lead to higher levels of nonuse, particularly by sheep
and to a lesser extent by cattle (see weeds section for further discussion). The trend of shifting from sheep
to cattle, discussed under 3.7.1, Historic Use, has continued (based on licensed livestock use within the
Rawlins RMPPA). The percentage of cattle use, in AUMs has increased from 84.5 percent in 1991 to 93.1
percent in 2000.

There is a total of 582 grazing allotments within the Rawlins RMPPA (Table A29-1 in Appendix 29 and
Map 3-3). These are spread across 3,492,744 acres of public land (52.9 percent), other federal land
(0.8 percent), state land (5.3 percent), and private land (40.9 percent). Allotments range in size from 20
acres to 291,954 acres of public land. There are 222 allotments that contain 640 acres (one section) or less
of public land, 160 allotments that contain between 640 and about 2,500 acres of public land, 115
allotments that contain between 2,500 and 10,000 acres, and 80 allotments that each contain more than
10,000 acres of public land. These 80 allotments make up 76 percent of the public land in the Rawlins
RMPPA. The public and other federal lands that BLM administers grazing upon provide 469,575 AUMs
for grazing use. The number of AUMs continues to fluctuate for various reasons. Reductions occur as a
result of such actions as sheep-to-cattle conversions or following changes in season or duration of use.
Over the past 15 years, there have also been increases in AUMs, with an additional 4,225 AUMs
becoming available due to improvements in management and forage availability. Other actions taken to
achieve the objectives identified in the land use plan include the use of best management practices in
activity plans for livestock, wild horses, and watershed and other managed resources.

Of the 582 allotments in the Rawlins RMPPA, 87 percent are used by cattle alone, 9 percent are used by
cattle and sheep, and 1.4 percent are used by sheep alone. Cattle share five allotments with licensed
domestic horses, there is one allotment with cattle and bison, four allotments are used by horses alone,
and one is used by goats. Small numbers of horses used in ranching operations are also licensed in other

3-28

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Livestock Grazing

allotments. Nine allotments currently do not have permitted livestock use. Two of these are wildlife
management units where the private lands are controlled by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department
(WGFD), and grazing use is authorized on a temporary, non-renewable basis in conjunction with WGFD.
Other private lands with attached public land grazing have been purchased by individuals who are not in
the livestock business. The public lands in these allotments are relatively small, and may be managed for
other resource or uses (i.e., wildlife habitat or recreation), incorporated into a neighboring allotment, or
identified for sale or exchange. Table A29-1 in Appendix 29 outlines the public, other federal, private,
and state acreage per allotment; the total federal AUMs; the class of livestock; the timing of grazing; and
the grazing management of each allotment.

Improvement projects and grazing systems, which have become known as “best management practices”
(BMP) have been under way for the past 40 to 50 years. These efforts have occurred singly or
cooperatively among livestock permittees, the University of Wyoming Extension Service, and state and
federal agencies. The efforts have been further improved over the past 10 years through education
workshops and seminars, federal and nonprofit cost-sharing opportunities, and more active participation
by local conservation districts in all aspects of this process. The goal of such efforts is to enable sustained
livestock use without damaging the vegetation and watershed resource while supporting the presence of
healthy wildlife, fish, and wild horse populations. Grazing management plans are devised with
consideration of other resource values, vegetation production and type, topography, water locations, and
needs of the livestock owner.

Historic priorities for improved livestock management usually addressed the larger blocks of public land,
followed by resource issues, particularly condition of watersheds in general, and, more recently, riparian
habitat. Of the 80 largest allotments, 75 percent have grazing systems or adequate management for the
resources present. These allotments received the majority of attention since 1983 under the previous
national direction and RMP ranking of allotments into I (improve), M (maintain), and C (custodial)
categories. This old system of ranking allotments has been replaced with the rangeland health assessments
developed during the mid-1990s. These assessments, including the current guidance for evaluating
rangeland standards on a watershed basis, will widen the management focus to all problem areas that
relate to meeting these standards, with less emphasis on the amount of public land involved and no
limitation to just the impacts from livestock grazing. The process of reviewing all allotments, resolving
management issues, and monitoring to document change will result in less focus on (more-intensive)
allotment management plans. In the first 8 years of evaluating Standards for Healthy Rangelands, 396
allotments (3.3 million acres of public land) have been assessed, with 73 allotments (18 percent) failing to
meet one or more standards due to livestock management. Adjustments to livestock management have
already occurred on three out of every five allotments, most of which relate to the Riparian/Wetland
Habitat Health Standard due to the season and/or duration of livestock use. Standards have also not been
met due to wild horse use, wildlife use, oil and gas development, weed expansion, gradient adjustments,
and plant succession/community decadence. (See Appendix 8, Monitoring Methods to Assess Wyoming
Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands).

Grazing systems are defined in the following seven categories:

• Permit Long. Grazing occurs for part of or for the duration of the permitted time, often lasting
from late spring through fall.

• Year-Long Permit. Grazing is permitted for any time during the year.

• Rotation. Grazing is rotated during the growing season between pastures in the allotment to
provide partial growing season rest before use or recovery time after use.

• Deferred Rotation. Grazing is rotated between pastures or allotments to provide full growing
season rest every second or third year.

Rawlins RMP

3-29

Chapter 3 — Livestock Grazing

Final EIS

• Dormant Season. Grazing occurs after seed-set by grasses; includes late summer, fall, and/or
winter grazing.

• Split Season. Grazing occurs during two separate time periods, by removing livestock from the
allotment and returning them later in the year to provide partial growing season rest.

• Rest Rotation. Grazing is rotated between pastures, with each pasture receiving no grazing use
for an entire year, usually every third or fourth year.

Within the Rawlins RMPPA, 56 percent of allotments are used on a permit-long basis, 20 percent are
managed with a deferred rotation system, and 16 percent are managed with a rotation system. Four
percent of allotments are permitted for year-long use that often are used as utility pastures when needed.
Dormant season, split season, and rest rotation management systems make up the balance of the
allotments, in order by their percentage of use. Although the majority of allotments are listed as used on a
permit-long basis, this should not be interpreted as ineffective management. As described above, 38
percent of allotments contain 640 acres or fewer of public land and 58 percent of allotments contain 2,500
acres or fewer of public land. These areas have received the least amount of attention from BLM in the
past, but the private owners, often in conjunction with conservation districts or the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, implement management plans on their own. The emphasis for livestock
management within the Rawlins RMPPA is to promote partial growing season rest by livestock on all
allotments to maintain or improve plant vigor and health.

The single most contentious issue relating to livestock grazing is fencing. As a result of the historically
high numbers of sheep grazing in this region, the favored type of fence construction was 24- to 32-inch
mesh fence with two-three barbed wires on top. Although very practical in helping herders control sheep,
this type of fence is difficult for small animals and antelope in general to pass under or through, and can
also catch mule deer and elk due to the close wire spacing at the top. With the conversion of most grazing
operations from sheep to cattle, the need for these sheep-tight fences is gone. Current fence standards
provide for three and four wire fence constructions that are more favorable for wildlife movement while
still providing for control of cattle. Exceptions are made where cattle are more concentrated, including
areas such as roundup pastures, riparian exclosures, and drainage crossings. However, the amount of
fencing needed to be converted is estimated at over 1,000 miles. Fences are being converted in priority
areas, where there are partners involved, as older fences need to be replaced, and as labor and funding
allow. Over the past 10 years, 26 miles of fence have been converted.

3.7.3 Results of Rangeland Best Management Practice Application

Rangeland BMPs have been implemented since the 1980s on many allotments to solve problems
particular to vegetation type, topography, availability of water, and the needs of the grazing operations.
The following subsections present examples of successful BMPs used on individual allotments to
improve grazing and ecological stability (selected by range staff who work on the allotments) and
describe the management change and results in these allotments.

Pine Grove-Bolten Allotment

The 277,369 acres of the Pine Grove/Bolten Allotment include public (120,012 acres), private (148,017
acres), and state (9,340 acres) holdings. Grazing management has improved, and resource-oriented
objectives have been established with the current permittee. Many range improvements have been
completed within the allotment, which have greatly supported grazing flexibility. These include additional
fencing (55 miles, 34 of which are electric) that has resulted in more than 50 pastures within the allotment
instead of the original 21 large pastures. Many water developments have also been completed: 70 wells,
30 miles of pipelines, 18 spring developments, and 11 reservoirs. A long-term vegetation treatment
program to diversify habitat has also been developed; during 2001-2003, 12,100 acres were treated with

3-30

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Livestock Grazing

tebuthiuron (Spike), and a prescribed bum is being planned. Control of noxious weeds through a
cooperative effort of BLM, Carbon County Weed and Pest, and the livestock operator is ongoing.
WDEQ-WQD has determined that McKinney and Sage Creek have impaired water quality within the
allotment. Both of these streams drain areas of highly erosive shale formations (Niobrara), and in turn
carry sediment loads that exceed beneficial use standards. Because the current permittee has improved
grazing management, portions of McKinney Creek have been removed from the Wyoming 303(d) list of
impaired streams. Work continues along Sage Creek, including intensive water quality monitoring and
improvements on diversions that were engineered to reduce siltation. The pennittee has hired consultants
who, along with BLM, monitor range conditions and improvements in the allotment.

Riner Allotment

The 56,962 acres of the Riner Allotment include federal (26,530), private (28,998 acres), and state (1,434
acres) holdings. Water development, improved livestock management, and electric fences are
management practices that have been implemented in the Riner Allotment. The current permittee acquired
the permitted use on public land within the Riner Allotment in 1993. The allotment is in a mixed-
ownership, checkerboard land pattern, with less than 50 percent public land. The permittee immediately
changed the livestock management from essentially a permit-long use cycle to rotation, especially within
the largest pasture. To accomplish this, existing water sources were improved and additional water
sources were developed, on both public and private land. The rotation within the largest pasture initially
relied on extensive herding of livestock, which soon proved impractical. Electric fences have since been
constructed to split the largest pasture into five smaller pastures. With these changes, conditions near the
water sources that existed prior to 1993 have greatly improved. Conditions throughout the allotment also
appear to have improved.

Beaver Hills Allotment

The 4,832 acres of the Beaver Hills Allotment include public (960 acres) and private (3,872 acres)
holdings. Although the Beaver Hills Allotment was originally categorized as Custodial, the current
livestock operator is enthusiastic about developing a cooperative management plan for the unit, with the
goal of benefiting the livestock operation as well as important big game species habitat. A deferred
rotation grazing system is currently employed on the allotment; this system uses short-duration grazing
treatments after early summer but before moving the livestock onto summer USFS grazing allotments. A
prescribed bum was completed during 2002 and 2004 in four pastures to improve forage conditions,
wildlife habitat values, and watershed health. Several spring developments are planned to protect
important riparian habitat and to improve livestock distribution. Cooperators include BLM, WGFD, the
landowner, and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Important big game habitat, including
bighorn sheep winter range, winter and crucial winter elk range, and transitional habitat for mule deer,
will be enhanced through this process.

Doty Mountain Allotment

The 84,008 acres of the Doty Mountain Allotment include public (59,504 acres), private (22,904 acres),
and state (1,600 acres) holdings. The main stem of Muddy Creek flows through the Doty Mountain
Allotment in the southwestern portion of the Rawlins RMPPA. Objectives established on the Doty
Mountain Allotment included enhanced bank cover, increased stream width-to-depth ratio, improved
herbaceous species composition, riparian shrub regeneration, decreased upland shrub density and
diversified age structure, and improved waterfowl habitat. These objectives were attained through
improving livestock distribution, deferring grazing past the hot season, and creating riparian pastures.
Implemented BMPs included converting the two-pasture rotation to a nine-pasture rotation, which defers
grazing in five riparian pastures until late summer or early fall. Use of the remaining pastures varies from
2 to 10 weeks, depending on pasture size and the season of use. Ongoing research on sensitive fish

Rawlins RMP

3-31

Chapter 3 — Livestock Grazing

Final EIS

species in Muddy Creek will be incorporated in future adjustments to livestock management. Range
improvements include 10 upland water developments and 28 miles of pasture fencing, as well as 2 well
and pipeline projects. Range vegetation on 3,500 acres was treated using bums and Spike. Constmcted
ponds and wetlands created 220 acres for wildlife habitat as well. Photographs, vegetation inspections,
and riparian cross-section survey data show major improvements in bank cover, channel morphology, and
enhanced species composition. Livestock conception rates have also improved.

Grizzly Allotment

The 38,091 acres of the Grizzly Allotment include public (27,533 acres), private (1,226 acres), and state
(9,332 acres) holdings. WGFD controls the private land within this allotment and leases the cattle use to a
private livestock operator. Before 1 990, a rest rotation system was in place with seven pastures. There are
currently 12 pastures and several new water developments, such as spring improvements and reservoir
constmction. Recent vegetation treatments, consisting of three prescribed bums and two Spike treatments,
have reduced shrub cover and increased herbaceous plant diversity. Improvement in both riparian and
upland conditions has resulted, and the recent allotment evaluation suggested that there is increased
vegetation production in the allotment. Littlefield Creek and Muddy Creek within the allotment have both
been removed from the Wyoming 303(d) list of impaired streams. The Grizzly Allotment was the primary
target for the reintroduction of Colorado River cutthroat trout (a sensitive species); a portion of this effort
was completed in 2001, with the remainder achieved in 2006.

Monument Draw Allotment

The 15,417 acres of the Monument Draw Allotment include only public holdings. Livestock
management, water development, and vegetation treatment are a few of the BMPs instituted within the
allotment. A new permittee acquired the permitted use within the allotment in 1997. The season of use
was extended, with a more intensive management system using the two existing pastures and available
water sources. Additional water sources were needed for the more intensive management. The new
permittee cleaned and repaired existing reservoirs and also extended a livestock water pipeline. Livestock
watering sources continue to be developed, including additions to the pipeline. The allotment had also
been identified as having areas of excessively high sagebrush cover, especially on the plateau in the
southeast third of the allotment. A Spike treatment was conducted in 2003 affecting 1,500 acres. The
management changes have improved ground cover to more than 75 percent in an area with limited
rainfall.

Powder Rim Allotment

The 46,812 acres of the Powder Rim Allotment include public (46,532 acres) and private holdings. The
original Powder Rim Allotment Management Plan (AMP), implemented in the late 1960s, proved to be
impractical because of conflicting uses and increased activation of previously rested (voluntary nonuse)
privileges. As a result of the livestock permittees’ concerns about declining forage conditions and a
Standards and Guidelines (S&G) review of the allotment, the AMP was revised in 2001 to take into
account current conditions and issues. Two permittees were split from the allotment and allocated use in
separate pastures. Improvements currently being developed in these pastures include 6 to 7 miles of
fencing, several new water developments (two wells, one spring development, and several small pit
reservoirs), and two separate vegetation treatments. In addition, split season livestock use, designed to rest
the vegetation during the peak growing season and defer use until late fall, has been initiated in two
pastures. Three other pastures in the rotation receive split season and deferred summer cattle use in
conjunction with winter sheep use. Fencing of two natural spring sites, determined to be nonfunctional
during the S&G review, resulted in increased flow and water quality. Protecting the associated riparian
areas improved stream and riparian stability. One additional spring-seep complex will be developed, and
several water wells will be completed to provide reliable, controllable water in dry portions of the

3-32

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Livestock Grazing

pastures. Management in the pastures will enhance habitat for mule deer and elk, including crucial winter
range.

Bar Eleven Allotment

The 54,256 acres of the Bar Eleven Allotment include public (51,570 acres), private (1,635 acres), and
state (1,051 acres) holdings. In the Bar Eleven Allotment, objectives were set to reduce the stream width-
to-depth ratio, increase riparian shrub regeneration, change herbaceous species composition from
Kentucky bluegrass to Nebraska sedge, reduce bare areas in the riparian areas, and increase trout size and
population. Implemented BMPs included adjustments to the duration of use from June through September
by the fencing of three additional pastures. This action reduced grazing duration from 4 months to 1
month or less. Riparian pastures were established on Pete Creek to limit grazing to the fall to enhance
recreational use and habitat for brook trout. The remaining upland pastures now employ a deferred
rotation grazing system. Grazing distribution was improved with the installation of proper pasture fencing
and upland water improvements. Recent monitoring data, such as photo point pictures, riparian cross
sections, and vegetation inspections, have shown improvement due to the actions above. The BMP
measures resulted in narrowing stream widths, improving stream bank cover, diversifying riparian and
upland vegetation, and increasing willow regeneration.

Rawlins RMP

3-33

Chapter 3 — Minerals, Geology, and Topography

Final EIS

3.8 Minerals, Geology, and Topography

This section describes the geologic and mineral resources found within the RMPPA. Specific topics
include geologic units; topography; and the leasable, locatable, and common variety minerals found
within the RMPPA. Unless otherwise noted, the information in this section is based on the Mineral
Occurrence and Development Potential Report (ENSR and Booz Allen Hamilton 2002), which was
prepared in support of this planning process.

3.8.1 Geologic Units

The formations in the RMPPA range in age from Precambrian to recent. In the eastern Green River Basin,
at the western edge of the RMPPA, the total thickness of sedimentary rock is about 30,000 feet in the
Washakie Basin (Kent 1972). The Hanna Basin contains a thick sequence of post-Precambrian rocks that
is estimated to be greater than 42,000-feet thick (Law 1995). Precambrian rocks are generally exposed in
the cores of the mountain ranges and smaller uplifts, such as the Rawlins Uplift. In southeastern
Wyoming, in the northwest portion of the Denver-Cheyenne Basin, the sedimentary rock section is
slightly more than 10,000-feet thick (Kent 1972). Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic rocks are exposed
throughout the RMPPA.

The Precambrian rocks that are exposed in the mountain ranges are complex assemblages of igneous and
metamorphic rocks (Houston 1993). Nearly all Paleozoic and younger rocks are sedimentary. The
Paleozoic formations were mostly deposited in a shallow marine environment and include limestone,
dolomite, sandstone, and shale. Cambrian rocks are present in the west and northwest portions of the
RMPPA (Boyd et al. 1993). There are no widespread rocks representing Ordovician through Devonian
because these layers were eroded after being deposited. The Mississippian System is represented by the
Madison Limestone and the Darwin Sandstone in the western portion of the RMPPA. The Mississippian
rocks thin from west to east until eventually they are absent east of the line from Centennial, Wyoming, to
northwest Laramie County (Boyd et al. 1993). Pennsylvanian rocks in the RMPPA consist of the Amsden
Formation, the Tensleep Sandstone, the Casper Formation, and the Fountain Formation. In the western
part of the RMPPA, Permian rocks are represented by the Phosphoria Formation and the Goose Egg
Formation. Triassic and Jurassic rocks alternate between marine and continental environments. The
Dinwoody Formation, the Chugwater Group, and the Nugget Sandstone represent Triassic rock in the
western and northern parts of the RMPPA. Jurassic formations throughout the RMPPA consist of the
Nugget Sandstone, Sundance, and Morrison Formations. In the eastern Hanna Basin at Como Bluff,
outcrops of the Morrison Formation have yielded abundant dinosaur bones (Mears et al. 1986).
Cretaceous rocks include sandstones, siltstones, and shales that were deposited as the western edge of a
shallow interior seaway transgressed westward and retreated eastward several different times. The lower
part of the lower Cretaceous is represented by sandstones that are loosely correlated and referred to as the
Lakota Sandstone and the Fall River Sandstone (Inya Kara Group) or Cloverly Formation. Above the
Lakota and the Fall River sandstones is the Thermopolis Shale. Above the Thermopolis Shale is the
Muddy Sandstone (Watson 1980).

In the western parts of the RMPPA, the Upper Cretaceous consists of the Mowry Shale, the Frontier
Formation, the Niobrara Formation, the Steele (Baxter) Shale, the Mesaverde Group, the Lewis Shale,
Fox Hills Sandstone, and the Lance Formation. The Mesaverde Group designates widespread sedimentary
rocks in the Greater Green River Basin, consisting of sandstone, carbonaceous shale, and coal (Ver Ploeg
1992). The Lance Formation is made up of carbonaceous shale, sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, and coal
(Watson 1980). In the Hanna, Shirley, and Laramie Basins, the most recent upper Cretaceous units are the
Medicine Bow and Ferris Formations, which are composed of carbonaceous shale, coal, mudstone, and
sandstone. In the Denver-Cheyenne Basin portion of the RMPPA, the lowest Upper Cretaceous units, in
ascending order, are the Graneros Shale, the Greenhorn Formation, the Carlile Shale, and the Niobrara

3-34

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Minerals, Geology, and Topography

Shale overlain by a dark gray marine shale called the Pierre Shale. Overlying the Pierre Shale is the Fox
Hills Sandstone. The Fox Hills Sandstone documents the last retreat of the Cretaceous interior seaway
from Wyoming toward the east. The Lance Formation and all later Tertiary and Quaternary formations
were deposited in continental environments by rivers, streams, swamps, and lakes, as well as by wind and
glaciers in some areas. The Lance Formation overlies the Fox Hills Sandstone in the northern part of the
Denver-Cheyenne Basin (Lilligraven 1993).

The earliest Tertiary rocks (Paleocene Series) in the western portions of the RMPPA are in the Paleocene
Fort Union Formation, which is composed of sandstone, conglomerate, shale, and coal (Watson 1980)
deposited in the intermountain basin. In the Hanna, Shirley, and Laramie Basins, the Paleocene is
represented by the Ferris and Hanna formations (carbonaceous shale, sandstone, conglomerate, and
numerous coalbeds). The Hanna Formation extends into the Eocene Series rocks. There are no lower
Tertiary rocks in the Denver-Cheyenne Basin (Lilligraven 1993). Eocene Series rocks in the western part
of the RMPPA are the Wasatch Formation (mudstone, red sandstone, carbonaceous shale, and sub-
bituminous coal [Watson 1980]) and the Green River Formation (shale, oil shale, marlstone, and
occasional sandstone). In the Shirley and Laramie Basins, the Eocene is represented by the Wind River
Formation (sandstone, conglomerate, mudstone, carbonaceous shale, and minor coal [Watson 1980]) and
Wagon Bed Formation. In the Denver-Cheyenne Basin, there are no Eocene rocks (Love et al. 1993). The
Oligocene White River Formation is present in the western part of the RMPPA and in the Hanna, Shirley,
and Laramie Basins. The White River in the Denver-Cheyenne Basin may contain vertebrate fossils in
isolated localities (Watson 1980). In the western parts of the RMPPA, the Miocene is represented by the
Browns Park Formation and the Split Rock Formation. In northeastern Laramie County, the Miocene
Arikaree Formation and the upper Oligocene are present. In the Denver-Cheyenne Basin, the Miocene
Ogallala Formation covers the surface in most of Laramie County (Love and Christiansen 1985).
Unconsolidated Quaternary deposits consist of alluvium, terraces gravels, colluvium, pediments, and
glacial deposits (Love and Christiansen 1985). Alluvial deposits are generally associated with alluvial
valleys of the major rivers and tributaries. Glacial deposits are limited to the Medicine Bow Mountains
and the Sierra Madre and are largely composed of boulders, cobbles, and fine materials that were scoured
from the mountains by the glaciers. More detail on geologic units can be found in the RMPPA Minerals
Report.

3.8.2 Structural Geology and Tectonics

Map 3-4 shows the major structural elements of the RMPPA. The Laramie Range, Medicine Bow
Mountains, Sierra Madre, and Sweetwater Arch are composed of Precambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and
early Tertiary rocks that have been uplifted as the rock layers were compressed into anticlines and
uplifted along low-angle thrust faults and high-angle reverse faults. Most of the uplift occurred 75 to 50
million years ago in latest Cretaceous and early Tertiary time. This mountain-building period, known as
the Laramie Orogeny, occurred through much of the Western states of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah,
Montana, Arizona, and New Mexico (Snoke 1993).

The cores of the ranges contain Precambrian rocks that have been uplifted many thousands of feet through
movement on low-angle to high-angle reverse faults. The adjoining basins are generally deepest at the
thrust front. Igneous and metamorphic rocks in the mountainous regions are resistant to weathering, but
eventually break down physically and chemically to form the thick accumulations of sedimentary rocks
that fill the adjacent basins.

In addition to the major mountain ranges, there are secondary scale uplifts with Precambrian cores within
the RMPPA, such as the Ferris, Seminoe, and Shirley Mountains and the Rawlins Uplift. The Rawlins
Uplift is an asymmetric anticline bounded by a reverse fault on the west. An anticline is a geologic
structure in which the rocks have been folded in a convex upward shape (Gary et al. 1974). The third
scale of uplift or anticlines is located on the platforms between the basins and the secondary uplifts and
along the major basin margins. These anticlines are generally asymmetric and faulted at depth and

Rawlins RMP

3-35

Chapter 3 — Minerals, Geology, and Topography

Final EIS

provide traps for hydrocarbons. The structural style generally comprises a series of anticlines, such as the
Lost Soldier-to-O’ Brian Springs complex, that are related to the adjacent major uplift, or the Ferris-
Seminoe trend. Another complex is the Oil Springs-to-South Big Medicine Bow, which is a structural
divide between the Hanna and Carbon Basins. A third complex is the Rock River-to-Quealy Dome series
of anticlines that mark the front between the Medicine Bow Mountains and the Laramie Basin. Oil and
gas was first discovered in the RMPPA in the third scale of anticlines starting in 1916 at the Lost Soldier
anticline. These structural oil and gas fields are very mature and will probably be depleted within the next
20 years unless new applications, such as carbon dioxide (C02) sequestration, are initiated. The platform
areas between the major structural elements have been only lightly explored in relation to stratigraphic
traps, and these may be discovered in the future.

In addition to major faults at the boundaries of the mountain ranges and smaller uplifts, there is a major
shear zone in the RMPPA called the Cheyenne Belt (Map 3-4). The Cheyenne Belt is a series of
southwest-to-northeast-trending fault blocks that cut through the Precambrian rocks of the Sierra Madre,
the Medicine Bow Mountains, and the Laramie Mountains (Houston 1993). The Cheyenne Belt separates
metamorphic sedimentary rocks that are among the oldest on the North American continent, on the north
side, from much younger, largely igneous rocks to the south of the belt.

On the west side of the RMPPA are sub-basins on the eastern edge of the Greater Green River Basin
called the Washakie Basin and the Great Divide Basin. The Washakie and Great Divide Basins are
separated by a structural high called the Wamsutter Arch, which generally trends from west to east
paralleling 1-80. The Washakie Basin is bounded on the south by another west-to-east-trending structural
high called the Cherokee Arch. The Cherokee Arch lies generally along the Wyoming-Colorado state line
and separates the Washakie Basin from the Sand Wash Basin in northwest Colorado (Law 1995). Other,
smaller basins entirely within the RMPPA are the Hanna, Shirley, and Laramie Basins. In the eastern part
of the RMPPA is the Denver-Cheyenne Basin, which occupies northeast Colorado, southwest Nebraska,
and the southeastern comer of Wyoming.

3.8.3 Topography

The RMPPA is located in three major physiographic provinces: the Wyoming Basin, the Southern Rocky
Mountains, and the Great Plains (Howard and Williams 1972). The western and northwestern portions of
the RMPPA are located in the Wyoming Basin, a 40,000-square-mile area that includes much of
southwestern Wyoming and part of northwestern Colorado. The Wyoming Basin Province is typified by
topographic and structural basins that are either bounded by mountains in the adjacent provinces or
bounded by ranges within the province itself (Map 3-4). There are several west-east-trending mountain
ranges in the north-central part of the RMPPA. The ranges are, from west to east, the Ferris Mountains,
the Seminoe Mountains, and the Shirley Mountains. The Ferris Mountains rise to 10,000 feet elevation
above sea level, whereas the Seminoe and Shirley Mountains peak at about 9,500 feet above sea level.

Sub-basins of the Wyoming Basin within the RMPPA boundaries include the Washakie and Great Divide
basins of the eastern Greater Green River Basin, the Hanna Basin, the Shirley Basin, and the Laramie
Basin. In the basin areas, the topography is typified by extensive prairies that intersect with badlands,
playas, and sand dunes (Howard and Williams 1972).

Elevations in the Wyoming Basin portion of the RMPPA generally range from 6,500 to 7,500 feet
elevation above sea level. The Great Divide Basin is bounded by branches of the Continental Divide and
has no external drainage outlet. Major river drainages in the Wyoming Basin portion of the RMPPA are
the North Platte River, Laramie River, and Little Snake River. All these rivers have their origins in the
Southern Rocky Mountains.

A small part of the Southern Rocky Mountains Province is in the south and south-central portions of the
RMPPA. The Southern Rocky Mountains extend through northern New Mexico, Colorado, and southern
Wyoming. Mountain ranges in the RMPPA consist of the northernmost portions of the Southern Rocky

3-36

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Minerals, Geology, and Topography

Mountains. Those ranges are the Laramie Mountains, the Medicine Bow Mountains, and the Sierra Madre
(the northern extension of Colorado’s Park Range). The portions of the RMPPA on the flanks of the
mountains generally range from 7,500 to 8,000 feet elevation above sea level. The highest point in the
RMPPA is Medicine Bow Peak, at 12,013 feet elevation above sea level. In many places, hogback ridges
mark the flanks of the mountain ranges.

The eastern portion of the RMPPA is located in the Great Plains Province, in a subprovince called the
High Plains (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 1970). The High Plains are characterized by nearly flat-
lying Tertiary deposits, with mesas and badland topography. A prominent physiographic feature in
southeastern Wyoming is called the “Gangplank,” so-called because the Tertiary rocks form a long,
sloping surface up to the 7,000-foot level of the Laramie Range (Howard and Williams 1972). Elevations
in the High Plains portion of the RMPPA range from 7,000 feet above sea level on the east flank of the
Laramie Range to less than 5,000 feet above sea level in northeastern Laramie County.

In the High Plains portion of the RMPPA, drainages originate in the Laramie Range and flow from west
to east. The important drainages from south to north include Crow Creek, Lodgepole Creek, Horse Creek,
and Little Bear Creek. Crow Creek eventually empties into the South Platte River in Colorado. The other
drainages are in the North Platte River Basin.

3.8.4 Mineral Resources

Terms used in the management of mineral resources on federally administered lands within the RMPPA
include the following:

• Leasable Minerals. These include energy and non-energy minerals regulated under the Mineral
Leasing Act of 1920 as amended, which excluded them from the Mining Law of 1872. Coal, oil,
gas, and trona are examples of the minerals included. The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 added
geothermal energy to the list of leasable minerals. Leasable minerals are available through a
system of competitive and non-competitive leases.

• Locatable Minerals. These include all minerals subject to exploration, development, and
production under the provisions of the Mining Law of 1872. They include both metallic and non-
metallic minerals such as gold, silver, specialty clays, and zeolites. Locatability is determined by
a case-by-case validity examination.

• Common Variety Minerals. These are regulated by the Federal Materials Act of 1947 and the
Multiple Surface Act of 1955. Common variety minerals may be obtained by a free use permit by
federal, state, and local governments and qualified nonprofit groups. Sales must be obtained for
common variety minerals by commercial and private entities. Examples include sand, gravel,
pumice, and common dimension stone. Petrified wood is also a common variety mineral for
which a sale must be obtained. Small amounts of petrified wood may be collected for recreational
and rockhounding purposes without a permit.

Leasable Minerals
Oil and Natural Gas

Gas is defined by 43 CFR 3000.0-59(a) as a fluid, either combustible or noncombustible, which is
produced in a natural state from the earth and which maintains a gaseous or rarified state at ordinary
temperatures and pressure conditions. Conventional natural gas in the RMPPA can be contained in
sandstone, limestone, or shale reservoirs, while coalbed natural gas is contained in coal reservoirs. In
discussing oil and gas leasing, 43 CFR 3100.0-3 does not distinguish between these two types of
reservoirs. All other aspects of the regulation of oil and gas such as Onshore Orders 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 and

Rawlins RMP

3-37

Chapter 3 — Minerals, Geology, and Topography

Final EIS

Notice to Lessee 3A and 4A also do not distinguish between the two types of reservoirs. Coalbed natural
gas development is separated for impact analysis because of issues related to produced water, well
spacing, and associated surface disturbance.

The majority of the oil and gas fields are located in the western portion of the RMPPA (Map 3-5). Based
on production figures through the year 2000, 3 of Wyoming’s top 25 gas-producing fields are within or
partially within the RMPPA. These fields and the associated year 2000 production rank within Wyoming
are as follows: Standard Draw (10), Wild Rose (14), and Wamsutter (16) (Wyoming Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission [WOGCC] 2002). In addition, the RMPPA contains 2 of the top 25 oil fields
in the state: Lost Soldier (3) and Standard Draw (24).

Records indicate that before 1910 only one well had been drilled in the RMPPA. Since that time there has
been a pronounced upward trend in the number of wells drilled (ENSR and Booz Allen 2002). As the
number of wells drilled has increased during this period, the depth of the wells also has increased. Since
1990, 74 percent of the wells drilled have been between 8,000- and 12,000-feet deep. The average total
depth was 9,249 feet.

As of October 2003, the RMPPA contained 2,690 wells (WOGCC 2003). Since 1980, 37 percent of the
total number of wells drilled in the RMPPA have been abandoned. Abandoned wells are either
unproductive (dry holes) or have become depleted and are no longer economical.

Within the RMPPA, drilling activity has been concentrated in three regions. The first and most heavily
drilled region is in the eastern Greater Green River Basin, including the Great Divide Basin, the
Wamsutter Arch, and the Washakie Basin. This region is located in the westernmost part of the RMPPA.
Despite the heavy drilling in parts of these areas, some townships in this region have been only lightly
tested. The primary objectives in these areas are stratigraphic traps within the Upper Cretaceous. Map 4-7,
Oil and Gas Project Locations with Oil, Gas, and Coalbed Natural Gas Potential, identifies the regions in
the RMPPA where the majority of oil and gas activity has occurred and is likely to occur in the future.

The two other regions of concentrated activity lie in the eastern part of the RMPPA and in a region across
its center. These regions have been less heavily explored and developed than the region in the west. Many
townships within these two regions have been only lightly tested. The primary objectives in the eastern
region are stratigraphic traps in the Lower Cretaceous and fractured reservoirs in the Upper Cretaceous.
The central region is mainly developed in structural traps that may include production from the
Precambrian to the Upper Cretaceous. The central region is very mature, and unless stratigraphic traps are
discovered, it will not be very active in the future. Outside of these three drilling activity regions, many
townships have not been tested.

Gas production was flat beginning at least as early as 1974, but it began a steady increase in 1978 that
carried through 1981 (ENSR and Booz Allen 2002). After a period of fluctuation during 1982-1985,
production increases resumed. From 1986 through 1997, production increased at a nominal annual rate of
4.2 percent. Gas production was 7.5 times higher in 2001 than in 1974. A decline in production during
2000 was mostly caused by a decline in production from private wells. Gas production from the RMPPA
in 2001 represented 1 1 percent of Wyoming’s total gas production, based on data from WOGCC.

From 1978 to 1990, oil production fluctuated around an annual rate of 8 million barrels. Beginning in
1990, annual production declined, and it has continued to decline at a nominal rate of 2.8 percent annually
through 2001. About half the oil produced in the RMPPA during 2000 and 2001 was from the Lost
Soldier- Wertz Fields near Bairoil. This field complex is in a tertiary phase of oil recovery via CO2
injection, and it is expected that no future oil production enhancement can be accomplished. In 2001, only
7 percent of Wyoming’s total oil production came from the RMPPA.

Although there is increased interest in exploration for and development of gas resources in coalbeds
within the RMPPA, there has been little production. Only 0.179 billion cubic feet (BCF) of gas and 10.3
million barrels of water had been produced in the RMPPA as of January 2002 (WOGCC 2002).

3-38

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Minerals, Geology, and Topography

Exploration for gas reserves in coalbeds is progressing in Atlantic Rim, along Seminoe Road, and in
Hanna Draw. In Atlantic Rim, testing of Upper Cretaceous-aged coals of the Mesaverde Group began in
2002. Initial wells for the pilot tests have already been tested and, surprisingly, have produced gas from
the start. Although the overall success of finding economic methane resources in the Atlantic Rim area is
still unknown, recent exploratory activity suggests that gas production from coal reservoirs will be
successful at least in some portions of the area. Exploration is active along the crest of the Wamsutter
Arch between the Great Divide and Washakie Basins and on the east flank of the Washakie Basin
(between Townships 13 and 20 north, and Ranges 89 and 92 west). In the vicinity of Seminoe Road,
initial wells for the pilot tests have already been drilled west of Seminoe Reservoir in coals of the
Mesaverde Group. In Hanna Draw, the coal tested is in the Tertiary-aged Hanna Formation. Testing was
terminated in April 2002 to reevaluate the economics of the project. However, interest in the project has
recently revived, and drilling may occur to the north of the last project area.

An ongoing issue is how produced water from coalbeds (as well as other formations) should be disposed
of. Options considered include dumping the water in drainages that do not contact the Colorado River
system, treating the produced water to adjust its chemical ratios, and injecting the water into formations
that contain water of poorer quality. Despite these concerns, there is sufficient confidence in the coalbed
reservoirs’ economic viability for major proposals to have been made. These proposals currently are
being evaluated by means of EISs (for example, an EIS is being prepared for the collective proposals in
Atlantic Rim).

The large structures in the central portion of the RMPPA may have applicability for C02 sequestration.
This is a positive environmental factor, with disposal of the greenhouse gas. In the case of productive
structures, CO2 sequestration could increase oil recovery. Coal is also known to allow C02 sequestration
and to have the added benefit of enhancing coalbed natural gas recovery because the coal preferentially
replaces methane from the coal structure with C02. Studies show that low-rank coals have the highest
replacement factor. C02 is readily available from large reserves to the west of the RMPPA, and a C02
pipeline is already in place.

Coal

There are six identified coalfields within the RMPPA. Of these, the Hanna Field has been the most
significant in terms of both historic and projected coal production. Most activity within the remaining
fields typically has been of small scale, and in some cases the coal resource has yet to be economically
exploited. Approximately 27 million tons of federal coal have been recovered using strip mining. An
additional 16 million tons of federal coal have been extracted using underground mining methods.

Recently, there has been a contraction of the coal sector within the Hanna Field. As of 1979, five mining
companies were still active in the Hanna Field (Glass and Roberts 1979), but by the year 2000 there were
only three active coal mines (two surface mines and one underground mine). Two companies operated
these mines. As of mid-2002, only one company, Arch of Wyoming, Inc. (a subsidiary of Arch Western
Resources, LLC), was still active. This company operated the Seminoe No. II Mine (a combination
dragline and shovel/truck operation) and the Medicine Bow Mine. Remaining economic/strippable
reserves in both mines have been indicated as sufficient to sustain operations for fewer than 2 years. As of
2004, all coal mining had ceased, and only reclamation activities currently occur.

Coal is classified by rank in accordance with standard specifications of the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM). ASTM D-388 provides detailed information concerning coal classification
specifications and considerations. Within the RMPPA, there are six significant coalfields containing coal
resources of sub-bituminous to bituminous rank (Berryhill et al. 1950): Hanna Basin, Carbon Basin, Great
Divide Basin, Rock Creek, Kindt Basin, and Little Snake River.

Rawlins RMP

3-39

Chapter 3 — Minerals, Geology, and Topography

Final EIS

Locatable Minerals

Wyoming is a uranium province. Uranium was discovered in the Powder River and Wind River Basins
during the 1950s, and continued exploration for uranium resulted in discovery of additional sedimentary
uranium deposits in the major basins of central and southern Wyoming. The RMPPA contains its share of
sedimentary uranium deposits in the Shirley Basin, the Great Divide Basin, the Red Desert area, and
around Baggs in the Poison Buttes area. In addition to uranium, the RMPPA contains deposits of
titaniferous magnetite, stratabound gold, copper-gold deposits, and diamonds hosted in kimberlite pipes.
Commercial development of the sedimentary uranium and titaniferous magnetite deposits has occurred
over the past 50 years. The other locatable mineral deposits have seen only limited production and
sporadic exploration. Locatable mineral deposits in the RMPPA are summarized in Table 3-6 and shown
on Map 3-6.

3-40

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 3 — Minerals, Geology, and Topography

c

<D

O "D

Q.® 5
(D <2 J

i 3 ! E

to ® 10

£ -Q E ‘S
5S.3® .

0 C O (/)

2 2 ^ E

i_ 0 9

O 2 Q.

0
' c
o
o

13 03
CD

£ Q-
> <D

5 O
O X
— 03
O r-

2 O

03 o
03 ^

E -D
2 o
0 Q.

o

■w c

o o

3 *3
30 O
O 3

§;!
-Q CL

CD

C

0 '
=3
0
_Q

(/) _

O

Q. CO ^

^ 0
C o o
0 £ -C

E 0 Q-

&E i

0 ^
0 '?

=3 =3
C

0

if)
CO

o

CL
0
■O "O

E

_3

'c

0

0 3

3 S3

03 Z
-Q —
0 0

CD 0

"O -^3
W C

c 0

0

o

hr if)

5

O c

0 3

0 O
CL

i§

II

uj !£

03 O
03 *-
O 00

03 -X

CL <=
03
0) 3
® -
2 03

El

.0 3=

.2 ro

SE CL

o

™C0

2 O

3 O
9 03

ro c

£ 8

CL

O
3

■o

o =
Q. E

E 03 2

■i « I

2 o c
^ O 0

?3 =

E 0) o

3

-o 2
O CD

o

CL = §
O 03 ■*sf
Z LU C\l

CD it!

E

03 03
O «_

E o

o Z

M- 4= 0O

° _ o 00

T3 CJ CD

«oz®

T3 O

§ = CO E

R 2 J=

03 3 §

CM r

ifl E “ _

h-' .2 „ 3 03

O c " D (0

« 2 ® “ “

o c

03

w 03

0 0

1

Cl cl

o

03 03

o QC

o Z
c/3 co

03

03

6 g

03 O.

o <3?

_l Q

3

o

L JO
' CD

' 2co
co O
r: co
<9 3

O

2 0

0 O

if) 0
0 CL

0 00

O

v_

CD

"O

0

if)

O

CL

O

i_

CL

0 i=r

o §

2 § •
gcM-.|
0 To o

O) 3

c 0 -o
0 .E o
Z> E o_

>

c

o

if)

O

0

CL

if)

o

>

c

o

0

o

0

CL

if)

o

>

c

o

o

0

CL

0

o

£

3

C

ro

s_

3

£

ro

4-»

c

0

£

T3

0

CO

-£ «
O ~
TD
0

if)
O
CL

0-8

g |

0 .2

CD C
'cl 0
LU 3

c ?

C 0
0 "O
3 S
“O ^

0

c

0

o

0

CL

r^-

o

o

o

o

CO

o

o

0 0
03 ■-£
03 c
^ 03

03

O

Q_

0

"O

E

3

'c

0

o <
0

if)

o

CL
0

^ "O

o

0

0

EO

• — 0

c o

0 _l

= ro
0 0
> C

C ^

to o

0

— ’ 00 zr
E O =
O 00 o
i= 3 QC

03 C
Q_ [D
LU 3

E 0 £

o 0

CL o 0
0 Q- C
> 0
0 -O ^

if)

if)

o

CL

g .o -8

E I |

00.^

03 03 C

2 Q. 2
0 0 3

ro-8'8

0 Q.

2 .y "o

I g §
0 0 —
0 CD c
2-^2
0 0 3

o

0 O y)
03-0 °
0 2 Q.

1.0-8

18 |
0 0-—
if) O) C
2 Q. 2
0 0 3

o

C 2
0 O y)

■g 2 ^
!.aS

E 8 !
0 0.—
0 03 c

.52 q. 2

0 0 3

3 .5

c -O cr
0 0

3 0

8

0 03

1 '8 .2 c

c Q.t E
ro 0 0 o
c/5 -o l— ti-

ro

0

R c

^ 8

0 >-

03 T3

~ ro g
- .c o

CO —

o

2 ro ro
ro E

U 0 J-

^ o

N

0

r 0 O

_ 0
C T3
03 0
03

0

Eoit

0

03
O

0 2
-o O
p

■1 1
0 2

L_ L|_
^ >3

0 JD

I?

c§ O

sz

CD

3

O

if)

c

o

^ o
8|
CD to
C O

0 --

> TJ

CD S
hr if)

S °

g- -c

> 2
0 o

E S.

m 0

"O

c

0

03

2 yi
c
o

8 a
2 E

0 3

E c
0 2
W 3

cR-E
0 0

ro o
oq £

>N 1-

9 CD
.2 03
tr -o
0 c
I- co

.2 ^
R|

H 0
c E

c -o
0 0

.2

^ o

E 2

E2f

0

0 -x

9 0

o 0

— — 0
0 0 c

9- o

~~ V//

2 o

0
c

2 o
0 9

0

03 0-

00^
C/3 -o CO

0

a. >
0 >
o o

C/3 Q. CO

0

>

o

o

0

8 §
0 ^
o 0

2 E

CD k
>- O
O LL

ro

*CC 0

® o

E 2 1

2 -o E

c 0 o
2 0 u-

0 O i

0 CD
C 03 Q_

2 O w

0 9 o

3 9- >

e c/) g

Sop

cl CQ

o

00

1

q:

co

CN

o

CO

c

if)

CD

CD

>

0)

h- •-
CN -C o
I— CD CO

O

CO

O

CO

- o G)
Z g QC
c\i O z'

00 D
T- 0 CNJ

i— or 1—

§ §

g ><
CO o
CD 00

cr tr

> 0

CN Q

o

CO

o

CO

■O

0

cr

§ 2
0 0
CQ CD

o

CO
X

I °
Is,

- E 2
€82

o c ro
Z LU C/3

- 0

0

> 2
1 E

o

C£3

x

o

CO

0

E

o ro
C/3 _l

O

CO

00 O

00 CO
Dd 0

5 1

T~ 0

1- a:

0

o

a

0

Q

c

0

ID

DO

>.

0

1—

!E

a.

0

o

a

0

Q

t:

0

0

0

Q

TJ

0

Dd

c

’0

ro

CQ

0

■a

>

Q

-4->

0

<D

1—

o

if)

U)

o>

0

CQ

if)

0

4J

3

CQ

c

o

</>

o

Q_

if)

0)

HM

>•-*

3

CQ

E

3

-C

o

0

0 00
CO

CN

cr

w 10
co

O Q-

r a.
tr co CD
0 CD o
2 § §

X

L_

0

Rawlins RMP 3.41

Chapter 3 — Minerals, Geology, and Topography Final EIS

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS Chapter 3 — Minerals, Geology, and Topography

2

o

CD

T3

£

3

O

n

ro

in

o>

o

.c

c. 03

n

5 CL

CD

CD XS

£32

— 0
O ID

i

a .2. ?

CD CD O

Q E g

c

o-2
2 o

. 3
CD XS
C O

2

— 03
CD CD

H

sS

C £-

CD o

o CJ

<0 £

r 10 M
n •— CD
• 9 co >

To S os
E §■ S
o ^ c

C 0 XS

2

■- o S2

CD O o
g T3 CD
= r M
CD co

To ™ CD

-C ^ "D
X o C
LLI CD CD

0

O O

0

0

CD

O

O 0
0 0
0 0
0 _Q

0

0

0

_Q

0

0

0

o

0

C

0

0

C

Q..S c
73 E ■-

82 CDS ^3 co
~ CJ <D CD
T CD W ctr
c Q- 2 C
o3 u- CD ro

>5 E a

CXD O
CO CO
N- X
CO o
CH co

2 1
I— ■-
cm ns
I- CD

CD

LL

C/S

c

o

t; oo

IS

o °o
o CN

as as
co o
E as

= LL
OS

LU O

3

< .E

R- "£

O a)

^ £

o ^ '

2 CD g

as cd cd

•2 as as
CD -£■ o
> 1_ c

2 ci'E
o as as
O z c n

0

0

ID

>3 0

0

0 C
0 —
m £

0 ^

.i= ID

^ 03

r- ^
§ 2
0 _C
CL H

0

0

CL 3
"O ^
0 N
0 °
E °

• - CO
0 10
LU-

c c
.2 .2
o o
3 3
0 0
o o

Q_ CL

0
0
>

X C/)
CL 3
.

0

§;S .«

C TO.

F 0 -
o ^ c
c 0 XS
2 8:2
- o E

(DUO
^ -Q O

TO ^ 0

To ™ 0
r 2 t:
x jo c

LL1 05 CD

o _c

° m °
D Q. ^
c os as
co co xs

2 Z 5
(Sic

0

0

0
C

'0 .2 c
> o ■“
c- ° «q

£ 0 T3
~00
^ 0 -Q

0

■a

0

_Q

0

c

0

0

0
c

03

<5 C 0
§.« C
£ £ 2
7:3 E -
^ co 03

T 0 £ —
C Q- -2 C
' OS as CO

>.EEo

co

co

4 o
co co

a:

CO

CM

LO

CM

H

c

3

O

S

as

o

c

E

as

(0

(/>

o

a.

v

Q

2

o

9

4_

as

a

Q.

O

o

■2. XS

J5 co
E c

s<3

0

0
O
CL "O

0 o

Q CD

0

"O

0

-TO 0
0 "g

£ I

£ o
as c

-O —

^ as
ro co
E >,

os 0
c £
as co
> co

as as E
as as .9

±= o

03 m

o' 3

M <
03 „
CD Q.
-C O
as r-

I?

as c
c

C 3

< O

CD CM O

c ° -
as <£ os
as £ co
d aa
c

fS °

0

E 0
o ^

>s 03

2

o 0

0

"D

C

0

c ■-
as co
> ro
n as
■£ -c
co ccs

R

ct as
"o .t!

N 2
TD 0)
X •-

O E

■O

as

N

"F

E cd

CO ^
o CD

as as

Q. E

§ 5

03 03
03 as

as ~

03 O

m -O

as c
_> :_
03 w

^ 0
>

_c

CL

E

0

c

0

03 =
il x:

0 -5

Q- c
Q. E
o 0
O la

h-

r^

i

CD

Is-

CL

o

CD

X

o

CO

0

CD

o

0
c n

0

Q

c

(D

C

3

O

E

0

•2, -§

2 0

Is

i— M—

0 O

03 g
0 Q.

?«

O.T3

as o

Q 03

03

X3

as

-Q as
■O "S
as 5

xs £

as c

.a —

>. 2
CD CO

E >,

03 as
c £
as 03
> co

: 03

3 0
■* X3
C CO

03 ■'ii
< ^

SI

«N 3
CN "O
T" O

J c

II

O <

XS Q.
m XS

as

;?
o S

0

■g

M—

0 “O
0

^ g yj
o £ . 2
n _ x:

0 -c

XS N jQ

£ To E

as 8
c as

> E CL

03

c

'as

> .03
X) jo

o 8
03 c
"o ro

co xs

o. co
o o
o £
O CL

o

CO

o

CD

0

c

'g

td

0

H ^

0

Q

0

CL

O

o

o

"O

0

"O

> 0

0 0
— 0
CD

c

0
c
0

Q. ^
CL 03
O ^
O £

0

0

x:

03 .

JZ 0
_ 0
0 .2
.2 cl
E “o
o o

° 5?

O T3
0 C

2 2

E 0

O CL
O CL
0 O
_Q O

0

LO g-

co g-

.-E °

0 vP

0 ^

Q_ C\J p

as d °

Q ^ 03
ro Q.

1 g °

^ O CN

— o
8-go

g-f-g

O E CD

CD

Q- "£

CL “£ xs

o. as c
o co jD
° as as

® ■.« ’{=
mgx

c

^ 03
C ^
CO o

E as E I

- XS (0 c
~u ^

Is

03 CL

0
0
0

b

0

g -

• o

>

E 2

03 03
C O

03 s

o 0
c

03

■0 0
0 0
0 (J

2 c

n as =

^ > o
o ^
o- d I

c

CO

•c as
xs •—
E c

E -E
o

g N CO co

g g2 o

a. E 2 co

o

I

03

CD

DC

Z

0

Q

c

5

o

k_

o

k.

0

>

GO

>

c

'0

0

0

3

O"

b

o

0

c

o

o

3

0

o

0

0

CL

0 0
i= 0
0 O

F E
.E

^ 0

0 2 £

£ Q-

o C

as 03
' o

-C

t

o

c

<

C 03

co as as

'0 E
0

cd

o

Is-

CL

o

CD

o

CO

0

>

QC

o

o

CL

0

a

c

0

c

3

O

>

c

0

E

0

1 3

E cr

0 O

JC

03

1c

0

0

0

CD S

2 C

E o

o
0
0

0

a o

0
>
o
o
o 0
CL 0

0

03

c

0

l—

c c
eg «

O 0
3 0
0 0
2 03
°-0

0 §
0 2
o. E

o .2

Z Q

g 03

"l

o E

§^5

Ss 0

CD XS

CD 2

O CD

° To

O 03
3

LO xs

d —

03

as

CL

as co
= xs

g o

E E

E co

^ =6

C 03
CO o

^-a

I o

as g E

= 2 ®

as n" as

| o E

5.eE

C 0 TO

.2 ^

O

>

0

Q

0

0

0

‘E

0

03

O

CD

X

o

CO

TO

E

0

0

0

b

0

c

0

■*-»

0

(O

CO

o

o

CNJ

CD

3

O

CD

Rawlins RMP 3-43

Chapter 3-Minerals, Geology, and Topography

Final EIS

Common Variety Minerals

Disposal of common variety minerals is discretionary and is addressed under the Materials Act of 1947,
as amended by the Acts of 1955 and 1962. These acts authorized that certain mineral materials be
disposed of either through a contract of sale or a free use permit (for state and local governments or
eligible nonprofit organizations). The group of mineral materials commonly known as “common variety
minerals” includes common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, cinders, clay, and petrified wood in
public lands of the United States (Maley 1977). Common variety minerals that occur within the RMPPA
include sand and gravel, limestone, granite, moss rock, cinders (clinker), clay, and petrified wood.

By far the most significant common variety minerals within the RMPPA include sand and gravel,
limestone, clinker (scoria), and thin-layered building stone known as moss rock. Sand and gravel
resources typically occur in one or more of the following forms: gravel deposits, alluvial sand and gravel
deposits, terrace sand and gravel deposits, glacial gravels, older gravel deposits, and windblown deposits.
Limestone typically occurs in bedded sedimentary deposits. Within the RMPPA, the aggregates resource
base is generally present as windblown, terrace, and alluvial deposits; however, coarser, gravel-type
materials are present to a somewhat lesser degree. Where gravel is present, it is generally an older gravel
(conglomeratic) deposit, often situated beneath surficial deposits. The Wyoming Geologic Survey has
identified aggregate deposits in the RMPPA near Fort Steele (T21N, R85W), Elmo (T22-23N, R81W),
and Creston Junction (T21N, R92W) and in the Red Desert Basin (T21-23N, R95-97W).

3.8.5 Site Reclamation

A reclamation plan will be developed to provide a framework for project- and site-specific reclamation
actions. The plan will involve coordination between the project proponent and BLM in order to produce a
comprehensive plan. Reclamation goals will emphasize ecosystem reconstruction that returns the land to a
condition equal to or better than that which existed before disturbance occurred. Interim reclamation goals
are intended to initiate or accelerate the recovery of the ecosystem including rapid stabilization of
disturbed areas to protect disturbed and adjacent undisturbed areas from unnecessary degradation. Interim
reclamation measures are intended to achieve this short-term goal while setting the stage for final
recovery. Final reclamation measures are used to achieve complete recovery of the disturbed ecosystem
such that it continues its development, does not require further assistance or treatments, and demonstrates
resilience to normal ranges of environmental stress and disturbance.

3-44

Ralins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3-Off-Highway Vehicles

3.9 Off-Highway Vehicles

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is closely related to several environmental resource issues addressed in
other sections of this chapter. Aspects of OHV use that are specifically addressed in other sections of this
document, such as Recreation (Section 3.11) and Transportation and Access (Section 3.14), will not be
addressed in this section. All information in this section was gathered from the Recreation Planner for the
RMPPA and from BLM sources, which included the Great Divide Resource Area RMP and BLM’s
Recreation Management Information System (RMIS) (Clair 2002a, 2003, and 2004; BLM 1990a; BLM
2003a).

3.9.1 Designated Off-Highway Vehicle Use Areas

OHV use is managed according to designations finalized in the Great Divide Resource Area RMP. These
designations prescribe the available management environment in which OHV users can travel. Potential
OHV designations are open, closed, or limited (Appendix 21). With the exceptions listed below, the
RMPPA is open to the use of motorized OHV use. In addition, the RMP prescribes that OHV use
throughout the RMPPA be limited to existing roads and vehicle routes, except in six specified areas that
contain different designations. These six areas and their OHV use classifications are as follows (Map 2-

5):

• Dune Ponds Cooperative Management Area. The Dune Ponds CMA is an “open” OHV use
area, except in vegetated areas, which are restricted to existing roads and vehicle routes.

• Adobe Town WSA. In this area, located in the southwest comer of the RMPPA, motorized
vehicle use is limited to designated roads and vehicle routes.

• Encampment River Canyon. Located just north of the Medicine Bow National Forest and south
of State Highway 70 near the town of Encampment, this area is closed to motorized vehicle use,
including over-the-snow vehicles, from December 1 to April 30.

• Encampment River Trail. Bisecting the Encampment River Canyon area referred to above, the
portions of the Encampment River Trail that cross BLM-administered public land are closed to all
types of motorized vehicle use year-round.

• Ferris Mountains WSA. Located near the northern boundary of the RMPPA and southeast of the
intersection of U.S. Highway 287 and State Highway 220, this area is closed to all types of
motorized vehicle use year-round.

• Pennock Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area. Located east of Saratoga, Wyoming, this area is
closed to all human presence and motorized vehicle use, including over-the-snow vehicles, from
November 15 through April 30.

3.9.2 Off-Highway Vehicle Use and Trends

OHVs are used for a variety of purposes. In the RMIS, OHVs are separated into four categories: all-
terrain vehicles (ATV), cars/trucks/sport utility vehicles (SUV), motorcycles, and snowmobiles.
Snowmobile use, although technically considered OHV use, was not included in the OHV categories in
RMIS but will be addressed in this section. Table 3-7 shows the estimated number of participants and
visitor days associated with OHV use in the RMPPA.

Rawlins RMP

3-45

Chapter 3-Off-Highway Vehicles Final EIS

<

cu

ft-

S

s

(*)

L3

>

X

3

■a

<L>

.2

o

(*)

<

«3

—

*-

o

#<*5

>

T5

&

C3

!*!

S

55

a.

u.

«s

ft-

3

I

JU

3

S3

H

<

CL

CL

DC

E

a>

u5

w

c

o

o

c

c

CD

E

a)

CD

CD

c

CD

c

o

TO

<D

O

CD

DC

CQ

3

o

a>

<o

't

CO

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Off-Highway Vehicles

The most commonly used of the four OHV categories in the RMPPA is the cars/trucks/SUVs category.
ATV use is rapidly growing in popularity. Cars/trucks/SUVs are used by more than 80 percent of OHV
participants, and nearly 85 percent of visitor days include car/truck/SUV use.

Within the RMPPA, OHV use provides access to hunting, fishing, and camping. In addition, OHV use is
increasingly regarded as a method of recreation in itself. OHV use, although recorded by RMIS, extends
beyond recreational use. Gathering of noncommercial products includes activities such as the collecting
of shed deer and elk antlers, moss rock, and native plant material. OHVs provide access to large areas of
land and easy access to antlers on the ground. Recreationists also commonly use OHVs.

Employees of authorized users, such as government agencies, ranches, oil and gas companies, and utility
providers, use OHVs to access and maintain the developments that are integral to the continued operation
of their facilities. Oil and gas interests through Onshore Order Number 1 can access their leases without a
permit but are strongly encouraged to confer with BLM. BLM staff also use OHVs for tasks such as range
inspections, surveying and mapping, inventories, monitoring, vegetation treatments, fire suppression,
project maintenance, and construction.

OHV designations in the RMPPA for the majority of public lands are “limited to existing roads and
vehicle routes.” However, the number of unauthorized roads pioneered within the RMPPA is expanding
rapidly. Even authorized activities can lead to unauthorized roads and vehicle routes. A concern is that, in
all of the above uses, OHV users often leave existing roads and vehicle routes and create new two-tracks,
thereby contributing to vegetation loss, soil compaction, soil erosion, and wildlife harassment. In
addition, use of existing roads and vehicle routes when they are muddy causes rutting and erosion
whether the roads/vehicle routes are two-tracks or improved, and such use creates public safety hazards to
drivers that follow. Within the RMPPA, OHV use in the Sand Hills and Dune Ponds areas is of special
concern because of the fragile nature of these areas. The Dune Ponds area receives a number of visitors
because of its proximity to the Seminoe Reservoir and the population center of Rawlins.

Over the past 25 years, ownership of OHVs has become commonplace. A lack of understanding of land
use ethics has increased inappropriate uses of OHVs on federal lands. Shortage of law enforcement
personnel and a rapid increase in OHV use throughout the RMPPA make it difficult to enforce OHV
designations. This situation generally occurs more often in areas of higher recreational use, but there is
evidence of rapid route proliferation throughout the RMPPA.

Rawlins RMP

3-47

Chapter 3 — Paleontology

Final EIS

3.10 Paleontology

The Draft Wyoming Paleontology Manual issued by the Wyoming BLM State Office presents guidelines
used to ensure that BLM in Wyoming meets its statutory obligations for protection of paleontological
resources. The following sections present an overview of the paleontological resources present in the
RMPPA, along with the associated paleontological classifications.

3.10.1 Description of Resources

Some of the richest paleontological resources in the United States are in the RMPPA. Vertebrate fossils
are especially significant in the area. Paleontological research has been conducted in this part of
Wyoming since 1856. More than 30 museums and universities have searched the area for vertebrate
fossils, and fossils recovered from the RMPPA can be found in public and private collections around the
world (USDI, BLM 1987).

The rich paleontological resources present in the RMPPA can be attributed to the area’s high elevation
and continental climate, which hinder vegetative growth and soil development and support erosion and
bedrock exposure. Most fossils are discovered as scattered finds in areas of exposed rocks.
Paleontologists frequently rely on the public-at-large who often play a major role in making significant
fossil discoveries.

Exposures that produce significant fossils, particularly vertebrates, are rare, and consequently the fossils
are of considerable scientific value and interest wherever they are found. Some localities in the RMPPA
have yielded the only fossil record of several extinct animals (USDI, BLM 1987).

An important paleontological resource in the RMPPA is the Como Bluff National Natural Landmark
(NNL) area, which encompasses 7,680 acres located about 5 miles east of Medicine Bow. Como Bluff is
a westward-plunging anticline containing formations from the Triassic through the Cretaceous periods
exposed in the face of the bluff. The dinosaur graveyard fossil bed, an uncommon concentration of well-
preserved fossils in the Jurassic Morrison Formation, is exposed in the Como Bluff area. The fossils
found in the Como Bluff area played a significant historic role in the development of paleontology as a
scientific discipline (USDI, BLM 1987).

Within the Sand Creek NNL, late Pleistocene and more recent vertebrate fossil deposits were recovered
within a feature known as the “animal trap.” This NNL is located about 20 miles southwest of Laramie
and includes 4,800 acres, of which BLM administers a 160-acre parcel of public land. Fossil deposits
recovered from the animal trap include a large extinct lion, an eagle-like vulture, and a marten as well as
other species no longer found in the area (USDI, BLM 1987).

The Washakie Basin, a large physiographic feature with an area of 525 square miles, is located in the
southwestern comer of the RMPPA. Characterized as an intermontane desert basin, the Washakie Basin
contains important paleontological resources. Fossils are present in abundance, and many institutions
have actively studied the paleontology of the area (USDI, BLM 1987).

The area in and around the Continental Divide contains one of the most complete records of continental
deposition in North America, with exposures of the Fort Union, Battle Springs, Wasatch, Green River,
and Washakie Formations. The Washakie Formation contains fossils of algae, mollusks, and mammals.
Well-preserved fossil fish are contained in the Laney Member of the Green River Formation. Within the
Wasatch Formation, vertebrate fossils are found primarily in the non-red facies of the variegated beds,
including sandstones. Plant and animal fossils have been found throughout the Fort Union Formation
(USDI, BLM 1999).

The Medicine Bow Formation, which underlies a portion of the RMPPA, is known to produce vertebrate
fossils of scientific significance. Fossils from the Medicine Bow Formation include the remains of marine

3-48

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Paleontology

and freshwater invertebrates, terrestrial plants, and terrestrial vertebrates. Microfossils (pollen) and
megafossils (leaf and stem imprints, and petrified and carbonized wood) have been found in the
formation. Invertebrate fossils include marine foraminifers and brackish-water gastropods and bivalves.
The formation has also produced dinosaur bone fragments from the ceratopsian Triceratops and the
remains of a small number of mammals from the late Cretaceous Period (USDI, BLM 2001).

The Ferris and Medicine Bow Formations within the RMPPA produce fossils of particular significance
because they preserve strata containing the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary that dates to the time of the
extinction of the dinosaurs and adaptive radiation of mammals. The Ferris Formation has produced the
remains of early Paleocene mammals as well as fossil leaves and shells of freshwater invertebrates and
trace fossils. The Hanna Formation has produced the remains of terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates,
invertebrates, and plants of the Paleocene to possibly earliest Eocene age. These fossils are significant
because the Paleocene-Eocene boundary dates to the transition from Archaic to Modem orders of
mammals (USDI, BLM 2002a).

3.10.2 Potential Fossil Yield Classification

BLM has classified geologic formations in the RMPPA according to the Potential Fossil Yield
Classification (PFYC). This is a planning tool whereby geologic units, usually at the formation or
member level, are classified according to the probability of yielding paleontological resources that are of
concern to land managers. Existing statutes and policies regulate the collection and disposition of
vertebrate fossils, but not invertebrate fossils except in special circumstances. This classification is based
largely on how likely a geologic unit is to produce vertebrate fossils. Table 3-8 describes these classes,
with some examples of corresponding management considerations or actions.

Appendix 30 lists geologic formation classifications, according to the PFYC, for the State of Wyoming.
The classifications of paleontological resources determine the procedures to be followed before a
paleontological clearance to proceed with a project can be granted. There are more than 1,270,000 acres
of PFYC Class 4 within the RMPPA. Assigning a formation to Class 5 is determined during site-specific
analysis of Class 4 areas. Site-specific conditions may reduce the need for a Class 5 formation to require
intense mitigation. In the RMPPA, there are around 240,000 acres of PFYC Class 1, more than 550,000
acres of PFYC Class 2, and more than 1,480,000 acres of PFYC Class 3.

To manage the collection of scientifically significant fossils, BLM requires that a paleontological
collecting permit be obtained for collection of vertebrate fossils and scientifically significant invertebrate
fossils. These permits are issued only to qualified paleontologists.

Table 3-8. Paleontological Classification Descriptions

Class

Description

Basis

Comments

i

Igneous and metamorphic (tuffs are
excluded from this category)
geologic units or units representing
heavily disturbed preservational
environments that are not likely to
contain recognizable fossil remains.

Fossils of any kind known not to
occur except in the rarest of
circumstances.

Igneous or metamorphic origin.
Landslides and glacial deposits.

The land manager’s concern for
paleontological resources on Class 1
acres is negligible. Ground
disturbing activities will not require
mitigation except in rare
circumstances.

2

Sedimentary geologic units that are
not likely to contain vertebrate fossils
or scientifically significant
invertebrate fossils.

Vertebrate fossils known to occur
very rarely or not at all.

Age greater than Devonian.

Age younger than 10,000 years
before present.

Deep marine origin.

Aeolian origin.

Diagenetic alteration.

The land manager’s concern for
paleontological resources on Class 2
acres is low. Ground disturbing
activities are not likely to require
mitigation.

Rawlins RMP

3-49

Chapter 3 — Paleontology

Final EIS

Class

Description

Basis

Comments

3

Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic
units where fossil content varies in
significance, abundance, and
predictable occurrence. Also
sedimentary units of unknown fossil
potential.

Units with sporadic known
occurrences of vertebrate fossils.

Vertebrate fossils and significant
invertebrate fossils known to occur
inconsistently; predictability known
to be low.

Poorly studied and/or poorly
documented. Potential yield cannot
be assigned without ground
reconnaissance.

The land manager’s concern for
paleontological resources on Class 3
acres may extend across the entire
range of management. Ground
disturbing activities will require
sufficient mitigation to determine
whether significant paleontological
resources occur in the area of a
proposed action. Mitigation beyond
initial findings will range from no
further mitigation necessary to full
and continuous monitoring of
significant localities during the
action.

4

Class 4 geologic units are Class 5
units (see below) that have lowered
risks of human-caused adverse
impacts and/or lowered risk of
natural degradation.

Significant soil/vegetative cover;
outcrop is not likely to be impacted.

Areas of any exposed outcrop are
smaller than 2 contiguous acres.

Outcrop forms cliffs of sufficient
height and slope that most is out of
reach by normal means.

Other characteristics that lower the
vulnerability of both known and
unidentified fossil localities.

The land manager’s concern for
paleontological resources on Class 4
acres is toward management and
away from unregulated access.
Proposed ground disturbing
activities will require assessment to
determine whether significant
paleontological resources occur in
the area of a proposed action and
whether the action will impact the
paleontological resources. Mitigation
beyond initial findings will range from
no further mitigation necessary to full
and continuous monitoring of
significant localities during the
action.

5

Highly fossiliferous geologic units
that regularly and predictably
produce invertebrate fossils and/or
scientifically significant invertebrate
fossils, and that are at risk of natural
degradation and/or human-caused
adverse impacts.

Vertebrate fossils and/or
scientifically significant invertebrate
fossils are known and documented
to occur consistently, predictably,
and/or abundantly.

Unit is exposed; little or no
soil/vegetative cover.

Outcrop areas are extensive;
discontinuous areas are larger than
2 contiguous acres.

Outcrop erodes readily; may form
badlands.

Easy access to extensive outcrop in
remote areas.

Other characteristics that increase
the sensitivity of both known and
unidentified fossil localities.

The land manager’s highest concern
for paleontological resources should
focus on Class 5 acres. Mitigation of
ground disturbing activities is
required and may be intense. Areas
of special interest and concern
should be designated and intensely
managed.

Source: Originally developed by the Paleontology Center of Excellence and the Region 2 (USFS) Paleo Initiative, 1996. Some
modification by Dale Hanson, Regional Paleontologist, Wyoming BLM, 2002.

3-50

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Recreation and Visitor Services

3.1 1 Recreation and Visitor Services

Recreation is one of the major resource uses within the RMPPA. The term “recreation” includes a variety
of activities that affect and are affected by resources and other resource uses. This section addresses the
existing recreational environment within the RMPPA, describing the recreation resources, the levels of
use of these resources, and use trends. This section also addresses threats to recreation resources within
the RMPPA. All information in this section was gathered from the Recreation Planner for the RMPPA
and from BLM sources, which included the Great Divide Resource Area RMP and BLM’s RMIS (Clair
2002a, 2003, and 2004; BLM 1990a; BLM 2003a).

3.11.1 Recreation Resources

Recreation resources include recreation sites and dispersed public lands, wildlife resources, visual
resources, waterways, lakes, and other resources (physical, historical, etc.), each of which provides
different recreational opportunities.

The RMPPA offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities, primarily for dispersed use requiring
undeveloped open space. These activities include wildlife viewing, hunting, hiking, backpacking, OHV
use, fishing, bicycling, photography, camping, orienteering, and floating. For a physical description of the
resources, see the geology. Forest Management, range, wildlife, and vegetation sections of this chapter.

Based on the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification system, WSAs in the RMPPA are
managed as primitive and suited to activities requiring solitude, self-reliance, and an unmodified, natural
environment.

A large portion of the RMPPA is managed as Middle Country, which is greater than 1/2 mile from
improved roads and in which the landscape appears to be natural, except for obvious primitive roads. The
second most abundant class is Front Country, where improved roads are within 1/2 mile. Front Country is
the predominant class in areas developed for oil and gas due to the prevalence of improved 24 roads,
particularly in the western area of the RMPPA. Lands within 1/2 mile of highways and lands dominated
by agriculture or industrialization are designated as rural. The small acreage in proximity to and including
towns or cities are classified as urban.

Recreation Sites and Areas

In areas where recreation resources receive heavy use, developed recreation sites are often constructed to
aid in managing impacts. Consequently, developed recreation sites are primarily located near high-use
recreation attractions. There are 1 1 developed recreation sites, 7 undeveloped recreation sites, and 7
recreation areas within the RMPPA. These sites (Map 3-7) are as follows:

• Developed Recreation Sites

- Rim Lake Recreation Site

- Teton Reservoir Recreation Site

- Encampment River Campground (fee site)

- Bennett Peak Recreation Site (fee site)

- Corral Creek Campground

- Dugway Recreation Site

- Prior Flat Campground

- Lake Hattie Reservoir

- Twin Buttes Lake

- Wheatland Reservoir #3

- East Allen Lake

• Undeveloped Recreation Sites

Rawlins RMP

3-51

Chapter 3 — Recreation and Visitor Services

Final EIS

- Nine-Mile Hill

- Big Creek

- Shirley Basin Reservoir

- Little Sage Reservoir

- Little Robber Reservoir

- Laramie River Access.

In addition to these recreation sites, there are larger dispersed areas that receive heavy recreational use.
These areas (Map 3-7) are as follows:

Jelm Mountain Area

The Jelm Mountain area provides diverse recreation opportunities associated with Jelm Mountain. This
area is popular with recreationists from the Laramie area. Existing recreational uses include hunting,
camping, fishing, wildlife viewing, OHV touring, and other compatible uses. The University of
Wyoming’s 2.3-meter telescope is located at the Wyoming Infrared Observatory (WIRO) on the summit
of Jelm Mt. This site was chosen because of: (1) the dryness of the air, which is an important
consideration for infrared astronomy, since moisture strongly absorbs infrared radiation; (2) the
comparatively low turbulence in the air above the mountain; (3) a dark night sky; (4) close proximity to
the University of Wyoming; and (5) pre-existing roads, electricity and phone lines since Jelm was
formerly used by the USFS and BLM as a fire lookout station. The planning for WIRO began in the early
1970s. WIRO became operational in September of 1977 and still ranks as one of the premier infrared
observatories in the world.

Pedro Mountains Area

The Pedro Mountains area is a popular area for rock climbing and other non-motorized recreational
activities. Other existing uses include hunting, backpacking, camping, wildlife viewing, and hiking.

Laramie Plains Lakes Area

The Laramie Plains Lakes area, including Lake Hattie Reservoir and Twin Buttes Lake, provides water-
related recreation opportunities for fishing, camping, wildlife viewing, and boating in concert with
multiple uses such as grazing and wildlife and fisheries habitat.

Rawlins Fishing Areas

Teton Reservoir and Rim Lake Recreation Sites provide water-related recreation opportunities for fishing,
camping, wildlife viewing, and boating in concert with compatible multiple uses. Teton Reservoir
Recreation Site provides for good fishing access and is popular for its fishing. Rim Lake Recreation Site
is located near and is a popular access point to the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.

The remaining three areas, like recreation sites and dispersed recreation areas, are designated as Special
Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) to acknowledge the importance of their recreation resources and
to help manage these resources in a way that allows continued, increasing levels of use without damage to
the resources. There are three existing SRMAs in the RMPPA: the Shirley Mountain SRMA, the North
Platte River SRMA, and a portion of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail that passes through the
BLM-administered land (Map 2-46). The existing recreational environment of these areas is discussed in
the following section.

3-52

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Recreation and Visitor Services

3.1 1 .2 Special Recreation Management Areas

SRMAs are managed for significant or unique recreational resources and to maintain or enhance a
diversity of recreational opportunities and benefits (Table 2-11). Currently there are three such areas
within the RMPPA: the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA, the North Platte River SRMA,
and the Shirley Mountain SRMA (Map 2-14). Table 3-9 summarizes RMIS data for these areas over the
past 3 fiscal years (FY01-03). In addition to the presentation of these data, each area is summarized
briefly below.

Rawlins RMP

3-53

3-54 Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Recreation and Visitor Services

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA

The currently designated portions of this SRMA cover about 82 miles of trail primarily on BLM-managed
land (plus some state land) in the RMPPA. Its key uses include camping, hiking, mountain biking, and
driving in proximity to the Continental Divide from the Canadian to the Mexican border. Although all but
a very short portion of the trail follows existing roads and vehicle routes through the RMPPA, due to
easement issues across non-federal lands, the exact trail route has not yet been fully identified.

North Platte River SRMA

By far, this SRMA receives the heaviest use of the three existing SRMAs in the RMPPA. It is a 5,060-
acre SRMA that follows the North Platte River from the Colorado-Wyoming border to Seminoe
Reservoir. Water-related recreational activities draw large numbers of participants. The largest number of
participants, just over 50,000, fish the river. Other important activities in this SRMA include floating,
picnicking, waterfowl hunting, camping, and wildlife viewing. Bennett Peak is the most heavily used
recreation site on the Upper North Platte River for camping, floating, and fishing. Although the Dugway
Recreation Site has a small campground, it is most popular with day use fishermen and picnickers.

Shirley Mountain SRMA

The Shirley Mountain SRMA contains 24,440 acres of public land. The SRMA is popular for dispersed
recreation, especially hunting during the fall deer, elk, and antelope seasons. Prior Flat Campground is
gaining in popularity, particularly with visitors from the Casper area. The campground is heavily used
during hunting season. Dispersed camping, OHV use, and wildlife viewing occur throughout the rest of
the SRMA as well. The recreational physical, social, and administrative settings in the Shirley Mountain
SRMA are managed as a middle country. This setting is influenced by the amount of users who frequent
the area for dispersed camping, OHV tours, sight seeing, and hunting. There are numerous two tracks
leading to noticeable primitive campsites, private inholdings, and a communication site consisting of two
towers. The BLM manages the area as a Limited OHV area; OHVs are limited to designated roads and
trails. Additional administrative presence is noticeable at the Prior Flats Campground, a developed
campground acting as the gateway into the Shirley Mountains. Back country settings exist in the Shirley
Mountain SRMA, located in the forested areas, the remote canyons, and lookouts away from the vehicle
routes and campsites.

Cave Creek Cave is located within the SRMA area and contains a hibemaculum for several bat species,
including bat species on the BLM sensitive species list. Ground water near Cave Creek provides unique
humidity and temperature conditions that support hibernating and breeding bats. Cave Creek Cave’s
physical characteristics provide for a unique natural recreational resource setting highly suitable for
caving. Cave Creek Cave historically has been and remains a popular area for exploring the numerous
route networks and caverns.

3.11.3 Wildlife Resources

The wildlife resources (nongame, big game, small game, waterfowl, upland birds, fish, etc.) within the
RMPPA provide amazing opportunities for recreational uses. There are several world-class fisheries
within the RMPPA in addition to a number of areas that offer prime habitat for several big game species.
There are also habitats for a variety of upland game birds. The abundance of wildlife in the RMPPA
directly affects the amount and type of recreational uses available. When wildlife populations fluctuate, so
do the opportunities for recreation that involve those populations.

Wildlife recreation, such as hunting, fishing, trapping, and wildlife viewing, represents approximately 60
percent of all recreational activities in the RMPPA. In addition, visitor days ( 1 visitor day represents an
aggregate of 12 hours a visitor spends at a site, area, or activity) spent on the above-mentioned activities

Rawlins RMP

3-55

Chapter 3 — Recreation and Visitor Services

Final EIS

make up over 55 percent of all visitor days devoted to recreation. For more information on the existing
environment for wildlife, please refer to the discussion in Section 3.19.

3.1 1 .4 Other Resources

Several other resources located within the RMPPA provide additional recreation opportunities. Seminoe
Reservoir’s recreation resources are managed by Wyoming State Parks, yet several other recreation
resources that visitors often use are located close to the reservoir. The Rawlins BLM Field Office has
established memorandums of understanding (MOU) with WGFD concerning recreation management on
several reservoirs in the Laramie area. MOUs addressing the construction and management of recreation
facilities at East Allen Lake, Wheatland Reservoir #3, Twin Buttes Reservoir, and Lake Hattie were
entered into between 1973 and 1976 and remain in effect. In addition, rivers throughout the RMPPA
provide opportunities for fishing as well as other water-based recreational opportunities including, but not
limited to, canoeing, rafting, and drift boating. In relation to commercial recreational use of river
resources, the Rawlins BLM Field Office and USFS have established an MOU that allows river outfitters
that enter the river on land managed by one agency to leave the river on land managed by the other
agency without having to obtain permits from both agencies.

The system of roads throughout the RMPPA provides an opportunity for casual driving, viewing of
wildlife and wild horses, and other such activities. However, other than highways and those roads
associated with towns, few roads are paved in the RMPPA, and most county roads, oil and gas roads, and
a few BLM roads are graveled. The remainder of the transportation system is, for the most part,
minimally improved or unimproved and thus well-suited to dispersed recreational activities, such as
hunting and OHV use.

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail traverses high desert on BLM-administered land before
entering the national forest to the south. The trail provides opportunities for hiking, backpacking,
horseback riding, OHV use, mountain biking, and other trail-related recreational activities.

3.11.5 Recreational Use

RMIS estimates participation in 65 types of recreational activities recorded at BLM-managed sites and
areas. Estimates are based on registration records, permit records, observations, and professional
judgment. Visitation rates are estimated by numbers of participants as well as visitor days. Participants
are the actual number of people who take part in a recreational activity. A visitor day is a common unit of
measure of recreation used among federal agencies. As noted above, 1 visitor day represents an aggregate
of 12 visitor hours at a site or area. It should be noted that the number of participants and the number of
visitors might differ, as one visitor can participate in several recreational activities, thereby being
recorded as a participant several times. Table 3-10 shows a summary of the RMIS data for the RMPPA
for 2001, 2002, and 2003. Increases or decreases in visitation to some areas may result from drought cycle
influences on water levels of reservoirs, rivers, etc.; gas prices; or other influences that impact local
tourism. Estimation protocols and technologies to inventory visitor days continue to evolve.

3-56

Rawlins RMP

Table 3-10, Recreational Management System Information on Recreation Participants and Visitor Days in the RMPPA

D

co

Source: BLM Recreation Management Information System, RMPPA.

Chapter 3-Recreation and Visitor Services

Final EIS

From October 2000 through September 2003, there were far more dispersed recreation visits and visitor
days than there were visits or visitor days at recreation sites (Table 3-11). This is due largely to the
popularity of dispersed activities such as hunting, fishing, and OHV use in the RMPPA, and the vast
public lands available for these activities.

Table 3-11. Recreation Visits by Location in the RMPPA

Recreation Visits by Location:

October 2000-September 2003

Visits

Visitor Days

Rawlins RMPPA

Dispersed Recreation

428,588

369,197

Developed/Undeveloped Recreation Sites

123,224

101,520

Source: BLM Recreation Management Information System, RMPPA.

According to data from fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003, dispersed recreation tends to mirror the pattern
shown above for the entire RMPPA, with big game hunting, freshwater fishing, wildlife viewing, and
OHV cars/trucks/SUVs topping the list of activities. Within these few activities, approximately 250,000
participants viewed wildlife for more than 23,000 visitor days, while approximately 94,000 participants
spent more than 182,000 visitor days hunting big game, and approximately 140,000 participants spent
more than 54,000 visitor days fishing. Trail activities, such as walking, hiking, and running, were also
popular activities at recreation sites. Although dispersed recreation patterns tend to mirror the overall
RMPPA recreation patterns, recreation near developed and undeveloped sites will tend to be water-
related, with more participants recreating for fewer visitor days.

3.11.6 Recreation Trends

The current trends in recreational use in the RMPPA indicate steady to slight increases. Many of the
recreational activities in the RMPPA are directly tied to various natural resources, resulting in a
correlation between the condition of the resources and the number of users. The recreation trends tied
most directly to resource conditions are those that require wildlife populations to be healthy. These
include hunting and fishing recreation trends. In addition, annual precipitation will affect the level of
rivers and streams and the recreation that requires these resources, such as fishing and floating. Given
favorable conditions for these resources, their recreational use will likely continue to rise slowly.

3-58

Ralins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

3.12 Socioeconomics

The RMPPA encompasses a large area across much of southern Wyoming and is located within four
counties: Albany, Carbon, Laramie, and Sweetwater. Because activities in the RMPPA have the potential
to affect all of these counties, the socioeconomic study area has been defined as these four counties.
Demographic and economic data for the socioeconomic study area have been collected from a variety of
sources. A 20-year time horizon was chosen to examine recent trends in demographic and economic
parameters for the socioeconomic study area. These trends and parameters are discussed in detail below.

3.12.1 County Characteristics

Like much of Wyoming, the counties within the RMPPA socioeconomic study area are quite rural. Three
of the four counties encompass a rather large land area with a dispersed population, as summarized in
Table 3-12. Laramie County, the exception, has a higher population density largely as a result of the
location of Cheyenne within its borders. The number of persons per square mile ranges from 2.0 in
Carbon County to 30.4 in Laramie County.

Table 3-12. Geographic Characteristics of the Study Area

Geographic

Characteristic

Albany

Carbon

Laramie

Sweetwater

Wyoming

United

States

Land Area (Million Acres)

2.7

5.1

1.7

6.7

62.1

2,200

Land Area (Square Miles)

4,273

7,896

2,686

10,425

97,100

3.5 Million

Persons Per Square Mile

7.5

2.0

30.4

3.6

5.1

79.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts, (USCB 2003).

The largest population centers in the socioeconomic study area are listed in Table 3-13. These areas have
reported changes in population over the past decade that vary by location. Out of the four counties, only
two grew from 2000 to 2005. Laramie County grew the most from 2000 to 2005 at nearly 4.4 percent.
Sweetwater also grew slightly by about 1 percent, but Albany and Carbon actually lost population with
growth of -3.51 percent and -1.97 percent respectively.

Table 3-13. Population Centers

County

City

Population

1990

2000

Albany

Laramie

26,687

27,204

1.9

Carbon

Rawlins

9,380

8,538

-9.0

Saratoga

1,969

1,726

-12.3

Laramie

Cheyenne

50,008

53,011

6.0

Pine Bluffs

1,054

1,153

9.4

Sweetwater

Green River

12,711

11,808

-7.1

Rock Springs

19,050

18,708

-1.8

Land ownership in the socioeconomic study area is summarized in Figure 3-35. Public lands account for a
significant proportion of the land base, with 49 percent of total land area owned and managed by federal
agencies, including BLM. The RMPPA comprises approximately 3.5 million surface acres, which is 22

Rawlins RMP

3-59

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Final EIS

percent of the socioeconomic study area. In addition, the RFO staff are responsible for 4.67 million acres
of BLM-administered federal mineral estate.

The RMPPA is known for the checkerboard pattern of land ownership covering a large portion of its area.
Figure 3-36 summarizes the land ownership within the RMPPA boundaries and shows that BLM manages
32 percent of the total land area, whereas 52 percent is held in private ownership. This land ownership
pattern presents challenges in managing resources.

3.12.2 Demographic Characteristics

Population

Annual population estimates for each of the four counties in the socioeconomic study area for 1900 to
July 1, 2005 are plotted in Figure 3-37. Population increased by 6 percent over these 15 years, equating to
an annual average increase of less than 0.5 percent. Although total population in the socioeconomic study
area grew modestly over the past 1 5 years, examination of the components of population growth yields
some additional insights. In Table 3-14, the components of population change show that although there
are increases in population in this area due to natural changes (more births than deaths), with the
exception of Laramie County, net migration drew individuals away from the area from 2000 to 2005. The
socioeconomic study area showed an increase in population from 2000 to 2005. However, the percentage
increase was only about half the statewide increase for this same time frame, and the net migration was
positive in only Laramie County and statewide. Combined, the four counties experienced decreases in
population due to net migration in the 1980s, the 1990s, and from 2000 to 2005, but the decline due to net
migration fell from 13.83 percent in the 1980s to only 1.7 percent from 2000 to 2005.

Distribution of the population by ethnicity for 2000 in the socioeconomic study area and in the State of
Wyoming is summarized in Figure 3-38. When compared with the state, the socioeconomic study area
reported a lower percentage of whites and a slightly higher percentage of individuals indicating they are
of Hispanic or Latino descent. The percentage of other ethnic groups is quite small, which is common
throughout Wyoming.

3-60

Rawlins RMP

<o

I

<T>

<*>

k,

0)

1W

Q.

<0

■c

o

<0

S3

■ —

,c

5

<

fiu

0-

©

J3

+-»

a

a i

ox

s

©I

c

.2

’■+-

_2

s

a

©

4-

©

5«

+■>

s

©

s

©

a

E

©

U

i

3

os

H

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Final EIS

Personal Income Trends

Personal income data were obtained for each county in the socioeconomic study area from the U.S.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Figure 3-39 summarizes components of personal income for 1990
through 2000 for the combined economic study area in inflation-adjusted dollars (2001$). Total personal
income increased by over $1 billion during the 1990s, representing a 28 percent increase. Table 3-15
places these data in perspective by summarizing the estimated poverty rates for the four counties in the
socioeconomic study area, for Wyoming, for the West, and for the United States.

Table 3-15. Estimated Poverty Rates for Counties Within the RMPPA

Location

1989

1998

Albany County

19.8%

14%

Carbon County

10.0%

1 1 .8%

Laramie County

10.6%

10.7%

Sweetwater County

8.0%

8.1%

Wyoming

1 1 .9%

1 1 .4%

West

12.5%

14.6%

United States

12.8%

13.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, State Model Estimates of the Percentage of
Persons of All Ages in Poverty.

Personal income can be broken down into three categories: labor income, investment income, and transfer
payments. Labor income is derived from wages, salaries, and self-employment income. Investment
income is in the form of rents, dividends, and interest earnings. Transfer payments are largely derived
from Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and other income support and assistance.

Labor income consistently accounts for the greatest percentage of personal income for this area (65
percent in 2000). However, the importance of income from non-labor sources has increased during the
1990s, accounting for 35 percent of total personal income in 2000, up from 31 percent in 1990. This
change in how individuals earn income is not unlike national or state trends.

Investment income in the study area grew by 45 percent during the 1990s and accounted for 24 percent of
personal income by 2000. Investment income as a percentage of personal income for this area in 2000
was higher than the national average (18 percent) but below the state average (26 percent). The increasing
dependence on investment income is common throughout the country given that an increasing percentage
of the population is retired.

Transfer payments for the study area grew by nearly 300 percent from 1970 to 2003 and accounted for
about 13 percent of total personal income in the study area in 2003. In terms of the relative importance of
the various components of transfer payments, government payments to individuals account for 95 percent,
and of those payments, retirement and disability insurance benefit payments represent 45 percent and
medical payments represent 33 percent. It is interesting to note that in 2003, 52 percent of transfer
payments were from age-related sources (retirement, disability, insurance payments, and Medicare), while
7 percent were from welfare. The area’s slight increase in dependence on transfer payments as a source of
income is very similar to state and national trends, where in 2000 transfer payments accounted for 12
percent of personal income for residents of Wyoming and 1 3 percent nationally.

The per capita income for the socioeconomic study area has closely followed state and national growth
trends associated with per capita income. However, this area has traditionally reported per capita income
levels below the national average. For example, in 2000 per capita income for the study area was $27,660,

3-62

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

which was lower than both the state average ($28,004) and the national average ($30,150). To put this in
a historical perspective, the per capita personal income depicted in 2004$ for the study region is
illustrated in Figure 3-40 and Figure 3-41. Albany County’s per capita income increased from 2000 to
2001 and then showed a steady decline from 2001 through 2004. During this same period, the per capita
income in Carbon and Sweetwater Counties went up slightly from 2000 to 2001, fell slightly in 2002, and
then increased through 2004. Laramie County’s per capita income increased throughout this period.

Per capita income for the study region increased from 2000 to 2001 and then remained relatively flat from
2001 through 2004. During this same time frame, the state of Wyoming’s per capita income increased
from 2000 to 2001, fell slightly in 2002, and then increased from 2002 to 2004. Throughout this period,
the per capita income of Wyoming exceeded the study region’s per capita income.

The HUD median family income for the study area from 2000 through 2006 is illustrated in Figure 3-42
and Figure 3-43. The figures show the trend in median family income for all four counties measured in
2004$ and also for the four-county study region and the state of Wyoming, also measured in 2004$.

For Albany and Laramie Counties, there was a decline in median family income from 2000 to 2001 and
then an increase from 2001 through 2004, followed by a decline in 2005 and an increase in 2006. This
same figure indicates a decline in Carbon County from 2000 through 2002, and then a slight increase in
2003 followed by a decline through 2005 and an increase in 2006. Sweetwater County decreased from
2000 to 2001 , increased in 2002, declined in 2003, increased in 2004, and fell from 2004 through 2006.

The trend for the four-county region is marked by a decline in 2001 followed by an increase through
2004, a decline in 2005, and an increase in 2006. The trend for the State of Wyoming is the same as for
the four-county region. Throughout this period, median family income for the four-county region is
greater than the Wyoming median family income.

Even though there was significant oil and gas activity in both Carbon and Sweetwater Counties from
2000 through 2006, the per capita income trend is relatively flat measured in 2004$. Additionally, both of
these counties show a relatively flat to slightly downward trend in median family income over this same
time period.

It should be noted that based on the new income by type measure, the four top sectors in 2000 measured
in personal income are non-labor income (35.6 percent), services and professional (31.6 percent), and
government (23.8 percent). Mining accounted for only 7.6 percent of the total personal income. However,
this sectoral distribution of personal income will change as a result of increased oil and gas activity and
will likely increase the concentration of economic activity in the oil and gas sector. And to the extent the
diversity is reduced, the exposure to a “boom and bust” scenario is enhanced.

3.12.3 Economic Characteristics

This section focuses on trends associated with certain economic characteristics in the socioeconomic
study area. These trends include changes in the labor force and unemployment as well as trends in
employment and earnings by industry.

Labor Force and Unempfoyment

Changes in the labor force and in unemployment can provide information on the health of the local
economy. The average annual unemployment rates for each of the four study counties and Wyoming are
summarized in Figure 3-44. Unemployment in Carbon County has consistently been higher than
unemployment for the State of Wyoming from 2000 through 2005. However, unemployment for Albany
County has been below the state average over this same time. Examining the study area unemployment
reveals that it generally reflects the unemployment rate of the State of Wyoming over this period.

Rawlins RMP

3-63

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Final EIS

Labor force, employment, unemployment, and unemployment rates are summarized for each county in
the study area and for Wyoming in Table 3-16. As mentioned above, overall, the socioeconomic study
area mirrored what was occurring in Wyoming during the period extending from 2000 to 2005. However,
Carbon County’s unemployment rate was higher than the other three counties with the exception of year
2004, when it had the same unemployement rate as did Laramie County.

Table 3-16. Changes in the Civilian Labor Force, 1991-2000

Location

Change in Civilian Labor

Force Between 1991-2000

.

Percentage Change in Civilian
Labor Force Between 1991-2000

Albany County

2,516

15.6

Carbon County

-278

-3.2%

Laramie County

5,396

15%

Sweetwater County

-550

-2.7%

Socioeconomic Study Area

7,084

8.7%

Wyoming

32,810

14.0%

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics.

Employment and Earnings by Industry

BEA estimates annual employment and earnings for counties throughout the United States. Total annual
employment includes both full-time and part-time jobs, so individuals with more than one job will be
counted more than once. The employment estimates include persons who are employed by businesses and
public entities, as well as individuals who are self-employed. Data were obtained from BEA regarding
total annual employment for each of the counties in the economic study area, for Wyoming, and for the
United States for 1990 through 2000 to examine trends in employment by industry over the 10-year study
period.

Total employment in the economic study area increased by 16 percent during the 1990s, from 94,980 in
1990 to 110,212 in 2000. Compared with employment growth in Wyoming and nationwide, this area
showed slower growth in employment. For instance, over the same 10-year period, total employment
grew by 2 1 percent in Wyoming and 20 percent nationwide.

Employment trends in the four-county study area by industry for 1990 through 2000 are summarized in
Figure 3-45. The largest employers in the region include government services and trade, which comprised
70 percent of total employment in 2000. But it should be noted that the Regional Economic Information
System (REIS) database indicates that mining employment covering the period from 1970 to 2000 in
Albany and Laramie Counties fluctuated slightly, and that Albany County showed some slight growth
while Laramie County declined during this same time frame. Moreover, Carbon County mining
employment grew from 1970 to 1980 and then showed a steady decline from 1981 to 2000.

Figure 3-46 provides a summary of earnings trends by industry for the study area for 1990 through 2000.
Earnings from the government sector dominate this area, providing the largest percentage of earnings of
any industry and consistently accounting for nearly a third of total earnings on an annual basis during the
1990s. The service sector now accounts for the second-highest percentage of total earnings in the
economic study area (17 percent). This sector is followed by trade (11 percent) and transportation and
utilities (10 percent). Industries reporting the greatest growth in earnings include manufacturing; finance,
insurance, and real estate (F.I.R.E.); and services. But it should be noted that even though Figure 3-46
shows farm and agricultural services contributing the least amount of gross earnings from 1990 through
2000, studies indicate that agricultural production is an important contributor to the state’s economy
(Moline et al. 1991). For example, in a 2000 study, economists at the University of Wyoming compared

3-64

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

the income provided to county governments and public schools to the financial demands on community
services from agricultural and residential developments. The study shows that on average in Wyoming,
ranching activity generates nearly twice as much income for community services as it requires in
expenditures on community services, whereas residential development generates about half as much
income as it requires in expenditures (Taylor and Coupal 2000). These findings underscore the
importance of agricultural production in tenns of its contribution to local economies.

Another method of examining the importance of certain industries is to observe the trends in average
earnings. Figure 3-47 shows the trends in average earnings for the study area for 1990-2000. Mining jobs
remain the highest paying in the area, followed by transportation and manufacturing.

Industries showing the greatest percentage increase in earnings include manufacturing (37 percent),
F.I.R.E. (31 percent), and services (18 percent). Although the government sector supports the greatest
percentage of jobs and earnings in the study area, growth in real earnings for this sector has been
relatively modest during the 1990s, increasing by 4 percent between 1990 and 2000.

Economic Base

An area’s economic base comprises industries that are primarily responsible for bringing outside income
into the local economy. These industries typically export their goods and services outside the region and
in turn support ancillary industries such as retail trade, housing construction, and personal services. The
location of important industries in certain areas traditionally has been tied to such factors as the natural
resource base, cost factors (transportation and labor), and existing transportation infrastructure. Flowever,
technology has affected these location factors.

To assess the importance of major industries as a basic industry, location quotients were calculated for
nine major industries, as listed in Table 3-1 7. A location quotient was calculated for both employment and
income and compares each industry’s share of total local employment or income to the industry’s state or
national share. This quotient yields a value generally between 0 and 2, where 1.0 indicates an equal share
percentage between the local and state or national economies. Location quotients greater than 2 indicate a
strong industry concentration, and those less than 0.50 indicate a weak concentration.

Table 3-17 shows that the four-county study area mirrors in many ways the state’s economy as a whole.
Industries that do show a stronger concentration in this area compared to the state’s economy include
manufacturing, transportation, utilities, and government. Two industries that are weak in this area
compared with the state are mining and farm and agriculture services. When compared to the national
economy, however, mining shows an extremely high concentration. This is also true for the government
sector. Alternatively, manufacturing; F.I.R.E.; and services show weak concentrations compared with the
national economy.

Table 3-17. Location Quotients for the RMPPA, 2000

Employment

Earnings

Industry

Location

Quotient

(Wyoming)

Location
Quotient (U.S.)

Location

Quotient

(Wyoming)

Location
Quotient (U.S.)

Farm and Ag Services

0.54

1.01

0.67

0.87

Mining

0.63

8.16

0.63

11.03

Construction

0.75

1.05

0.79

1.12

Manufacturing

1.04

0.40

1.42

0.48

Transportation and Utilities

1.05

1.17

1.12

1.42

Trade

0.94

0.97

0.90

0.77

Rawlins RMP

3-65

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Final EIS

Industry

Employment

Earnings

Location

Quotient

(Wyoming)

Location
Quotient (U.S.)

Location

Quotient

(Wyoming)

Location
Quotient (U.S.)

F.I.R.E.

0.96

0.88

0.96

0.51

Services

0.87

0.73

0.86

0.58

Government

1.28

1.92

1.38

2.08

Property Valuation and Taxation

Total property valuation for the four counties in the socioeconomic study area for 2001 is summarized in
Table 3-18. This includes property assessed by the State of Wyoming as well as locally assessed property.
The State of Wyoming assesses taxes on both mineral and nonmineral property. Nonmineral property
assessed by the state includes airlines, utilities, pipelines and gas distribution systems, railroads, and
telephone service (Wyoming Department of Revenue 2001). During fiscal year 2001, the valuation of
property assessed by the state was $1.66 billion for the socioeconomic study area.

Local government assesses four categories of property, including (1) agricultural land; (2) residential
land, improvements, and personal property; (3) commercial land, improvements, and personal property;
and (4) industrial property (Figure 3-48). During fiscal year 2001, the value of property assessed by local
governments in the socioeconomic study area was almost $947 million, as described in Table 3-18. The
total value of assessed property in the four-county study area was $2.6 billion in fiscal year 2001 .

As illustrated in Figure 3-49, there has been dramatic growth in natural gas production in the
socioeconomic study area. As a result, it continues to be a major source of tax revenue for local
government entities. For example, Table 3-18 indicates that during fiscal year 2001 minerals accounted
for nearly 55 percent of the total state and locally assessed property values in the study region. Moreover,
the assessed value of minerals in Carbon and Sweetwater Counties represented nearly 77 percent and 70
percent, respectively, of the total state and locally assessed property values for these counties. But it
should be noted that while Table 3-18 does indicate that the value of residential property is more than
twice that of commercial or industrial property, it also illustrates that the value of residential property for
the study area is only about 37 percent of the assessed value of mineral property. But regardless of the
relative size of the assessed property valuations, if oil and gas development creates a degradation of the
surrounding environment, residential property values are likely to suffer. But to quantify the change in
residential property brought about by increased oil and gas activity is beyond the scope of this analysis.

3-66

Rawlins RMP

Table 3-18. Assessed Property Values by County for 2001

01

(1)

Q.

<0

■C

o

•2

Uj

.c

i

Rawlins RMP

Chapter 3

Final EIS

Table 3-19 summarizes the assessed value of oil and gas production and property for fiscal year 2001 for
each of the counties in the socioeconomic study area. For 2001, oil and gas production accounted for 75
percent of all mineral valuation in the socioeconomic study area as assessed by the state. For Carbon and
Sweetwater Counties, oil and gas production accounted for 92 percent and 68 percent, respectively, of all
assessed mineral production. Physical assets of the oil and gas industry (property) constituted an
additional 2.7 percent of all property assessed by local governments. Of all property and production
assessed by the state and local governments, oil and gas operations accounted for 42 percent of assessed
value in the socioeconomic study area during fiscal year 200 1 .

Table 3-19. Assessed Value of Oil and Gas Production and Property

in the RMPPA, FY2001

County

Oil and Gas
Valuation —
Production

Oil and Gas
Valuation as
Percentage
of Total
Mineral
Valuation

Oil and Gas
Extraction
and Refining
Property
Valuation

Oil and Gas
Property as a
Percentage
of Locally
Assessed
Property
Valuation

Oil and Gas
Valuation as
a Percentage
of Total
State- and
Local
Assessed
Property
Valuation

Albany

$1,866,033

56.14%

$104,284

0.07%

i%

Carbon

$393,684,237

92.35%

$25,146,585

29.19%

76%

Laramie

$10,676,916

59.34%

$8,756,014

2.18%

4%

Sweetwater

$670,371,775

68.39%

$42,161,137

13.87%

51%

Total Study
Area

$1,076,598,961

75.40%

$25,250,869

2.67%

42%

County Ad Valorem Taxes

Estimated ad valorem taxes from mineral production for each study county during calendar year 200 1 are
summarized in Table 3-20. These counties generated $76 million in tax revenues from mineral production
during 2001. Of this, $67 million, or 88 percent, was derived from oil and gas production. Ad valorem
taxes derived from mineral production accounted for 53 percent of total county tax levies in 2001.

3-68

Rawlins RMP

Table 3-20. Estimated Mineral Ad Valorem Tax Revenues, FY2001

a>

■w

a

IT)

■c

o

•2

m

"<5

,c

£

Rawlins RMP 3-69

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Final EIS

Table 3-21 provides an estimate of the ad valorem taxes assessed on physical property associated with oil,
gas, and coal operations. During 2001, the four counties generated an estimated $3.9 million in property
taxes associated with oil, gas, and coal extraction assets.

Table 3-21. Estimated Ad Valorem Tax Revenues on Oil, Gas, and Coal Property, FY2001

County

Oil and Gas
Property
Assessment

Coal

Property

Assessment

Average

Tax

Levy

Total

Estimated

Ad

Valorem —
Property

Albany

$104,284

$0

62.94

$6,564

Carbon

$13,557,345

$1,459,743

61.94

$930,158

Laramie

$813,889

$0

68.63

$55,857

Sweetwater

$42,161,137

$3,944,703

63.44

$2,924,954

Total Study Area

$56,636,655

$5,404,446

124.88

$3,917,534

Table 3-22 estimates the importance of oil and gas operations in terms of local government property tax
revenues. The four counties in the socioeconomic study area generated $71 million in tax revenues as a
result of oil and gas operations. This accounted for 42 percent of property taxes generated in this area for
2001.

Table 3-22. Oil and Gas Tax Revenues as a Percentage of Total County

Property Taxes, FY2001

County

Total Ad Valorem
Tax Revenue — Oil
and Gas

Property Tax
Levy3

Oil and Gas Tax
Revenue as a
Percentage of
County Tax Levy

Albany

$124,010

$12,481,661

i%

Carbon

$25,222,507

$34,927,573

72%

Laramie

$788,556

$34,322,378

2%

Sweetwater

$45,206,413

$89,145,656

51%

Total Study
Area

$71,341,486

$170,877,268

42%

Wyoming Taxpayers Association, Wyoming Property Taxation, 2001.

State Mineral Severance Taxes

Local government entities as well as the state benefit from severance taxes collected on mineral
production throughout the state. Table 3-18 shows that $1.4 billion was assessed by the State of Wyoming
for mineral production in the four-county socioeconomic study area during 2001. However, severance
taxes collected on mineral production are distributed within the state according to a formula published in
the state statutes (W.S. 39-14-801). These tax revenues are distributed to various sources, including the
state general fund, state water development account, state highway fund, counties, cities, and towns.
Therefore, the government entities in the socioeconomic study area will benefit from only a percentage of
the severance taxes collected on production within the area. These entities, however, will also benefit
from the severance taxes collected on mineral production in other parts of the state. Table 3-23

3-70

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

summarizes the total severance tax revenues that were distributed to the local government entities within
the socioeconomic study area during fiscal year 2001.

Table 3-23. Total Severance Tax Distributions for Government Entities

in theRMPPA, FY2001

Area

Severance Tax
Distributions

Counties in Study Area

$4,801,380

Total Severance Taxes Distributed to All
Counties in Wyoming

$13,843,706

Percentage Distributed to Study Area
Counties

35%

Cities and Towns in Study Area

$13,638,594

Total Severance Taxes Distributed to All
Cities/Towns in Wyoming

$35,370,306

Percentage Distributed to Study Area
Cities/Towns

39%

Source: Annual Report of the Treasurer of the State of Wyoming, June 30, 2001.

Table 3-24 estimates the severance taxes generated from mineral production originating within the
socioeconomic study area. The estimated severance taxes for each mineral type are based on production
and assessed values and the effective tax rates, all of which were obtained from the Wyoming Department
of Revenue, Mineral Tax Division. Natural gas production generated the most severance tax revenue in
the socioeconomic study area, accounting for nearly 67 percent of all severance taxes generated, with the
majority of production occurring in Carbon and Sweetwater Counties.

Rawlins RMP

3-71

Table 3-24. Severance Taxes Generated in the Study Area by Product, FY2001

co

Ul

to

c

C

V)

U

E

o

c

o

o

o>

o

o

o

CO

to

Q.

TO

•C

o

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Federal Royalties

Mineral production occurring on federally owned public lands is also assessed a federal mineral royalty.
Production of oil and gas and surface minable coal is assessed at 12.5 percent after allowable deductions.
Coal mined by underground methods is assessed at 8 percent of value after allowable deductions. The
Federal Government returns 50 percent of the total royalties collected to the state where the mineral
production occurs. In Wyoming, distribution of the federal royalties is based on a formula promulgated by
the Wyoming State Statutes (W.S. 9-4-601). The state allows a percentage of the federal royalties to be
distributed to cities and towns for planning, construction, and maintenance of public facilities; capital
construction funds; and transportation projects. Local school districts may also benefit from federal
royalty payments through advanced entitlement grants for capital construction funds.

Total federal royalties distributed to local government agencies in the socioeconomic study area for the
federal fiscal year 2001 amounted to $6.04 million (Wyoming Department of Revenue 2001).

RMPPA Mineral Tax Revenues

Table 3-25 through Table 3-27 provide an estimate of the mineral tax revenues associated with oil and gas
and common variety minerals production within the RMPPA for production year 2000. Actual production
data were obtained from the Wyoming State Geologic Survey and were used in combination with the
average taxable valuation per unit and average tax and royalty rates to estimate ad valorem taxes (county),
severance taxes (state), and federal royalties. Oil, gas, and coal production occurring within the RMPPA
generated an estimated $62 million in mineral tax revenues to the county, state, and federal governments
(ad valorem, severance, and federal royalties) during fiscal year 2001.

Table 3-25. Estimated Ad Valorem Tax on Production for the RMPPA

(Federal Lands)

Product

Total Annual
Production

Taxable
Valuation Per
Unit3

Assessed

Valuation

Average Tax
Levyb

:

Total

Estimated Ad
Valorem

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) = (2)*(3)

(5)

(6) =

(4)/1000*(5)

Oil (BBLs)

1,557,123

$24.47

$38,102,800

58.849

$2,242,312

Natural Gas
(MCF)

81,540,962

$2.60

$212,006,501

58.849

$12,476,371

Coal

(Underground)

1,409,233

$16.62

$23,421,452

61.935

$1,450,608

Coal (Surface)

705,958

$3.91

$2,760,296

61.935

$170,959

Total

$276,291,049

$16,340,250

a Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue Annual Report — Fiscal Year 2001, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
b Source: Wyoming Taxpayers Association, “Wyoming Property Taxation 2001,” Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Rawlins RMP

3-73

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Final EIS

Table 3-26. Estimated Severance Tax on Production for the RMPPA

(Federal Lands)

Product

Total Annual
Production
(BBLs/MCF)

Taxable
Valuation Per
Unit3

Assessed

Valuation

Average
Severance
Tax Per Unit
of

Production3

Total

Estimated

Severance

Tax

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) = (2)*(3)

(5)

(6) = (4)*(5)

Oil

1,557,123

$24.47

$38,102,800

0.060

$2,286,168

Natural Gas

81,540,962

$2.60

$212,006,501

0.060

$12,720,390

Coal

(Underground)

1,409,233

$16.62

$23,421,452

0.070

$1,639,502

Coal (Surface)

705,958

$3.91

$2,760,296

0.0375

$103,511

Total

$276,291,049

$16,749,571

a Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue Annual Report-Fiscal Year 2001 , Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Table 3-27. Estimated Federal Royalties on Production for the RMPPA

(Federal Lands)

Product

Total Annual
Production
(BBLs/MCF)

Taxable
Valuation
Per Unita,b

Assessed

Valuation

Federal
Royalty Rate

Total

Estimated

Federal

Royalties

(D

(2)

(3)

(4) = (2)*(3)

(5)

(6) = (4)*(5)

Oil

1,557,123

$22.92

$35,689,259

0.125

$4,461,157

Natural Gas

81,540,962

$2.10

$171,236,020

0.125

$21,404,503

Coal (Underground)

1,409,233

$16.62

$23,421,452

0.125

$2,927,682

Coal (Surface)

705,958

$3.91

$2,760,296

0.125

$345,037

Total

$233,107,027

$29,138,379

a Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue Annual Report — Fiscal Year 2001, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

b The taxable valuation for oil and gas was decreased to account for allowable cost deductions taken by operators prior to paying

federal royalties. Therefore, the taxable valuation per barrel of oil is 93.66% of total valuation and 80.95% of total value.

Other Tax Revenue Sources

Other tax revenue sources that may be affected by management actions associated with BLM-managed
lands include lodging taxes (Table 3-28), sales and use taxes (Table 3-29), and gas taxes. Lodging taxes
have ranged from $0.93 million to $1.2 million per year between 1999 and 2000 for the socioeconomic
study area, whereas sales and use taxes generated between $61 million and $74 million during this time.

Table 3-28. Lodging Tax Distribution for the RMPPA

County

FY1999

FY2000

FY2001

Albany

$176,937

$278,992

$296,795

Carbon

$176,051

$202,998

$197,689

Laramie

$333,245

$379,875

$408,164

3-74

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

County

FY1999

FY2000

FY2001

Sweetwater

$247,099

$270,368

$307,111

Total

$933,332

$1,132,233

$1,209,759

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue Annual Report — FY 2001 .

Table 3-29. Sales and Use Tax Distribution for the RMPPA

Jurisdiction

FY1999

FY2000

FY2001

Albany3

$11,184,686

$12,638,203

$12,638,203

Carbon3

$8,127,805

$10,151,339

$10,151,399

Laramie3

$22,630,054

$29,173,211

$29,173,211

Sweetwater3

$19,190,295

$22,413,185

$22,413,185

Total

$61,132,840

$74,375,938

$74,375,998

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue Annual Report — FY 2001.

Includes distribution to county and to cities and towns within each county.

Payment in Lieu of Taxes

Each county in the socioeconomic study area receives Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to compensate
local governments for hardships caused by federal lands being exempt from local property taxes. PILT
payments are allowed in addition to other revenue-sharing programs, such as federal mineral royalties and
U.S. Lorest reserve payments. The PILT payment made to each county is based on a complex formula
that takes into account revenue sharing from the previous year, county population, and acreage of the
county in federal ownership. PILT payments received by the counties in the socioeconomic study area for
the last 10 years are summarized in figure 3-50.

Summary

Table 3-20 through Table 3-29 summarize the taxes in the study area and illustrate the various sources of
tax revenues. While these tables provide a good summary of the magnitude, source, and distribution of
taxes and royalties, a more detailed view of tax revenues by county can be found by visiting the State of
Wyoming website: http://eadiv.state.wy.us/s&UTax/s&u.asp.

3.12.4 Economic Activities Attributable to BLIVS Lands Within the

RMPPA

Activities on BLM lands can provide important economic stimulus to local economies. Lor the RMPPA,
activities such as oil, gas, and coal production; grazing; and recreation are important to the region. The
following section discusses the link between activities on lands within the RMPPA and the local
economy.

Oil and Gas Operations

Historical data for oil and gas production between 1974 and 2000 were used to estimate annual
production for the RMPPA, summarized in figures 3-51 and 3-52. As shown in the figures, the RMPPA
continues to be a very important area in terms of oil and gas production. Lor instance, Sweetwater County
had the third-highest taxable valuation of crude oil and natural gas of all counties throughout Wyoming
during 2001. A significant percentage of this production occurred on BLM-controlled acreage.

Rawlins RMP

3-75

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Final EIS

Although the region’s mining employment and income have declined recently, mining remains a strong
industry within the study area, especially for its western portions, which depend more on mining than the
eastern counties.

Livestock Grazing

Grazing is another important use of BLM-managed lands within the RMPPA. An estimate of the
importance of this use in the four-county study area is summarized in Table 3-30 and Table 3-31. The
value of grazing on BLM-managed public lands was calculated as shown in Table 3-30. Total annual
AUMs were obtained from BLM for the period from 1990 to 2000. Using data for the number of AUMs
used in 1997 and for the value of cattle and sheep sales from the Wyoming Statistical Service, the value
of grazing on BLM-managed public lands for the RMPPA was estimated at about $11.6 million. The
value ol grazing associated with the RMPPA was then compared with livestock sales during 1997 for the
four-county socioeconomic study area. The most recent data on sales were obtained from the 1997 Census
ol Agriculture published by the National Agricultural Statistical Service. According to Table 3-31, total
agricultural sales in the tour-county area exceeded $153 million, of which nearly 50 percent was
associated with livestock sales. Comparing livestock sales throughout the study area with the value of
grazing on BLM-managed lands within the RMPPA indicates that grazing activities accounted for slightly
ovei 1 5 percent ol all livestock sales and almost 8 percent of all agricultural sales for this area.

Table 3-30. Estimated Value of Grazing Activities on BLM Lands
Within the RMPPA for 1997

Total Cattle AUMs
Attributable to Grazing
Within RMPPA — 1997

Total Sheep AUMs
Attributable to
Grazing Within
RMPPA— 1997

Value of
Cattle
Grazing
($1,000)a

Value of
Sheep
Grazing
($1,000)b

Total Value of
Grazing on BLM
Lands ($1,000)

309,725

a ^ ... ^

30,977

$10,930

$670

$11,600

Cattle Grazing was valued per AUM at $35.29/AUM (real 2001$) based on data from the Wyoming Agriculture Statistical
Service (Appendix 35, Table A35-3).

b Sheep Grazing was valued per AUM at $21.63/AUM (real 2001$) based on data from the Wyoming Agriculture Statistical
Service (Appendix 35, Table A35-4).

Table 3-31. Percentage of Agricultural Sales in the Study Area Attributed to Grazing on

BLM Lands in the RMPPA

Total

Agricultural
Sales — Study
Area ($1,000)

Total Cattle and
Calf Sales —
Study Area
($1,000)

Estimated Value
of Grazing on
BLM Lands —
RMPPA ($1,000)

BLM Grazing
Percentage Based
on Estimated Total
Value of Grazing
on BLM Lands

Grazing
Percentage of
Total

Agricultural

Sales

$153,329

C/MirA/N. 1 1 O r\ L i

$76,353

$11,600

15.19%

7.57%

Source. U S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistical Service, Census of Agriculture, 1997.

Recreation

Recreational activity has important economic value in terms both of satisfaction provided to local
residents and economic activity generated for the regional economy. In terms of economic activity,
lecreation generates additional spending in the local economy that supports jobs and income. Estimates of
lecieational use within the RMPPA indicate that over several hundred thousand recreational visitors days

3-76

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

are spent in this area. As visitors come to this area to recreate, they spend money on goods and services to
support their activities, including lodging, meals and groceries, gasoline, and other items. These
expenditures can be an important economic stimulus to the local area.

3.12.5 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, requires the identification and addressing of disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental impacts of federal programs, policies, and activities on minority
and low-income populations.

Relevant census data were used to determine whether the populations residing in the four-county study
area constitute an “environmental justice population” through meeting either of the following criteria:

• At least one-half of the population is of minority or low-income status

• The percentage of population that is of minority or low-income status is at least 10 percent higher
than for the entire State of Wyoming.

Population by Race

Table 3-32 summarizes population distribution by race for all counties in the study area. In addition, Map
3-8 shows the minority population for each county in Wyoming, where minority population is calculated
as total population less non-Hispanic white alone. All four counties show minority populations greater
than the state average. This is mainly attributable to the larger Hispanic population in the four counties
compared with the rest of the state. Laramie County also has a slightly higher African-American
population than the rest of the state, probably because of the racial diversity of personnel associated with
F. E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne.

Table 3-32. Population Distribution (Percentage) by Race by County, 2000

County

White

Black or
African-
American

American

Indian

and

Alaska

Native

Asian

Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander

-

Some

Other

Race

Two or
More
Races

Hispanic
or Latino
(of Any
Race)

Albany

91.3

1.1

1.0

1.7

0.1

2.6

2.2

7.5

Carbon

90.1

0.7

1.3

0.7

0.1

5.2

2.1

13.8

Laramie

88.9

2.6

0.8

1.0

0.1

4.0

2.6

10.9

Sweetwater

91.6

0.7

1

0.6

0.0

3.6

2.4

9.4

Wyoming

92.1

0.8

2.3

0.6

0.1

2.5

1.8

6.4

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census.

Percentages may not add to 100 because individuals may report ethnicity under more than one category.

However, the greater percentage of minority populations living in the four-county study area is not
sufficient to constitute an “environmental justice population” because it does not meet either of the
criteria above.

Population in Poverty

Poverty level is often used as a determinant of low-income status. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates
poverty levels using a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. If a

Rawlins RMP

3-77

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Final EIS

household’s income is below the money threshold, then the family and all individuals of that household
are considered to be in poverty. Using this criterion, the Census Bureau provides estimates of the
percentage of individuals who fall below the poverty level for each county in the United States. Poverty
estimates are also provided for different regions of the United States and for the nation as a whole.

Table 3-15 summarizes the estimated poverty rates for the four counties in the socioeconomic study area,
for Wyoming, for the West, and for the United States. Carbon, Laramie, and Sweetwater Counties have
estimated poverty rates over the past decade that are below the state, regional, and national averages. The
exception is Albany County, whose estimated poverty rates are higher than all other areas summarized.
(Carbon County showed a slightly higher poverty rate than the State of Wyoming for 1998.)

Map 3-9 summarizes the median household income and poverty rates for each county in Wyoming for
2000. The map shows that the median household income in Laramie and Sweetwater Counties is above
the state average, and poverty levels (Table 3-15) are lower than poverty levels throughout the state. This
indicates the absence within these two counties of low-income populations that could be affected by BLM
actions. This is not the case in Carbon and Albany Counties, however: these counties reported a lower
median household income and higher poverty rates than found throughout Wyoming. For Albany County,
the poverty rate is 10 percentage points above the state average, indicating the potential for a low-income
“environmental justice population.” This issue will require further analysis to determine whether low-
income populations may be affected by BLM management actions.

3.12.6 Social Development, Culture, and History of Communities

Understanding the social development, culture, and history of an area provides valuable insight into how
events or changes to the area may affect the livelihood and quality of life of the residents. The Rawlins
RMPPA historically was developed with sparse populations, rural characteristics, and natural resource-
based economies. Although no two communities within the RMPPA are alike, many do share similar
historical paths. This section is intended to give a general representation of the communities that are
within or in close proximity to the Rawlins RMPPA.

Carbon County Communities
Baggs

Located 76 miles from Rawlins and 41 miles from Craig, Colorado, Baggs was named after ranchers
George and Maggie Baggs. Initially established mostly as a ranching community, the area continued to
develop as settlers came to the area in search of gold and silver. The community of Baggs is also reputed
to be the former home of one of the most notorious outlaw bands of the Old West, which included Butch
Cassidy, the Sundance Kid, and their “Wild Bunch.” Today the small community of Baggs consists of a
little over 350 residents, who benefit from the oil and gas activity of the area as well as ranching, seasonal
recreation, tourists services, and access routes to the national forest that surrounds the community.

Elk Mountain

The rural community of Elk Mountain grew around the Elk Mountain Stage Station along the Overland
Trail. In 1877, a post office was established to service the town and ranches that were being settled in the
region. With the growth of the railroad and availability of rangeland for raising stock, the area saw
economic growth. Gold was discovered in Douglas Creek, which drew a large number of miners to the
Medicine Bow Range. In 1897, copper was found on the west side of Elk Mountain. After the
establishment of the Union Pacific Railroad 15 miles to the northeast, ranchers began using the rich
rangelands for cattle grazing. Elk Mountain’s first mercantile store was constructed in 1902 using lumber
from the timber company. In 1915, the Carbon Timber Company sold its assets to the Hanna-based
Wyoming Timber Company, which dominated the local logging scene for the next 4 decades. Mineral

3-78

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

explorations in the second half of the 19th century revealed deposits of gold and copper in the region. The
boom lasted for only a decade but played an important role in the economic development of Elk
Mountain. The energy boom of the 1970s caused an influx of miners and their families to the area.
Communities grew and allowed improvements to the lifestyle of their residents. A constant of the area has
always been the ranching industry: the raising of quality animals and hay crops has made this a place of
agricultural importance.

Encampment and Riverside

Originally known as “Grand Encampment” (a name subsequently changed in accordance with a U.S.
Postal Service request for a shorter name), Encampment was incorporated in January 1898. Situated
between two noncontiguous sections of the Medicine Bow and Routt National Forests in south-central
Wyoming, the area was originally settled as a ranching and sheep herding area. In 1897, Ed Haggarty, a
sheep rancher and prospector, discovered a prolific copper source in the Sierra Madre Mountains,
subsequently starting a copper boom. That same year a prospector from Whitehaven, England, discovered
a rich copper prospect that he named the “Rudefeha.” The property and mine, which soon came to be
named the “Ferris-Haggarty property,” produced much of the more than $2 million of copper from this
area of Wyoming.

Seeking capital and development of the region was the foremost advocate or promoter of the Grand
Encampment Mining Region, Willis George Emerson. Upon obtaining an interest in the Ferris-Haggarty
property and establishing a plethora of companies, promoter Emerson attracted dollars toward the
construction of such entities as a 4-mile wood and iron pipeline designed to supply power to the smelter
and an aerial tramway. The tramway extended for 16 miles from the Ferris-Haggarty Mine, over the
Continental Divide at an elevation of 10,700 feet above sea level, down through the mountains and across
the valley floor to the smelter at Encampment. By 1904, the mining operations were at their apex,
employing 200 men and producing over $1.4 million of copper. Foreclosure proceedings began in 1913,
and salvage operations followed shortly thereafter.

Although through the first decade of the 1900s Encampment was considered one of the most prosperous
towns of the West as a result of the discovery of gold near the Encampment River, the Grand
Encampment copper region epitomizes the boom and bust syndrome of many western mining areas.

The town of Riverside, previously known as Dogget, came about as a means of getting to the town of
Encampment. Located between Saratoga and Encampment, Riverside’s fortunes were directly tied to the
copper industry of Encampment. Although Riverside was never a major mining town, smelter workers
stayed at the local Riverside hotel and frequented the saloons, giving Riverside the appearance of a
promising mining community. Once the mining and smelter companies of Encampment started to decline,
so, too, did Riverside. Today, Riverside’s population is approximately 85. The town is considered
primarily an agricultural and ranching community, with some timber mill activity and recreational
services associated with the national forest.

Today, the small towns of Riverside and Encampment contain a number of second homes and retirement
homes situated near a wealth of recreational opportunities.

Hanna

The founding of Hanna was due primarily to its association with the Union Pacific Railroad route and the
discovery of coal. The town was formed in 1886 by Mark A. Hanna, a financier and politician who was
on the board of directors of the Union Pacific Railroad. Despite Hanna’s grand visions and the potential
for coal in Hanna, the town began as a small tent town.

As the coal industry grew, so did the town of Hanna. Most of the town’s residents were mine workers
who emigrated from Finland, England, Sweden, Japan, and Italy. To accommodate the growing
population, Union Pacific began building up much of the town, which soon became characterized by

Rawlins RMP

3-79

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Final EIS

orderly streets and alleys concentrated between the town’s two mines. In 1903, a mine explosion killed
169 men in the worst mine disaster in Wyoming’s history, and in 1908 another explosion killed 59. The
mine was subsequently closed, and a memorial, which still stands today, was erected just above the mine.

Hanna continued to grow as additional mines were opened. In 1954, when the Union Pacific Railroad
began using the diesel locomotive in place of the coal-fueled locomotive, Hanna became a ghost town.
However, in 1965, Union Pacific gave Hanna water rights and land, and the town began to survive on its
own. Ranching and other occupations aided in the town’s survival, as did some renewed interest in coal
during the energy boom of 1970. Between 1970 and 1990, Hanna was revived with renewal of the coal
industry. (Through its coal, the town was referred to as having “black blood running though its veins.”)

During its booming coal days, Hanna’s population reached about 1,500. More recently, the population has
been estimated to be fewer than 900 inhabitants. The most probable reason for the town’s population
decrease is the closing of its mines. Although the Shoshone underground mine was able to remain
competitive longer than most because it used longwall mining techniques (which efficiently cut away coal
by running back and forth along the coal seam), it, too, has closed.

Outside of the mining industry, Hanna virtually has no other major (or even medium-sized) employer.
Although there are plans for a new mine southeast of town, lagging coal prices have forced delays.
However, there is a newly developed wind energy business nearby, and other economic opportunities
exist from Hanna’s proximity to Seminoe State Park and Reservoir and Medicine Bow National Forest.

Rawlins and Sinclair

During the spring of 1868, members of the grading crew of the Great Iron Horse Railroad established a
camp at Rawlins Spring. The camp was named after General John A. Rawlins, Chief of Staff of the U.S.
Army, who, after taking a drink from the spring, stated that if ever something were named for him, he
hoped it would be a spring of water. From this camp a tiny town began to grow. A Post Office was
established, work on the Union Pacific depot was begun when the tracks finally reached Rawlins, and the
town was made a central hub of the railroad.

Rawlins is significant as the original commercial heart of the county seat of Carbon County. From its
humble origins as one of hundreds of railroad towns along the Union Pacific mainline, Rawlins grew into
a modem city with a diversified economy that today serves a regional ranching, oil and gas, and industrial
community. Because of its location on the first transcontinental railroad and its status as a permanent
water source in an otherwise semi-arid region, Rawlins became a major division point for the Union
Pacific Railroad. In the 20th century, the city was located on the first transcontinental auto highway, the
Lincoln Highway. As such, it has played a key role in state, regional, and national transportation. Today,
the main industry in Rawlins is the oil business. There are several pipelines in the Rawlins area.

Rawlins is also the home of the Wyoming State Penitentiary, a major employer of the area located just a
few miles south of town.

Located just 6 miles to the east is the small Wyoming community of Sinclair, home of the Sinclair
Refinery, which boasts of itself as “The West’s Most Modem Refinery.” First known as Parco, Sinclair
was described by the Rocky Mountain News in August 1925 as “truly an oasis in an otherwise drab desert
territory.”

Sinclair was financed by oil magnate Frank Kistler to house workers for a large Producers and Refiners
Oil Company refinery built in 1922-1923 at the location. Designed by the Denver-based architectural
firm of Fisher and Fisher and constmcted in 1924-1925, the company-built town of Sinclair consists of
numerous public buildings set around three sides of a central east-west plaza, fountain, and park.
Residences are located along streets and blocks in a grid pattern running north, west, and east from the
plaza area. To foster the community spirit that is commonly absent in company towns as well as to
maintain architectural cohesiveness, Sinclair’s architects designed both residential and public buildings

3-80

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

with Spanish Colonial motifs of unpainted stucco, polychrome clay tile roofs, and dominant masonry
construction to accurately simulate the appearance and form of many southwestern adobe missions.

Although Kistler’s firm was forced to sell the Parco holdings in 1934 when crude oil reached an all-time
low price of 10 cents a barrel, the oil market improved as a result of increased demand during World War
II. The refinery and town, renamed Sinclair in 1942, prospered under the management of the Sinclair
Refining Company. From its inception, Sinclair has been one of the most important refineries in the State
of Wyoming.

Saratoga

For more than 95 years, people have been drawn to Saratoga and the Platte Valley by the spectacular
mountain scenery, superior trout fishing, trophy-class hunting, and abundant wildlife. Long considered
the crossroads, as well as a destination, for American Indians and European-American settlers, Saratoga
today is a town of approximately 2,000 residents situated on the banks of the North Platte River. Like that
of many Wyoming communities, the early history of Saratoga is rooted in the mining, timber, and
livestock industries and in the railroad. Many prominent cattle ranches are strung along the valley. A
significant part of Saratoga’s history also revolves around its world famous mineral hot springs and
thermal waters, which were initially used by Native Americans who believed that the springs were
medicinal. Today, the State of Wyoming manages the springs and has made modem upgrades to give the
springs a spa-like atmosphere. Also contributing to Saratoga’s development was the presence of the
timber industry, which included a sawmill operation that lasted for many years.

During the 1940s, a Civilian Conservation Corps camp was established in Saratoga. One of the group’s
primary tasks was to construct the Barrett Ridge winter recreation area. Today, recreation and the hot
springs continue to be the primary attractions of Saratoga. The destination is also home to one of the
national fish hatcheries operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Dating back to 1915,
the hatchery raises a variety of trout species. Eggs from the fish are shipped to federal and state hatcheries
nationwide, where they are raised for stocking.

Carbon

The town of Carbon was founded by the Union Pacific Railroad and was the first mining community on
the main Union Pacific line. The first miners to Carbon dug caves into the sides of a nearby ravine and
covered the fronts with boards and earth. Later the dwellings were made of sandstone. Flat rocks were
piled on top of each other; chinking was of rock, sticks, or wood; and the inch-thick interior walls were of
plaster made from sandstone. At its peak, Carbon had seven coal mines worked by “Lankies” (because
several miners came from Lancashire, England). Three thousand residents lived in Carbon, and there was
a general store, Scranton House, two or three saloons. Carbon State Bank, the Slack Diamond newspaper,
a school, Miners Hall, two churches, and the large Finn Hall.

However, the town of Carbon was doomed by Simpson Hill, a steep grade west of town that required
helper engines for about 6 miles to the top of the hill. In 1 899, railroad surveyors found an easier grade
through present-day Hanna, which happened at about the same time the Carbon mines were playing out.
By 1902, the town of Carbon was abandoned because of these economic losses. Today, all that is left of
Carbon is the Carbon Cemetery north of the town site, along with a few partial foundations and sandstone
walls. The first grave in Carbon was that of the stable boss who fell victim to a flock of Indian arrows
shortly after the camp started to take shape. The local outlaws “Dutch Charlie,” who was hanged in
Carbon, and “Big Nose-George,” who was hanged in Rawlins, are also buried in the Carbon Cemetery.

Medicine Bow

The name “Medicine Bow” is legendary and derives its origin from the Indian tribes that frequented the
area, mainly the Arapaho and Cheyenne. Along the banks of the river, Native Americans found excellent

Rawlins RMP

3-81

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Final EIS

material for making their bows. Anything that was found good for a purpose was called “good medicine.”
Thus, these Native Americans named the river flowing through the area “the Medicine Bow River.”
Because the headwaters of the river originated in the mountains to the south, these mountains were called
“the Medicine Bow Mountains.”

Trappers and mountain men and women first used the Medicine Bow area during the 1830s. In 1868, the
Union Pacific Railroad was built through the area, and a pumping station was established on the river. A
store and saloon marked the beginnings of the small village, which naturally was given the name
“Medicine Bow.” By the following year, Medicine Bow had become a major supply point, and in the
1870s, the Federal Government operated a military post in Medicine Bow to protect the railroad and
freight wagons from Indian attack. A Post Office was built, and, in 1 876, the first elementary school was
established.

By the late 1870s and early 1880s, Medicine Bow had become the largest shipping point for range
livestock on the Union Pacific line. Cattle were brought in for shipping from as far away as Idaho and
Montana, and an average of 2,000 head a day were shipped. By the turn of the century, Medicine Bow
was also a major shipping point for wool, averaging 1,000 tons a year.

In 1901, the Union Pacific Railroad was relocated from the Rock Creek route to its present location, and a
depot was built in Medicine Bow. The original depot burned down July 24, 1913, and the present depot
was erected in November 1913. In late 1913, the transcontinental Lincoln Highway passed directly
through Medicine Bow. In the 1 930s, the highway was paved, bringing tourism to the area. In later years,
lumber, uranium, coal, oil, and natural gas were found in the Medicine Bow area, adding to the prosperity
of the region.

Arlington

In the 1860s, the Rock Creek Crossing and Stage Station was one of many stopping points, or
way stations, along the Overland Trail, a central trail among many western transcontinental transportation
routes. As a stage station (known as a “home station”), Rock Creek (now known as “Arlington”) became
a commercial and entertainment center for immigrants. Joe Bush, owner of the stage station, constructed a
bridge at the crossing and lived in a log cabin at the site. To serve the many needs of travelers, Bush
operated a dancehall-saloon, general store, and blacksmith shop from one building. Although travel along
the Overland Trail declined after the transcontinental railroad was completed, Rock Creek continued to
thrive as a supply and social center for growing agricultural and timber interests in the surrounding area.
In 1882, a Post Office known as “Rock Dale” was constructed at the site. The Post Office was used as a
bunkhouse in later years. In the 1890s, the dancehall-store-blacksmith shop also served as a school.

Although Rock Creek still served as a commercial and social center during the latter part of the 19th
century, the economic base of the small settlement began to change. For economic purposes, the owners
of Rock Creek station turned to stock raising during this period. Corrals, a bam, a milkhouse, and an
icehouse were built during the 1880s and 1890s. During the early 20th century, Rock Creek was renamed
“Arlington” and continued in its dual commercial-agricultural role.

The original Wyoming Wind Project, located on Foote Creek Rim above Arlington, had an initial output
of more than 85 megawatts of electricity, enough for about 27,000 average homes. Electronic control
systems point each turbine into the wind and adjust the pitch of the blades to make the best use of wind at
any speed. The turbines can generate power at wind speeds of 8-65 miles per hour. At higher speeds, the
turbines automatically shut down — a feature that allows them to withstand Wyoming’s 125-mile-per-hour
gusts. The turbines are also adapted to operate reliably in extremely cold conditions.

Since development of the original 69-turbine project, several subsequent phases have been constmcted,
and the project now totals 183 turbines, with a generating capacity of 134.7 megawatts.

3-82

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Rock Creek’s historical significance relates to its evolution from a home station along the Overland Trail
into a permanent ranching community. As one of the earliest settlements in Carbon County, Rock Creek
contributed in the commercial and social senses to the development of south-central Wyoming.

The Stone Wall Ranch was the first permanent ranch homestead within the Little Snake River Valley.
Founded in 1871 by one of the valley’s first permanent cattle-raising residents, Noah Reader, the ranch
retains material cultural elements that embody the relationship between stockmen and the local
environment, elements that express an articulation between a mode of livelihood and local environmental
constraints. The ranch’s name derived from the natural sandstone escarpment that still forms the back
(north) wall of the ranch’s main corral. The Stone Wall Ranch is significant as the first permanent
settlement in the Little Snake River Valley and because of its unique environmental setting. Cultural
elements of the property are integrated with the environmental features, eliciting a feeling of confinement
rather than of the open spaciousness so common among Wyoming ranches.

Albany County Communities
Albany

With the construction of the Laramie, Hahn’s Peak and Pacific Railways (LHP&P), the railhead location
in Albany provided a convenient central location where local miners and logging companies could take
advantage of the more efficient transportation system to get their products to markets in Laramie and
beyond. The LHP&P also provided a faster and less expensive means of transporting mineral ores and
wood products than local wagon freighters offered. During the 1920s and 1930s, summer-home tracts
were established outside of Albany on USFS-administered land, and soon the community of Albany
witnessed an influx of eastern visitors taking advantage of the area’s recreational opportunities.

Centennial

The Centennial Valley received its first major influx of people as a result of two pivotal government acts:
the Homestead Act of 1862 and, more directly, the Pacific Railway Act that supported the construction of
the transcontinental railroad in 1868. The first settlement of Centennial was actually located 1 mile
southwest of the present town. The area around Centennial has always been used for its extensive grazing
lands, and there is also ore and timber. Although Centennial largely can be characterized by its long
history of logging, mining, and grazing ventures, tourism and recreation have contributed to the growth of
the area both historically and today. The wild lands, undeveloped forest, and surrounding rangelands of
Centennial have been enjoyed recreationally since as early as 1914. Considered the gateway to the Snowy
Range ski area, Centennial is a year-round destination for a variety of recreational opportunities due to its
proximity to the Medicine Bow Mountains.

Laramie

The county seat of Albany County, Laramie is located in southeastern Wyoming along 1-80, on the banks
of the Laramie River near Ames Monument. Various adventurers — including French trapper Jacques La
Ramie, after whom the city is named — traversed the area around Laramie. Spurred by the railroad’s
arrival in 1868, the town of Laramie was incorporated in 1874. Laramie is home to the historic Territorial
Prison. The 42-cell prison opened in 1872 and housed more than 1,000 men and 12 women prisoners,
including Butch Cassidy, who was imprisoned there for stealing horses in 1894. Today the prison
includes state-of-the-art displays and interactive exhibits on frontier law and justice as well as other facets
of western history. Laramie is home to the University of Wyoming, which was established in 1886 and is
today one of the major employers in the town. To meet the needs of a student population of roughly
10,000 (in comparison with a total city population of a little over 27,000), there exist a number of service
industry opportunities in and around the University of Wyoming.

Rawlins RMP

3-83

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Final EIS

Laramie has become a transportation and commercial hub for timber-producing and ranching interests.
Tourism and recreation also contribute significantly to the economy.

Rock River

Rock River came into existence as a result of the rerouting of the Union Pacific Railroad in 1898. With
this change, the neighboring cow town of Rock Creek was abandoned when a railroad stop was
established in Rock River. Along with the residents, many of the businesses of Rock Creek moved to
Rock River. Rock River was established in 1910. In 1919, oil was discovered 14 miles west of town, in
what is now called “McFadden.” The economy flourished, and hopes ran high that a refinery would be
established, but the oil was instead piped to a refinery in Laramie.

Today, the population of Rock River is approximately 235, with the majority of those persons involved in
agriculture and grazing.

Jelm

Three-and-a-half miles south of Woods Landing, in the bottomland of the Big Laramie River, is the site
of Cummins City, later named “Jelm.” Placer gold is reported to have been discovered in the Medicine
Bow Range as early as 1858, and Cummins City developed as a mining camp. In 1879, new prospects
were discovered in gold-bearing quartz along the Upper Big Laramie River at Jelm Mountain. John
Cummins promoted his mining interests in the region, and by 1880 a plot for the new town, called
“Cummins City,” was drawn up. Numerous buildings were erected, including cabins, a boarding house, a
meat and vegetable market, a paint store, restaurants, blacksmith shops, a livery stable, and at least one
bar. However, by the end of 1881, Cummins City began to decline, and by 1886 it was reported that, with
two exceptions (at a copper mine and a bismuth mine), no mining had been done in the Cummins City
district.

Later, near the turn of the century, interest in the mining district was revived by the discovery of copper in
the Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre ranges. In 1898, the Jelm Mining District was created. A new town
plan was drawn up, and in 1900 Cummins City was resurrected as Jelm.

Mining carried on intermittently at Jelm, although it was not a large or permanent settlement.

Laramie County Communities
Cheyenne

The City of Cheyenne began in 1867, when the Union Pacific Railroad came through on its way to the
west coast. The town site was first surveyed by General Grenville Dodge and was named for an Indian
tribe that roamed the area. Settlement came so fast to the area that the nickname “Magic City of the
Plains” was adopted for Cheyenne. On August 8, 1867, the first charter for the government of the City of
Cheyenne was established, and H. M. Cook was elected the city’s first mayor. At that time, Cheyenne was
situated in the Dakota Territory and had a population of approximately 600 people. The following
December, a permanent city charter was granted by the Dakota Territory legislature. On January 5, 1914,
the commissioner form of government was formally adopted by the City of Cheyenne.

With a recent population of over 53,000, Cheyenne is strategically situated at a major transportation hub
(the intersection of Interstates 25 and 80 and two major railroads), and is a developing center of
commerce. Only 90 minutes north of Denver, Colorado, Cheyenne sits as the northern anchor city of the
Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Cheyenne is the capital of Wyoming, the seat of Laramie County,
and the site of F.E. Warren Air Force Base. Its economic base is extremely diverse, ranging from state
and national government to the high-technology of satellite communications.

3-84

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Socioeconomics

Sweetwater County Communities
Bairoil

The town of Bairoil is located about 40 miles north of Rawlins and 90 miles south of Casper. Bairoil
acquired its name from Charles Bair, who was involved in drilling the first well there in 1916. The town
began as the Bair Camp, built by the Bair Oil Company in the midst of the oil wells. In 1924, the name
“Bairoil” became official when residents requested that a Post Office be established and that it be called
“Bair Oil.” Over the years, the name evolved into its present spelling.

Rock Springs

Rock Springs is in southwestern Wyoming on Bitter Creek, 12 miles east of Green River. Named from a
nearby saline spring. Rock Springs has been home to as many as 57 different nationalities in its long
history and is a “melting pot” of cultural diversity. The first occupants were Paleoindian hunters and
gatherers who arrived from Siberia through Alaska more than 20,000 years ago. The Shoshone were the
largest tribal group, at around 1,800 in number, but there were also smaller numbers of Arapaho, Crow,
Cheyenne, and Oglala and Brule Dakota (Sioux). Rock Springs began as a stage stop in 1862 and
developed as a coal-mining and ranching center after the arrival of the Union Pacific Railroad in 1868.
The region around Rock Springs has rich underground stores of coal, oil, natural gas, trona, and
phosphates. The railroad had been given the rights to the coal along its route, and it immediately opened
coal mines near Evanston and Rock Springs, bringing in Chinese miners for less expensive labor and to
aid in mining strikes. Racial tensions ensued, and on September 2, 1885, rioting led to the deaths of 29
Chinese workers. During the boom years of the 1980s, Rock Springs was the richest city in the nation on
a per capita basis, yet its crime rate was also one of the highest in the nation. Then came the bust, with
jobs disappearing as the town’s underground coal mines began subsiding.

Today, Rock Springs is slowly stabilizing in both its economy and its appearance. Its main economic
contributors continue to be mining and coal-supporting companies, such as the Trona mining and
processing company, Bridger power plant and coal company, and PacifiCorp, as well as Union Pacific
Railroad, services for 1-80, and other services including schools and hospitals.

Wamsutter

Wamsutter is located in Sweetwater County in southwestern Wyoming, 65 miles east of Rock Springs.
With a population of 261 as of 2002, this small town is referred to as “the Gateway to the Red Desert.”
The Wamsutter train station was created when the Union Pacific Railroad built its tracks through the area
in 1868. The name of the town was originally “Washakie,” after the great Shoshone Chief. Because
freight intended for Fort Washakie was mistakenly sent to the town of Washakie, the Federal Postal
Service requested a name change in 1884 or 1885. Wamsutter was named either after a German bridge
builder on the Union Pacific Railroad or after the Wamsutta Woolen Mills of Massachusetts. At one time,
Wamsutter was considered the second-largest wool shipping point in the United States, and Wamsutta
Mills was the largest buyer. (“Wamsutta” is a name applied to the cotton cloth manufactured at Wamsutta
Mills in New Bedford, MA. The name is after a Massachusetts sachem, or chief, who was the eldest son
of Massasoit, a Wampanoag. “Wamsutter” is apparently a contraction of “Womosutta,” meaning “Foving
Heart.”)

The transportation facilities offered by the Union Pacific Railroad and the fine grazing land of the Red
Desert, where half-a-million sheep winter annually, are the main factors in the growth and development
of this small town. Wamsutter was incorporated on April 21, 1914. The area around the town is rich in
underground stores of coal, oil, and gas. The main contributor to Wamsutter’ s economy continues to be
mining, supplemented by sheep and cattle farming.

Rawlins RMP

3-85

Chapter 3 — SD/MAs

Final EIS

3.13 Special Designations and Management Areas

Special designations and management areas (SD/MA) are designated to protect or preserve certain
qualities or uses in areas that best provide them. The environment in these areas is unique in some
respects, and it is therefore desirable to apply different management prescriptions to these areas than to
areas of the surrounding public lands.

This section identifies the various SD/MAs within the RMPPA and addresses the qualities or uses that
have resulted in their designation. The types of special management designation addressed in this section
are WSAs, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), NNLs, and WSRs.

3.13.1 Wilderness Study Areas

There are no designated wilderness areas in the RMPPA, but there are five WSAs located within the
RMPPA (Map 2-6). These are as follows:

• Adobe Town WS A

• Ferris Mountains WSA

• Encampment River Canyon WSA

• Prospect Mountain WSA

• Bennett Mountains WSA.

WSAs are managed according to the non-impairment standard. Under this standard, these lands are
managed in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.
Unless otherwise noted, all information in this section was obtained from the Wyoming Statewide
Wilderness Study Report (USDI, BLM 1991).

Adobe Town WSA

The Adobe Town WSA consists of a single study area within the Rawlins and Rock Springs Field Office
administrative boundaries. This WSA includes 32,650 acres of BLM-managed lands within the RMPPA.
The WSA is located in southeastern Sweetwater County, 25 miles south of Wamsutter. It is bounded on
the north by the checkerboard land pattern and the Manual Gap Road, on the west by the Adobe Town
Rim Road, on the south by a fading two-track, and on the east by the Willow Creek Road.

Adobe Town WSA was studied under Section 603 of FLPMA and was included in the Final Adobe
Town-Ferris Mountains Wilderness EIS filed in January 1988. Based on information from that document,
the BLM Wyoming State Office recommended that 10,920 acres of the original 82,350 be recommended
for wilderness designation. The recommended portions include most of the heart of the Washakie Basin,
an ancient inland sea. This portion of the WSA is a very colorful and rugged desert badland area, virtually
untouched by human activity. Skull Creek Rim, in the heart of the area recommended for wilderness
designation, contains some of the most unique and extensive badlands formations in Wyoming.

Ferris Mountains WSA

The Ferris Mountains WSA includes 21,880 acres of BLM-managed public lands and one privately
owned inholding of 160 acres. The WSA is located in northwestern Carbon County, about 40 miles north
of Rawlins. The Ferris Mountains are a small mountain range, rising abruptly from the gently rolling
plains that surround the WSA. The WSA is bounded on the north by the rolling plains of the Sweetwater
Valley, on the south by the level expanses of Separation Flat, on the west by Muddy Gap, and on the east
by Miners Canyon.

3-86

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — SD/MAs

The Ferris Mountains WSA is extremely steep and rugged, providing unusual and spectacular scenery.
Along the southern flank, a formation of limestone outcrops forms a prominent white band 12 miles long,
which is visible for up to 50 miles under proper lighting conditions. At 10,037 feet, Ferris Peak is the
highest point in the Great Divide Basin, rising nearly 3,500 feet from the valley floor. Vegetation consists
of coniferous trees, aspen, shrubby plants, grasses, and forbs. The WSA also contains grassy meadows
and riparian areas.

Ferris Mountains WSA was studied under Section 603 of FLPMA and was included in the Adobe Town-
Ferris Mountains Wilderness EIS filed in January 1988. The BLM Wyoming State Office recommended
that all 21,880 acres be designated as wilderness.

Encampment River Canyon WSA

The Encampment River Canyon WSA includes 4,500 acres of BLM-managed lands, with no inholdings
or split-estate lands. The WSA is located in southern Carbon County, approximately 2 miles south of
Encampment and 1 mile north of the USFS Encampment River Wilderness. It lies in the foothills of the
Sierra Madre. The Encampment River bisects the WSA.

The topography of the entire unit is mountainous. Steep canyons and rocky slopes dominate the vistas.
The Encampment River and a major tributary. Miner Creek, add scenic features to the WSA. Elevations
range from 7,260 feet along the Encampment River to 8,545 feet on the high ridges.

Approximately 10 percent of the Encampment River Canyon WSA is forested. Tree species include
limber pine, lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, subalpine fir, cottonwood, and aspen. These species occur in
pure and mixed stands scattered throughout the WSA. Narrow belts of deciduous trees, coniferous trees,
grasses, and forbs bordering the Encampment River characterize lower elevations and drainages.

Vegetation in the middle and upper elevations and on rocky slopes is influenced by differing aspects of
the canyon, with a mosaic of bunchgrass and small shrubs on steep canyon slopes, and small fingers of
trees in draws and gullies. Wildland fires have influenced the vegetation mosaic.

The Encampment River Canyon WSA was studied under Section 202 of FLPMA and was included in the
Final Great Divide Resource Area Wilderness EIS filed in August 1990. The BLM Wyoming State Office
recommended that all 4,500 acres be designated as wilderness.

Prospect Mountain WSA

The Prospect Mountain WSA includes 1,140 acres of BLM-managed public lands, with no inholdings or
split-estate lands. The WSA is located in southern Carbon County, approximately 16 miles southeast of
Encampment and 8 miles north of the Colorado-Wyoming border. It is situated along the southwestern
flank of the Snowy Range in the Medicine Bow Mountains.

The topography of the area is mountainous, with open sagebrush transitional zones. The WSA contains
the western half of Prospect Mountain. Elevations range from 7,400 feet along the North Platte River to
8,500 feet at its southern tip. The WSA is 70 percent forested, with lodgepole pine and aspen as the major
species, and contains riparian areas and beaver ponds.

The Prospect Mountain WSA was studied under Section 202 of FLPMA and included in the Final Great
Divide Resource Area Wilderness EIS filed in August 1990. The BLM Wyoming State Office
recommended that all 1,140 acres be designated as wilderness because the WSA is located adjacent to the
USFS Platte River Wilderness.

Bennett Mountains WSA

The Bennett Mountains WSA includes 5,950 acres of BLM-managed public lands, with no inholdings or
split-estate lands. The WSA is located in north-central Carbon County, east of Seminoe Dam, and lies

Rawlins RMP

3-87

Chapter 3 — SD/MAs

Final EIS

about 35 miles northeast of Rawlins. It is part of the Seminoe Mountain range, a small, rugged range that
rises abruptly from the surrounding lowlands. The WSA is bounded on the north and east by private and
state lands, on the south by a power line road, and on the west by the Bennett Mountain Road.

The Bennett Mountains WSA contains three basic types of topography: mountain plateau/ridges, steep
rock ledges, and many tributary draws. Elevations range from 6,600 feet to 7,951 feet. The mountain,
which is approximately 4 miles long within the WSA, has distinct ledges and walls along the entire
southern exposure. In many places, these walls are vertical outcrops that create the appearance of a
fortress. The northern portion is traversed by numerous tree-filled drainages. Most portions of the WSA
are vegetated with interspersed grasses, sagebrush, and other shrubs, as well as pockets of pine, aspen,
and willows. The higher elevations have considerably less vegetation and more rugged features.

The Bennett Mountains WSA was studied under Section 603 of FLPMA and was included in the Final
Great Divide Resource Area Wilderness EIS filed in August 1990. BEM’s Wyoming State Office
recommended that none of the WSA be designated as wilderness. This decision was based on the relative
quality of the area’s wilderness values. Although the wilderness inventory notes that outstanding
opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation exist in the WSA, these values are not found
throughout the study area.

3.13.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

ACECs are managed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to specific resources. This section
addresses the specific resources found within each of the existing and potential ACECs identified within
the RMPPA.

Existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Currently, there are four ACECs in the RMPPA: Como Bluff ACEC, Sand Hills ACEC, Jep Canyon
ACEC, and Shamrock Hills ACEC (Map 2-7). The Jep Canyon, Shamrock Hills, and Como Bluff ACECs
are within the checkerboard portion of the RMPPA, which is characterized by public and private
ownership of alternating sections of land. This mixed land ownership pattern makes these ACECs
difficult to manage, because the owners of private sections may have goals for their lands that are quite
different from BLM goals. The mixed land ownership pattern also makes public access to these resources
difficult.

Como Bluff ACEC

Como Bluff ACEC protects 1,690 acres of public land, located in the Morrison Geologic Formation (a
fossil-bearing formation), for its paleontological resources and historical values. Over the years
excavations have removed a wide array of fossilized material, including fossilized bones of dinosaurs
such as Apatosaurus and Diplodocus (Town of Morrison 2002). In addition to the rich collection of
paleontological resources, Como Bluff ACEC preserves a portion of the period in American history
known as “the Bone Wars.” Beginning at Como Bluff in the late 1870s, this period was marked by
extremely competitive fossil hunting by paleontologists, including stories of espionage and sabotage
(USDI, BLM 2002b). Como Bluff ACEC is part of the Como Bluff Historic District, also known as “the
Como Bluff Historic-Paleontologic Site,” which is listed on the NRHP (National Register 2002). In
addition, the Como Bluff area is an NNL.

Sand Hills ACEC and Proposed JO Ranch Expansion

The Sand Hills ACEC protects about 8,000 acres of public land for its unique vegetation complex,
wildlife habitat values, and recreational opportunities. The bitterbrush/big sagebrush plant community,
which is interspersed with patches of serviceberry, chokecherry, and aspen and occurs on a deep sand
soil, is the only representation of this vegetative mix within the State of Wyoming. This area provides

3-88

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — SB/M As

crucial winter range for mule deer and elk, and nesting and foraging habitat for raptors, greater sage-
grouse, and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations (Section 3.19).

Recreation in this area is primarily associated with hunting activities. Management actions for the Sand
Hills ACEC restrict vehicle traffic to designated roads, reducing potential conflicts between animals and
people. In addition, the area is closed to over-the-snow vehicles. The high amount of vehicle use on these
vegetation communities and fragile soils has resulted in a high road density (in some areas reaching 9
miles of road per square mile). While there are approximately 9 miles of road per square mile, the
majority of these are two-tracks, which limits the amount of traffic in the area.

The proposed JO Ranch expansion, which will occur partly in response to the Pittsburg and Midway Coal
Mining Company Exchange, will increase the size of the current Sand Hills ACEC to 12,680 acres. BLM
will acquire about 1,200 acres along Cow Creek, which includes the historic JO Ranch and the Rawlins-
to-Baggs Freight Road. The JO Ranch is a unique example of continuous ranching activities of over 100
years in the Washakie Basin. This property includes a flood irrigation system along the valley bottom,
which has resulted in a very high-quality habitat for wildlife. This system will require maintenance and
planning to sustain it for the future. The JO Ranch also served as a stage stop along the Rawlins-to-Baggs
Freight Road, a historic route that connected northern Colorado with the Union Pacific Railroad line in
Rawlins.

The acquisition of the JO Ranch area will include only the surface rights. The mineral rights will be
retained by the current owner, which may limit the potential management actions that can be considered
for the property.

Jep Canyon ACEC/Jep Canyon Wildlife Habitat Management Area
(WHMA)

The Jep Canyon ACEC protects about 13,810 acres of public land for elk crucial winter range as well as
for raptor nesting habitat. There is a Raptor Concentration Area within the boundaries of Jep Canyon
ACEC, with a high concentration of raptors including but not limited to red-tailed hawks, Cooper’s
hawks, golden eagles, and prairie falcons. The high relief topography and wind deposition of snow
provide a diversity of vegetation communities, including aspen. Windswept south- and west-facing slopes
provide open foraging areas for elk at critical times.

Shamrock Hills ACEC

Shamrock Hills ACEC protects about 18,400 acres of public land for its habitat and productivity of
nesting raptor pairs. Shamrock Hills ACEC is recognized as a Raptor Concentration Area, with one of the
highest known nesting populations of ferruginous hawks in the United States. These populations are
discussed in greater detail in Section 3.19, Wildlife and Fish.

Potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Other areas within the RMPPA that were identified as potential ACECs are described below. These
include the Red Rim-Daley Area, Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly Area, High Savery Dam,
Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area, Chain Lakes Area, Cave Creek Cave Area, Laramie Plains
Lake Area, Pennock Mountain WHMA, Wick-Beumee WHMA, Laramie Plains Lakes Area, Blowout
Penstemon Area, White-Tailed Prairie Dog Area, and Historic Trails. Each area met at least one of the
ACEC relevance and importance criteria necessary to be considered a potential ACEC (USDI, BLM
2004a).

Red Rim-Daley Area

The Red Rim-Daley Potential ACEC (11,100 acres) is a WGFD Cooperative WHMA and is located
approximately 15 miles southwest of Rawlins. The Red Rim area contains both the Daley Ranch

Rawlins RMP

3-89

Chapter 3 — SD/MAs

Final EIS

allotment and the Daley Ranch Pasture. The area contains scenic values throughout the red sandstone
uplift. There are historic carvings in the rocks, with names and dates of people that traveled through the
area. The area provides crucial winter range for pronghorn, giving this winter habitat national importance.
The area may require additional management to maintain unique scenic and wildlife values.

Upper Muddy Creek Watershed Area

The Upper Muddy Creek Watershed Area includes 127,430 acres. The area contains those portions of the
Muddy Creek watershed above the Weber headcut stabilization structure, as well as those portions of the
Savery Creek watershed within the Grizzly allotment. The Grizzly allotment is currently managed as a
WHMA in cooperation with WGFD. The area contains unique fish habitats that support a rare community
of native Colorado River Basin fish, including Colorado River cutthroat trout, bluehead sucker,
flannelmouth sucker, roundtail chub, mountain sucker, and speckled dace. Elk crucial winter range is
located in this area. The high relief topography and wind deposition of snow provide a diversity of
vegetation communities, including aspen (Section 3.15, Vegetation).

High Savery Dam Area

The High Savery Dam and Reservoir area on the Savery Creek drainage south of Rawlins contains 530
acres of public lands, primarily downstream of the dam site. There is an MOU with the Wyoming Water
Development Commission (WWDC) to manage the area to protect the dam, reservoir site, and
wetland/riparian habitat. Mitigation for wetland/riparian areas impacted by dam construction would result
in created wetlands on BLM lands. Public access is closed to vehicular traffic; it is restricted to foot
access.

Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area

The Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area is 5,530 acres that includes five small watersheds that have
been used for research in the past. Currently, a portion of the Stratton area is withdrawn from locatable
mineral entry. There is existing infrastructure that was put in place for past research objectives. Examples
of this infrastructure include weirs for measuring stream flows, snow fences, vegetation plot markers, and
precipitation gauge sites. The current management allows for grazing on three pastures within the
research area, which is part of the Middlewood Hill allotment.

Chain Lakes Area

Management of the Chain Lakes WHMA is coordinated with WGFD by MOUs signed by BLM and the
Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (owner of adjacent property in the checkerboard landownership
pattern) in 1970 and 1976. The MOU objectives include the use of livestock grazing as a management
tool, maintenance of an optimum population of antelope, maintenance of public ownership,
administration of the area practically and economically, and discouragement of new fences. The
southwestern portion of the WHMA has moderate potential for oil and gas development and currently is
being developed in the western portion. The rest of the WHMA has a low potential for oil and gas
development (Map 4-7). Locatable mineral potential is low. Different laws, organizational goals and
objectives, and management opportunities govern BLM, responsible for public land, and WGFD,
responsible for private land.

There are no forestry resources in this area. The Lost Creek Wild Horse Herd Management Area
(WHHMA) borders this area to the north, but the WHMA is not within any WHHMA. There is one BLM
public access road traversing this area from the southeast to the north-central, the Riner Road. This area
encompasses one livestock grazing allotment (Chain Lakes), and is currently used by sheep in the winter.

The Chain Lakes area is located north of 1-80, northeast of Wamsutter, and north of Creston Junction. It
contains 30,560 acres of public land and occurs in a checkerboard ownership pattern where approximately

3-90

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — S D/M As

54 percent of the lands are either owned or leased by WGFD, and the remaining 46 percent are federal
lands administered by the BLM RMPPA. The area contains migration corridors and seasonal ranges for
pronghorn, along with raptors, greater sage-grouse, and other wildlife. It also contains a majority of the
Chain Lakes, a unique desert alkaline wetland community. Management actions would continue to protect
and identify components of the alkaline desert lake system, including historic mud pots and other
geologic features and wildlife habitat.

Cave Creek Cave Area

The Cave Creek Cave area is located within the Shirley Mountain SRMA area and contains Cave Creek
Cave. Ground water near Cave Creek provides unique humidity and temperature conditions that support
hibernating and breeding bats. This cave provides for a hibemaculum and roost site for several bat
species, including those on the BLM sensitive species list, because temperatures remain stable and the
area is generally undisturbed. In addition to containing unique biological and geological resources, Cave
Creek Cave provides unique recreational opportunities for spelunkers, which constitutes the majority of
use by people during the late-spring, summer, and fall time period.

Laramie Peak Area

The Laramie Peak area consists of approximately 18,662 acres of BLM-administered land, 11,500 acres
of private land owned by the WGFD, and 6,700 acres of state land. There are 20 grazing allotments
within the Laramie Peak area, all of which are licensed for cattle grazing. The area is to be assessed as
part of the 2006 watershed assessment report for Standards and Guidelines. Ponderosa pine, Douglas fir,
lodgepole pine, aspen, mountain shrubs, and grasslands dominate the vegetative communities. The area
has steep granitic rock outcrops that drop into flat grasslands and vertical canyons, especially in the
Laramie River and Duck Creek drainages.

The area has a wide variety of wildlife species including bighorn sheep, elk, mule deer, antelope, raptors,
and fish species such as the homyhead chub. The area has crucial winter range habitat for bighorn sheep,
elk, and mule deer. One of the last remaining populations of the homyhead chub in Wyoming occurs in
this area. The area also contains habitat for the threatened Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and potential
habitat for Laramie columbine, a BLM sensitive species.

The Laramie Peak area falls within the existing the Laramie Peak Bighorn Sheep Habitat Management
Area that directs management of the BLM-administered lands in cooperation and coordination with
USFS, WGFD, BLM (both the Rawlins and Casper Field Offices), and public interest groups (such as the
Foundation for North American Wild Sheep (FNAWS). The main objective of the Laramie Peak Habitat
Management Area is to restore, improve and enhance habitat conditions for bighorn sheep and other
wildlife species. There are 15 site-specific identified projects that are proposed in the Laramie Peak
Bighorn Sheep Habitat Management Area. The habitat objectives of these projects are to remove forest
canopy and increase grass production in order to improve summer forage, lambing areas and improve
movement corridors for bighorn sheep.

Laramie Plains Lakes Area

The Laramie Plains Lakes area is located southwest of Laramie and contains Lake Hattie and Twin Buttes
Reservoir as well as 1,600 acres of public land. The area has potential habitat for the endangered
Wyoming toad, which is currently found in Mortenson Lake and Moeboer Lake, both located within close
proximity. Although this area contains only potential habitat, it is highly possible that the toads can travel
through the wetland corridors to Lake Hattie and Twin Buttes Reservoir. Recreationists heavily use this
area. Shortgrass species dominate upland areas, whereas wetland areas consist of a combination of
emergent aquatic vegetation and bare bank areas.

Rawlins RMP

3-91

Chapter 3 — SD/MAs

Final EIS

Blowout Penstemon Area

The Blowout Penstemon area contains 17,050 acres of potential and occupied habitat for the endangered
blowout penstemon. This area has increased in size from 4,020 acres in the RMP DEIS to 17,050 acres in
the RMP FEIS to incorporate additional populations of the plant found in 2004 through 2006. This area
encompasses unique sand dunes that contain steep sandy slopes deposited at the base of granite or
sedimentary mountains. The blowout penstemon plant is restricted to sparsely vegetated, early
successional shifting sand dunes created by wind erosion. Although some believe the plant is native to
Nebraska, historical records show the plant may have been collected during the Hayden expedition in
1877 as it traveled from Casper to Rawlins through Sandy Creek pass and the Seminole Hills (now called
“the Ferris Mountains”) (Fertig 2001).

White-Tailed Prairie Dog Area

The white-tailed prairie dog complexes that have been identified within the RMPPA contain eight
different colonies and their associated habitat. These complexes, indicated on Map 2-8, include the
following areas: Sweetwater, Dad, Shamrock Hills, Pathfinder, Bolton Ranch, Seminoe, Saratoga, and the
Shirley Basin-Medicine Bow area.

The white-tailed prairie dog and their complexes are an important element in the sagebrush-steppe
ecosystem. The white-tailed prairie dog primarily inhabits open, rolling grassy plains but can also be
found in slightly brushy country and in areas with scattered juniper and pinyon pine. The species has been
identified as being a “keystone” species — that is, a species on which numerous other species rely as an
important component in their life history. At least nine species depend directly on prairie dogs or their
activities to some extent, with another 137 species associated opportunistically. Some of these species and
the critical components provided to them by prairie dogs include Black-footed ferrets (a federally listed
species), which rely on prairie dogs as their primary food source and use their burrows for denning; swift
foxes (another listed species), which rely on prairie dogs as a component of their food sources; and
burrowing owls, which rely on abandoned prairie dog burrows for nesting (CNE et al. 2003).

Prairie dogs create habitat for themselves and other species by modifying vegetative communities. They
create preferential grazing opportunities for herbivores, including livestock, which in turn create
opportunities via grazing for the expansion of prairie dog colonies at their perimeters.

Historic Trails (Overland, Cherokee, Rawlins-to-Baggs, and Rawlins-to-
Fort Washakie)

Historic transportation routes (i.e., trails, roads, and railroads) command a great amount of management
attention because of their overall historic importance in western settlement and expansion and their
presence over long distances in the RMPPA. Some of these properties are encountered frequently during
cultural resource inventories. The general locations of selected NRHP-eligible linear properties across the
RMPPA are shown on Map 2-46.

The Overland Trail

The historic Overland Trail trends east-west through the RFO RMPPA. Blazed for the most part by a
combination of emigrant travel to the California gold fields (Lewis Evans and the Cherokee in 1849) and
government expeditions (Stansbury and Bryan in 1850 and 1857, respectively), the Overland Trail
became the primary central overland route in 1862 (Hafen 1926: 230-31).

Several factors played a role in replacing the familiar Oregon Trail route west to Salt Lake City with the
Overland Trail across southern Wyoming. Indian attacks had escalated along the Oregon Trail route
(Frederick 1940: 94). The central route was the most economical and expedient; the southern route
through the Southwest to the West Coast was longer, and a secondary problem of Southern interference
along the route through Texas following the beginning of the Civil War was a consideration as well. Also,

3-92

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — SD/MAs

until the 1859 discovery of gold in Colorado, there had been no reason to alter the North Platte route west
used by so many emigrants since the end of the fur trade era. The passage of the Overland Mail Bill in
March 1861 directed that both Salt Lake City and Denver receive mail on a tri-weekly basis. Therefore,
Russell, Majors & Waddell (Central Overland, California, and Pike’s Peak Express Company) would
provide the service from Missouri to Salt Lake City, and the Butterfield Company, having agreed to a
transfer from the southern to the central route, would operate west of Salt Lake City to California. During
1861, the route west from Julesburg, Colorado, continued along the Oregon Trail route to Fort Laramie.
After July 1 862, the new route bypassed the long loop north over South Pass; instead, the route west from
Missouri passed along the South Platte to Julesburg across the Laramie Plains, skirting Elk Mountain,
through Bridger Pass, and across Green River to Fort Bridger (Bartlett 1918: 333; Hafen 1926: 213-218;
Beard 1933: 119-122).

In July 1862, following the Federal Government’s decision to relocate the U.S. Mail service from the
established emigrant route, Fort Halleck was constructed along the Overland Trail at the northern base of
Elk Mountain to protect the new stage route from Indian depredations (Bryan, 1857: 46; Hafen 1926:
230-231, 242, 248; Erb et al. 1989: 50-51). Winters in the region could be severe, and timber obtained
from nearby Elk Mountain was used to build the post and for firewood. Coal from outcrops north of Fort
Halleck was used for blacksmithing and to supplement the wood supply for heat. On February 24, 1864,
the post physician, Dr. John H. Finfrock, wrote in his diary that troops obtained a wagonload of coal from
a location north of the fort; known coal resources lay exposed only a few miles away (Finfrock 1864).

The Overland Trail remained in use until 1869, when the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) was completed
across southern Wyoming; subsequently, the federal mail and passenger service was transferred to the
railroad. The Overland Trail, however, remained in use as a thoroughfare for emigrant and freight traffic,
becoming the trunk line for the late 19th-century road system that developed in the region south of the UP
rail line that served the towns and outlying ranches (Holt 1885).

Only three of the stage stations built along the trail exist on currently administered public lands: the
Midway, Sage Creek, and Washakie Stations. The Washakie Station is listed on the NRHP and still
retains some of the original structure. The other two stage stations have been destroyed, although their
location is well documented. Evidence of the trail remains in the form of ruts and swales as well as
associated artifacts.

The Cherokee Trail

The California gold rush was the catalyst for the Cherokee Trail, the northern route of which would
become the precursor of an overland wagon road across the southern portion of future Wyoming
Territory. In 1849, Lewis Evans led a party of Cherokee Indians from Oklahoma to the California gold
fields. The Cherokee Trail connected Bent’s Old Fort on the Santa Fe Trail to Fort Bridger on the
Oregon-Califomia Trail (Homsher 1965: 4; Whiteley 1999: 2-3.

In 1849, Lewis Evans led a party of Cherokee Indians from Oklahoma to the California gold fields. From
the South Platte River, they headed north along the east side of the Front Range, passing over the future
route of Highway 287 to Virginia Dale and Tie Siding and onto the Laramie Plains. They proceeded west
around the north end of the Medicine Bow Mountains, then south of Elk Mountain through Pass Creek,
and continued west well north of Bridger’s Pass and across the Red Desert on their way to Fort Bridger
(Fletcher, Fletcher, and Whiteley 2000: 107-119; Whiteley 1999: 8-9, 16-18, 94, 96-97).

In 1850, several parties of Cherokee followed the 1849 route to the southern Laramie Plains, then headed
west across the southern portion of the Medicine Bow Mountains, crossing the Laramie River south of
future Woods Land and passing into North Park, Colorado, where they crossed the North Platte River
then headed north along the east flank of the Sierra Madre Mountains. They crossed the Continental
Divide at Twin Groves near the north end of the Sierra Madre and proceeded west along the Wyoming-
Colorado border north of the Little Snake River (Fletcher, Fletcher, and Whiteley 2000: 313-338;
Whiteley 1999: 8-9, 95, 114-115).

Rawlins RMP

3-93

Chapter 3 — SD/MAs

Final EIS

Today, evidence of the Cherokee Trail is scarce, but it can be found in the form of ruts and swales.

The Rawlins-to-Baggs Freight Road

The Rawlins-to-Baggs Freight Road is listed as eligible for the NRHP. General Land Office plats dating
from 1881 to 1917 (surveys and resurveys) refer to the route as the Rawlins-to- White River Road (1881),
and the Rawlins and the Snake River Road (1881), and the Baggs-to-Rawlins Road (1916). The origins of
the route lie in two historic events: (1) the building of the first transcontinental railroad through southern
Wyoming Territory in 1867-1868 and the consequent founding of the town of Rawlins, and (2) the
creation of the White River Agency for the Ute Indians in northwestern Colorado in 1868.

Rawlins grew up along the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way near a free-flowing spring. Chief
Engineer Grenville Dodge named the spring and railroad station after his good friend Major General John
A. Rawlins, a noted military figure who had been General Grant’s chief of staff and a secretary of war.
Other sources claim that the springs were named after an early trapper known as “Rawlins” or
“Rawlings.”

At the same time in Colorado Territory to the south, events were leading to the creation of a reservation
and agency for the Ute Indians, whose nearest supply point would become Rawlins and the Union Pacific
Railroad. In 1868, the Federal Government negotiated a treaty that created a large reservation comprising
the western third of Colorado Territory for the Utes, who were gradually being forced westward by white
encroachment along the eastern slope of the Rockies. Under the new treaty, two agencies were created to
disburse annual gifts of clothing, food, and supplies. The White River Agency was located on the White
River (near present-day Meeker, CO) for the use of the northern Ute bands (Ubbelohde, Benson, and
Smith 1972).

The stage and freight route that developed from Rawlins to the Ute Agency headed southwest from
Rawlins and skirted the western base of the Sierra Madre Range. The road crossed the east-west Overland
Trail at Sulpher Springs, a “home” station for Holladay’s route. It also crossed the old Cherokee Trail and
continued south, following Muddy Creek to the Snake River Valley and crossing into Colorado (Rankin
1944). The route was first used for freight, but mail and passenger service was added as the region
became more settled.

Stage service ended on the Rawlins-to-Baggs Road in 1909. Rail service was slow in coming to the area
of northwestern Colorado that was served by the Rawlins-to-Baggs Road and its extension to White River
(through Craig to Meeker, Colorado). The Denver and Rio Grande Railroad built to the west from
Glenwood Springs to Rifle in 1889, some 40 miles to the south. The Denver, Northwestern and Pacific
Railroad built to Steamboat Springs in 1908, and its successor, the Denver and Salt Lake Railroad,
extended its trackage in 1903 to Craig, more than forty miles south of Baggs (Wilkins 1974). Therefore,
Baggs and the surrounding ranches in the Little Snake River Valley and to the north remained tied to the
Rawlins-to-Baggs Road well into the 20th century.

The Rawlins-to-Baggs freight road parallels the 20-mile road out of Rawlins. Portions of the road are in
excellent condition, with deep swales and ruts present.

The Rawlins-to-Fort Washakie Freight Road

The Rawlins-to-Fort Washakie Freight Road was originally laid out and used as a trail by the military
after the establishment of Camp Auger, probably in 1868 or 1870. The trail was extended 16 miles
northwest to Fort Washakie in 1871, when the Indian Agency was established there. At this time,
travelers from the Union Pacific Railroad mainline reached Lander and Fort Washakie by means of a
stage route from Green River City via South Pass.

Although stage travel throughout the 1870s and early 1880s used the Green River City-to-South Pass
route, the Rawlins-to-Fort Washakie Trail laid out by the military appeared on Masi’s Black Hills Map
(1875), and the road, as well as a telegraph line, appeared on General Land Office plats dated 1882. In

3-94

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — SD/MAs

1884, the town of Lander was officially platted. As the settlement grew, the need for stage service arose,
and in 1885, L.L. Slavens instituted a tri-weekly stage service from Rawlins to Lander and Fort
Washakie, using the original military trail.

The Rawlins-to-Fort Washakie Freight Road represented the key transportation link between Wind River
Valley and the Union Pacific Railroad through southern Wyoming Territory. The establishment of the
road set the pattern of transportation, communication, and settlement for the Wind River Valley from the
south via Rawlins.

Stage service on the route ceased on June 30, 1906. With the rapid approach of rail service to Lander
from the east, the route was no longer needed to serve the Wind River Valley and the Indian Agency. It is
not known how long the telegraph line was kept in use. The Rawlins-to-Fort Washakie Freight Road
undoubtedly was used by freight and local ranch traffic well into the 20th century, when the modem
highway was constructed over Muddy Gap to the east.

Other Management Areas

Pennock Mountain Wildlife Habitat Management Area

WGFD first established the 9,806-acre Pennock Mountain Elk Winter Range, located east of Saratoga, in
1962. The area contains cmcial winter habitat for both elk and mule deer. BLM reserves all grazing
preference for wildlife on 6,284 acres of BLM-administered public land, including 1,530 AUMs of forage
for wintering elk. This area is closed to human presence and motorized vehicle use, including over-the-
snow vehicles, from November 15 through April 30. The area contains mountain big sage, mountain
shrub, aspen, cottonwood, and willow habitats.

Wick-Beumee Wildlife Habitat Management Area

WGFD established the Wick Elk Winter Area, located on both sides of 1-80 and between the towns of Elk
Mountain and Arlington, in 1965. The area contains elk winter/cmcial winter range and year-round
habitat for wildlife. In conjunction with WGFD’s purchase of the Wick Brothers Ranch, an MOU
between BLM and WGFD was developed that reserves grazing use on the 280 acres of BLM-
administered public land for elk and other wildlife. The terrain ranges from mgged foothills in the south
to gently rolling plains in the north. Vegetative communities consist of sagebrush, mountain shmb, and
aspen. The area is closed to human presence and motorized vehicle use, including over-the-snow vehicles,
from November 16 through May 31.

Cow Butte/Wild Cow Area

The Cow Butte/Wild Cow area, located between Rawlins and Baggs, was developed to promote
management of upland and riparian habitats for wildlife and other multiple-uses. It encompasses 63,697
acres of mostly BLM-administered public land (49,570), along with 4,768 acres of private land and 8,697
acres of state land, and it borders the Upper Muddy Creek Watershed area to the north and the Sand Hills
ACEC to the northwest. Of special concern in the area are the steep slopes and gullies that have the
potential to accelerate erosion that would lead to increased habitat degradation. The moderate and steep
slopes on south and west aspects are the principal areas used by elk during critical winter periods. This
area encompasses a significant portion of elk crucial winter range. Impediments to wildlife movements
from existing fences and habitat fragmentation have resulted in a loss of usable elk crucial winter range.

The area has a combination of diverse upland habitat conditions intertwined with perennial and ephemeral
stream systems and riparian habitat, which combine to support an abundance of wildlife species,
including elk, mule deer, pronghorn, greater sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, and raptors. The most
important factor of the area is the mosaic mix of these wildlife habitats resulting from the diversity of
plant communities, topography, soils, and climate. Vegetation communities within this area include

Rawlins RMP

3-95

Chapter 3 — SD/MAs

Final EIS

aspen, four types of sagebrush, mountain shrub, and riparian/wetland communities which provide for the
array of habitat.

There are seven different grazing allotments either wholly or partially contained with the area, including
that portion of the Grizzly allotment that lies outside the upper Muddy Creek watershed. The WGFD
established the 38,091-acre Grizzly Habitat Management Area in 1992. In conjunction with the
acquisition of the Grizzly allotment, an MOU, habitat management plan, and allotment management plan
were developed between the WGFD and BLM to guide management of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
and fisheries habitat.

Prior to and during this same time span, BLM, permittees, and the Little Snake River Conservation
District have worked on adjoining allotments to implement a variety of actions to improve watershed and
vegetation condition. These include pasture fencing and water developments to manipulate livestock
grazing, road improvements to reduce sediment delivery into streams, and prescribed bums to improve
upland shrub habitat and herbaceous production. These actions have all helped to improve riparian and
upland habitat conditions; however, upland plant community health and modification of fences for
wildlife benefit still remain management priorities for this area.

3.13.3 National Natural Landmarks Management

NNLs include Big Hollow, which contains 640 acres of public land; Sand Creek, which contains 160
acres of public land; and Como Bluff, which contains 1,690 acres of public land.

Big Hollow, which was designated an NNL in 1980, is characterized by a large depression or deflation
basin formed by wind erosion. This NNL on the high plains west of Laramie contains 640 acres of public
land to which legal access does not exist.

The significance of the Big Hollow NNL lies in the great size of the deflation basin and the Aeolian
processes through which it was formed. The deflation basin is considered the largest topographic feature
of its kind in the continental United States. The integrity of the surface of those portions of the deflation
basin that have not been disturbed enhances the naturalness of the landmark.

The Sand Creek NNL was designated in 1984, primarily for its scenic values and for the scientific values
of its geologic features. It is about 20 miles southwest of Laramie and contains 160 acres of public land to
which legal access does not exist. Land use within this area is predominantly livestock grazing.

The geologic features at Sand Creek include pillars and monuments of cross-bedded sandstone. Chimney
(Camel) Rock is more than 200 feet high. To the west of these features, a sandstone escarpment rises as
much as 300 feet above the surrounding terrain. The red and white coloring of the wind- and water-
sculpted features adds to the scenic beauty of this natural landmark.

A description of the Como Bluff NNL is provided above in the ACEC section.

3.13.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are currently no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) in the RMPPA. The portion of the
Encampment River within the WSA is the only segment in the RMPPA that has been identified as eligible
and suitable for WSR designation, which requires congressional approval. Designation of the WSR would
ensure continued protection of the outstandingly remarkable character of the river corridor for future
generations.

BLM-administered public land surfaces (public lands) along 402 waterways in the RMPPA were
reviewed for WSR eligibility. In 2002, public lands along 393 of these waterways were found not to meet
the eligibility criteria and were dropped from further consideration (Appendix 3). Public lands along nine
waterways were determined to meet the eligibility criteria and are described as follows:

3-96

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — SD/MAs

Big Creek

The segment of Big Creek reviewed is 7.72 miles long, of which 3.39 miles flows through three public
land parcels determined to meet the WSR eligibility criteria. The outstandingly remarkable values (ORV)
for these parcels were determined to be recreational values. The public lands reviewed attract visitors
from outside the area to enjoy fishing, hunting, and picnicking.

Bunker Draw

The entire length of the segment of Bunker Draw reviewed is 0.15 miles long and flows through one
public land parcel and contains scenic ORVs. This public land parcel includes a deeply incised canyon
unique to the region. The maples and cottonwoods on public lands in the waterway corridor add to the
scenic quality, especially during the fall.

Cherry Creek

The segment of Cherry Creek reviewed is 5.40 miles long, of which the creek flows through one public
land parcel and contains ecological ORVs. The upper section is located in the Ferris Mountain WSA.
Through implementation of appropriate range management standards, this public land parcel includes one
of the most pristine creeks in the Ferris Mountains and is used as an ideal or “showcase” example for
proper range management techniques.

Duck Creek

The segment of Duck Creek reviewed is 3.25 miles long, of which 2.97 miles of the creek flows through
two public land parcels and contains scenic ORVs. Located within the review segment is a 35-foot
waterfall that is unique to the area and has a scenic quality that has the potential to attract visitors from
outside the area.

Encampment River

The segment of the Encampment River reviewed is 2.51 miles long and flows through the Encampment
River WSA, which includes one public land parcel and contains scenic, recreational, historical, and
wildlife ORVs. This public land parcel includes a rugged canyon with colorful rock outcroppings and
thick riparian vegetation. The river is considered a “Class 2” stream (very good trout water of statewide
importance), as designated by WGFD, that attracts anglers from outside the region. The public lands also
provide hiking and horseback riding opportunities. A public campground is located directly downstream
from the review segment and provides easy public access to the waterway segment under review. Public
lands within the river corridor are also associated with historic copper mining operations and tie hacking,
an old flume, and mining-associated sites (e.g., prospector pits, shafts, adits, mining cabins). The public
lands also include important bighorn sheep lambing grounds along the steep canyon walls above the river.

Littlefield Creek

The segment of Littlefield Creek reviewed is 4.58 miles long and contains fisheries and ecological ORVs.
This public land parcel includes habitat of exceptionally high quality for the Colorado River cutthroat
trout. There is historical documentation of the species existing in the creek during Jim Bridger’s time (i.e.,
the 1850s). BLM and WGFD have been using the public lands for reintroduction of the Colorado River
cutthroat trout since September 2001. The success of these efforts is assured because of the use of
artificial barriers that deter competitive fish species. This is the only population of Colorado River
cutthroat trout in the entire watershed and is unique because other populations are in forested headwater
streams. The public lands also include one of the few intact dogwood/birch communities in the area.

Rawlins RMP

3-97

Chapter 3 — SD/MAs

Final EIS

Muddy Creek

The entire length (87.50 miles) of Muddy Creek was reviewed, of which 34.96 miles of the creek flow
through 47 public land parcels and contain hydrological ORVs. These public land parcels provide a
“textbook” example of stream rehabilitation that is used as a demonstration for managers and educators.

North Platte River

The segment of the North Platte River reviewed is 5.22 miles long, of which 4.59 miles flow through two
public land parcels and contains scenic, recreational, and wildlife ORVs. These public land parcels
include a beautiful, steep canyon unique to the area. The segment of waterway reviewed has been
designated by WGFD as a Blue Ribbon trout fishery and attracts anglers from across the nation. The
review segment is also boated extensively. BLM offers two campsites on public lands that provide
important boat access for recreationists. A trail system on public lands also offers hiking opportunities.
The public lands provide important winter and nesting habitat for bald eagles.

Skull Creek (Including Short Segment of Two Unnamed Tributaries)

The segment of Skull Creek reviewed is 11.75 miles long. The main branch of the unnamed tributary
reviewed (Tributary A) is 6.99 miles long, and the second unnamed tributary reviewed (Tributary B) is
6.01 miles long. The Skull Creek unit flows through the Adobe Town WSA, which includes one public
land parcel determined to meet the WSR eligibility requirements. The unnamed tributaries flow through
the same public land parcel for a total of 13.00 miles when combined. The Skull Creek unit, Tributary A,
and Tributary B contain scenic and paleontological ORVs. The Skull Creek unit traverses badland
topography, with hoodoos and interesting mud ball formations in the waterway corridor. A well-known
vertebrate fossil study area is also located on public lands where large amounts of fossil fish, turtles, and
other animals are exposed by streambed erosion.

3.13.5 Other Management Areas

Rawlins-to-Baggs Geographical Area

The Rawlins-to-Baggs area is bounded on the north by 1-80, on the east by State Highway 71 and Carbon
County Road 401, on the south by State Highway 70, and on the west by State Highway 789. This area
contains unique and valuable vegetation and wildlife resources that require special management
emphasis. The natural resources within the area draw a high number of dispersed recreationists. Mineral
development in this area has high potential, and if this development were to take place, it is likely that the
values of this area would be compromised.

The Rawlins-to-Baggs area has a combination of diverse upland habitat conditions intertwined with
perennial and ephemeral stream systems and riparian habitat, which combine to support a higher than
normal wildlife species richness. The most important factor of the area is the mosaic mix of these wildlife
communities in close proximity to one another based upon the diversity of topography, soils, and climate.
Vegetation communities within this area include aspen, six types of sagebrush, juniper, mountain shrub,
saline desert shrub, and riparian/wetland communities.

South-central Wyoming is a unique area within the contiguous United States and contains vast tracts of
undisturbed wildlife habitat. There is an abundance and richness of wildlife that includes big game,
raptors, greater sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Neotropical birds, Colorado River
cutthroat trout, and BLM sensitive warmwater fish species. This diversity is also observed in the
proximity of seasonal ranges to crucial winter ranges; the overlapping winter ranges of several big game
species; and important birthing areas for antelope, mule deer, and elk. Raptor species include a wide
variety of hawks, eagles, and owls as well as healthy populations of two BLM state sensitive species —

3-98

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — SD/MAs

ferruginous hawks and burrowing owls. This area is the only place in Wyoming where Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse occur, and their range is expanding northward. There are few locations elsewhere in
Wyoming that support a higher density of greater sage-grouse.

The upper Muddy Creek drainage bisects the middle of this region, and it once supported Colorado River
cutthroat trout in the days when Jim Bridger first explored routes for the settlers that followed. Active
management of both fish communities and habitats has recently culminated in the reintroduction of
Colorado River cutthroat trout to the upper watershed. These management activities have included the
management of livestock grazing to improve riparian conditions as well as the removal of exotic fishes.
By improving habitat conditions and removing exotic species that compete with or hybridize with native
fishes, these actions have benefited a rare relict native fish community including both coldwater (i.e.,
Colorado River cutthroat trout and mountain sucker) and warmwater (i.e., bluehead sucker, flannelmouth
sucker, roundtail chub and speckled dace) native fishes. Continued focus of fisheries management
activities within the upper Muddy Creek watershed may benefit this rare relict native fish community
sufficiently to preclude the need to list these species for additional protection under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).

The plant and wildlife values of this area are reflected in several smaller portions being proposed as
SD/MAs including the proposed Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly Potential ACEC, Red Rim-
Daley Potential ACEC, Jep Canyon ACEC (elk and raptors), and Sand Hills ACEC (mule deer).
However, piecemeal protection of the higher value areas will not adequately protect all the wildlife
species that use and depend on this area.

The Rawlins-to-Baggs area is a popular dispersed recreation destination, particularly for hunters, because
here they can hunt multiple big game species. There is a sufficient road network for recreational access,
and the scenic quality of the area is not impaired by an abundance of permanent facilities.

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail passes through this area. Visitation to the trail is gradually
increasing.

Cultural values in this area include the Overland and Cherokee Historic Trails, the Rawlins-to-Baggs
Freight Road, the historic JO Ranch, and numerous other significant cultural properties. The historic trails
and roads are important reminders of settlement in this area.

The Rawlins-to-Baggs area also includes the Historic Trails Potential ACEC, High Savery Dam Potential
ACEC, and Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA.

Rawlins RMP

3-99

Chapter 3

Final EIS

3.14 Transportation and Access

Transportation activity within the RMPPA is associated with a variety of resource uses, including mineral
extraction, livestock grazing, and recreation. The level of access to these resources can affect their
potential levels of use. This section addresses the current roadway network, access issues, and trends
associated with the RMPPA transportation system.

3.14.1 Roadway Network

The RMPPA roadway network includes a spectrum of roads for varying purposes. Map 1-4 shows the
interstate transportation network, U.S. and state highways, and county roads. There are two interstate
highways through the RMPPA: 1-25, which runs north-south through Cheyenne and Wheatland in the far
eastern part of the area; and 1-80, running westward from Nebraska to generally bisect the RMPPA. For
the most part, U.S. highways are co-located on interstate highways, with U.S. 87 following 1-25 and U.S.
30 following 1-80. An important exception is the divergence of U.S. 30 from 1-80 between Laramie and
Walcott, where it is co-located with U.S. 287. This route is less subject to the blizzard conditions that
sometimes occur in this segment of 1-80. As would be expected on the basis of population, state highways
are much more numerous in the portion of the RMPPA east of Rawlins. West of Rawlins, State Highway
789 is the only state highway, and other routes are typically unpaved.

Not shown on Map 1-4 are numerous smaller roads laced throughout the RMPPA, which connect more
remote locations within the RMPPA to the larger collector roads. These roads are used for recreational
purposes, to provide access for the development and maintenance of oil and gas wells, and for range
management improvements. Most of these roads are not paved; they are of dirt, gravel, or sand. These
roads include those that are maintained by BLM, by counties, and by private corporations. The larger
collector roads shown on Map 1-4 are not maintained by BLM.

Access

The checkerboard land ownership pattern and other non-BLM-managed inholdings create problems for
accessing land and resources administered by BLM. Some easements exist to allow access across private
lands to public lands, but there are several locations where public access to public land is not available
due to the lack of such easements or contiguous BLM-managed public land. For example, access to the
Overland Trail is hampered because of noncontiguous BLM-managed land. In addition, public access to
streams and reservoirs is often restricted by the absence of lands with legal public access adjacent to the
water.

Transportation Trends

Energy- and recreation-related vehicular traffic on the public lands is increasing. This is due to further
energy development and recreational use by the general public. With the greater use and demand on the
existing transportation network, additional legal access would be required to provide for and enhance
travel to and from the public lands.

3-100

Ralins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

3.15 Vegetation

Vegetation resources within the RMPPA are diverse and in some areas unique. The precipitation,
elevation, and temperature extremes, combined with soil and geology variability, create a variety of
vegetation habitat types. The eastern areas of the RMPPA, located in Wyoming’s southeast comer, are
within the vast North American prairies, where mixed-grass communities dominate. The desert areas
provide habitat for a variety of hearty plants tolerant of low precipitation, temperature extremes, and
saline soils. High elevation areas on Elk Mountain and the Seminoe and Ferris Mountains support plants
adapted to very low temperatures, an extremely short growing season, and high snow accumulation. Since
the RMPPA straddles the Continental Divide in the gap between the Northern and Central Rocky
Mountains, it tends to support a mixture of plains and intermountain plant species, with wind and climate
factoring strongly into the evolution of local plant communities. Bison and their grazing influence upon
vegetation were another important component of community evolution. Fremont in 1842 and Stansbury in
1850 referenced the occurrence and common sign of bison in this area, and Native American kill sites of
this animal are documented in numerous locations.

The RMPPA supports a variety of vegetation types, each of which is susceptible to fire occurrence as a
result of fuel loading or as a natural condition of the environment. Vegetation treatments in the RMPPA
operate under the protocols set forth in the Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western
States Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDI, BLM 1991b). Vegetation
treatments include fuels reduction, vegetation health, and weed control projects, with separate annual
treatment acreages for each.

This discussion focuses on vegetation distribution and vegetation types at three levels. The top level
divides the RMPPA into three vegetation provinces. These were taken from Bailey (1995), who describes
the ecoregions of the United States. The middle level uses vegetation map zones aggregated from
Geographical Analysis Program (GAP) satellite imagery interpretation. The map zones allow quantitative
measurements of broad vegetation types. The lowest level describes the individual plant communities,
defined by the soil, climate, and vegetation characteristics. Each level may be used as a management tool
depending on the specific issues and level of detail required. Wetland, riparian, and upland plant species
commonly found in the RMPPA are presented in Appendix 28.

3.15.1 Ecological Provinces

Bailey’s (1995) description of North American ecoregions places the RMPPA in three different
vegetation provinces. These include the Intermountain Semi-Desert Province (342), Great Plains Dry
Steppe Province (331), and Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe — Open Woodland — Coniferous Forest
Province (M331). The following subsections provide an overview of each of these vegetation provinces.

Intermountain Semi-Desert Province (342)

The Intermountain Semi-Desert Province is contained within the intermountain basins of Wyoming and
northern Colorado. The chief vegetation type, sagebrush steppe, is made up of sagebrush, saltbush, and a
mixture of grasses and forbs. Willows, rushes, and sedges dominate the wetter valley bottoms, while
greasewood and inland saltgrass dominate drier streams and ephemeral washes (Bailey 1995; Knight
1994). The higher elevations may contain pockets of aspen in the wetter areas and juniper/limber pine
stands in the drier areas.

This area is sometimes considered a cold desert, as the summers are hot and the winters can be extremely
cold. The growing season is short (Rawlins has a frost-free period of 106 days), and the annual
precipitation varies between 5 and 14 inches. Annual snowfall averages between 20 and 60 inches
(Martner 1986). Winter snow accumulation and runoff provide available moisture for spring plant growth.

Rawlins RMP

3-101

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

Final EIS

Snow distribution patterns caused by wind, topography, and existing vegetation function to develop
pockets of highly productive sites within the drier, less productive surrounding areas.

This area lies predominantly in the western and central regions of the RMPPA, at elevations below 8,000
feet. Forest and alpine areas dissect this vegetation province; these areas provide winter habitat for many
wildlife species. Livestock and wildlife grazing are the primary uses of the area.

Great Plains Dry Steppe Province (331)

Mixed- and shortgrass prairies east of the central Rocky Mountains dominate the Great Plains Dry Steppe
Province. Typical grasses in these areas include buffalo grass, grama grasses, wheatgrasses, and needle
grasses. Deeper soils in wetter areas may grow taller grasses, such as Indian grass and little bluestem.
Scattered shrub colonies may dot the landscape with big sagebrush, sand sagebrush, and rabbitbrush. Wet
riparian areas provide habitat for cottonwood, sumac, willow, and alder (Bailey 1995; Knight 1994).

This area lies in the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains. Winters are cold and dry, and summers are
warm, with frequent thunderstorms (Martner 1986; Bailey 1995). Cheyenne has a moderate growing
season of 138 days, but Laramie, 40 miles west, has a much shorter growing season of only 93 days. The
annual precipitation of the area is between 10 inches in the far west and 16 inches east of Cheyenne. The
average annual snowfall is between 60 and 80 inches (Martner 1986).

Within the RMPPA, the Great Plains Dry Steppe Province dominates the ecology of the Laramie Basin
and the prairie east of the Laramie Range to Nebraska. The Laramie Basin varies in elevation between
7,000 feet and 7,500 feet, whereas the elevation of the far southeast portion of the RMPPA ranges
between 5,500 feet and 7,000 feet. Most of this area is privately owned and is used for grazing of
livestock, irrigated cropland, or dryland farming.

Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe — Open Woodland — Coniferous Forest Province
(M331)

The Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe — Open Woodland — Coniferous Forest Province is a transition
from grass- and shrub-dominated areas to shrub- and tree-dominated areas. Brome and fescue grasses,
mountain mahogany, sagebrush, aspen, and juniper dominate the 8,000-to-9,000-foot elevations. The
middle elevations of pine and spruce forest lie between 8,500 feet and 12,000 feet. Alpine tundra occurs
only in the RMPPA area above 10,000 feet and is dominated by short grasses and cushion-type forbs, as
well as by krummholz patches of spruce and fir. Riparian vegetation also varies according to elevation;
however, willows and water-tolerant grasses, sedges, and rushes often dominate from the foothills to the
alpine (Bailey 1995; Knight 1994).

The climate of these areas is very variable and dynamic as a result of factors such as elevation, aspect,
slope, and topographical change. Eastern and southern slopes are generally drier and warmer than are
western and northern slopes. As the elevation rises, the mean temperature drops and the growing season
shortens. (Fox Park, at 9,065 feet, has a frost-free period of only 21 days.) Annual precipitation generally
increases from 14 inches in the foothills to over 60 inches in the alpine area. Winter mountain snowpack
may reach over 200 inches per year and provides a reservoir for lower elevation water users (Martner
1986; Knight 1994).

Mountain ranges dominated by the Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe — Open Woodland — Coniferous
Forest Province are well distributed throughout the RMPPA. They include the Snowy Range, the Sierra
Madre, the Laramie Range, the Shirley Mountains, the Freeze Out Mountains, the Seminoe Mountains,
and the Ferris Mountains. These areas provide summer forage for wildlife and livestock as well as
important habitat for many nongame mammals, birds, and fish. Higher elevation provides areas of
increased diversity and productivity within large areas of lower precipitation and often harsher
environments.

3-102

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

3.15.2 General Vegetation Map Zones

The general vegetation zones illustrated in Map 3-10 represent combinations of plant community classes
taken directly from the Geographical Analysis Program (GAP) satellite imagery analysis. The classes
combined for each zone, the zone’s total area, the dominant vegetation, and a description of the area
where the vegetation occurs are also provided. Note that the percentages indicated represent total area
within the RMPPA, some of which is owned by private, state, or other federal entities.

Distinct plant communities within the RMPPA are influenced by characteristics such as soil depth,
texture, and salt content; climate variables, particularly temperature, total and seasonal distribution of
precipitation, and wind; and topographic features, most importantly elevation, aspect, and slope. Plant
communities respond to other environmental influences such as wildlife foraging, rodent burrowing, and
ant hills.

Plants themselves also influence soil chemistry and soil resistance to wind and water erosion. The
following plant community overviews explain the diverse and complex nature of vegetation communities
in the RMPPA.

Agriculture/Town (9 Percent)

This highly modified vegetation zone is mapped within the RMPPA. It includes areas that are settled,
farmed with or without irrigation, or mined. It also includes areas mapped by GAP as forest-dominated
riparian that in reality are primarily hayfields with only linear cottonwood stands remaining. With the
exception of mined areas, little or none of this vegetation zone occurs on land managed by BLM.

Barren (2 Percent)

The barren vegetation zone occurs in diverse locations, all of which are inhospitable to vegetation. These
locations range from exposed areas on mountaintops, to rocky outcrops and granite rockpiles, to basin
soils, such as sand dunes and badlands, that do not support plants for various reasons. This zone also
includes areas mapped as open water that are primarily large deep reservoirs not supporting plant life.

Forest and Woodland Communities
Broadleaf Communities (2 Percent) — Aspen

Quaking aspen communities in the RMPPA occupy the transitional zones between the sagebrush-
dominated communities and the coniferous forests. Aspen are also present along streams, in draws, or on
the leeward areas of hills and ridges where snow collects. Aspen colonies typically reproduce asexually,
producing clones in which separate trees are connected by root suckers. Therefore, several acres of aspen
may be interconnected through their roots (Bams 1966). The soils of these areas are usually well-
developed deep loam and sandy loam soils with good drainage and high organic matter.

Acting as snow traps, aspen stands are able to support higher productivity and more diverse herbaceous
plants than are the adjacent coniferous or sagebmsh communities. Aspen stands also provide protective
cover essential to mountain watersheds. Understory plants commonly include mountain brome, lupine,
columbine, Indian paintbrush, elk sedge, Columbia needlegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, wildrye, licorice-
root, elkweed, bedstraw, yarrow, bluebells, yampah, fairy bells, arnica, snowberry, serviceberry, Oregon
grape, wood rose, Scouler’s willow, and common juniper.

Aspen respond well to fire, and fires typically stimulate repressed colonies to increase root sucker
regeneration. This may diversify the age structure of the stand and increase herbaceous production. The
occurrence of spring and fall fires has produced the best results.

Rawlins RMP

3-103

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

Final EIS

Wildlife use aspen in the fall, winter, and spring for both cover and forage. The open cover of aspen
stands provides mule deer fawning areas and elk calving areas. High forb and grass production as well as
shade draw wildlife and cattle into these areas during summer grazing seasons. Birds use these areas for
important nesting sites, and other nongame species also rely on this habitat. Lower elevation aspen stands
at edges of sagebrush are important areas of wildlife biodiversity for many small birds, raptors, and owls.
A diversity of age classes and stand densities is important in maintaining diverse wildlife communities
supported by aspen.

River bottom cottonwood forests occur along the North Platte River bottom and are dominated by plains
cottonwood and narrowleaf cottonwood. The vegetation type is very similar to riparian woodlands;
however, these areas are drier and usually have a natural understory dominated by upland grasses and
forbs in areas where agriculture is absent.

Conifer Communities
Juniper (1 Percent)

Juniper woodlands in the Colorado River watershed area often have Utah juniper as the single tree
species. These sites occur on rocky, fractured bedrock areas at elevations between 5,700 and 7,500 feet,
with annual precipitation between 10 and 15 inches. In other areas, on foot-slopes adjacent to conifer
forests, Rocky Mountain juniper occurs in association with limber pine. These sites may occur in
association with basin and mountain big sagebrush steppe in shallow, poorly developed soils at elevations
between 7,500 and 8,500 feet. Annual precipitation in these areas is between 16 and 20 inches. Both types
of juniper woodlands have understory vegetation that may include bluebunch wheatgrass, needle-and-
thread, slender wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, snowberry,
mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and common juniper.

Juniper-dominated communities often become decadent because the dominant species pumps most of the
soil water into the atmosphere, resulting in a monoculture of juniper. At this point, prescribed fire in these
areas does not result in an effective bum, because the fine fuels on the ground do not carry the fire into
the trees. However, when these communities do eventually bum, they may sustain dangerous high-
intensity wildland fire during high winds in the hot season. After juniper woodlands bum, production of
herbaceous vegetation responds very well.

Other Conifer (10 Percent)

Limber Pine Woodland

Limber pine is the dominant tree on rocky escarpments surrounded by more productive grasslands
(Knight 1994). It may also occur as a subdominant tree in juniper woodland, as mentioned above. Limber
pine-dominated areas are normally associated with Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, globemallow,
phlox, sand sage, fringed sage, snowberry, and mountain big sagebmsh.

Lodgepole Pine Forest

The most common tree in the mountains of northern Colorado, Wyoming, and much of the Northern
Rockies is lodgepole pine. These forests occur in the middle elevations of the area mountain ranges,
between 8,000 and 10,000 feet (Knight 1994). Lodgepole pine is considered a pioneer species, as it
returns rather quickly following fire and does not regenerate well in a continuously shaded environment.
These trees also produce serotinous cones, which are more likely to release their seeds and germinate
following intense heat.

The lodgepole pine forest canopy does not allow for a very diverse understory plant community. Plants
that occur here are pine reedgrass, Wheeler bluegrass, heartleaf arnica, bedstraw, wortleberry, common

3-104

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

juniper, wood rose, wax currant, and russet buffalo berry. Lodgepole pine will grow in mixed stands of
aspen, Englemann spruce, subalpine fir, Douglas fir, and Ponderosa pine (Knight 1994).

Lodgepole pine forests are present in many mountain areas of the RMPPA and are managed for wildlife
habitat, watershed maintenance, and timber production. A detailed discussion of the management of these
areas is included in Section 3.5, Forest Management.

Ponderosa Pine Forest

Ponderosa pine occurs at lower elevations on the eastern slopes of mountains, where summer
precipitation levels may be higher and the growing season is longer and wanner. The most notable stands
of ponderosa pine in the RMPPA are on the eastern slopes of the Laramie Range, Shirley Mountains, and
Seminoe Mountains. Ponderosa pine forests are often open woodlands and support a mixed-grass or
shortgrass understory.

Scattered Upper-Elevation Species

Scattered in the upper elevations of the RMPPA on north-facing slopes and in cold air drainages are
individuals of species often found at elevations higher than typically characterize the RMPPA. These
include spruces, firs, and Douglas firs. Logged conifers and subalpine meadows are also mapped in this
vegetation zone. Most stands of these species occur on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) USFS
lands.

Grassland (23 Percent)

Three grassland types occur in the RMPPA: mixed-grass prairie, shortgrass prairie, and a shortgrass
prairie variant sometimes called “desert grassland.” These grasslands are characterized below.

Mixed-Grass Prairie

Because of the altitude and prevalence of sandy soils, the Laramie Basin is an isolated pocket of mixed-
grass prairie. Summers in this area are cool, which reduces evapotranspiration. Frequent thunderstorms in
July and August maintain this grassland, a situation also found in higher precipitation zones to the north
and east. Mixed-grass prairie is characterized by needle-and-thread, western wheatgrass, blue grama,
Sandberg bluegrass, threadleaf sedge, needleleaf sedge, prairie junegrass, Indian ricegrass, prickly-pear
cactus, globemallow, fringed sagebrush, and various species of milkvetch and locoweed. This area is
predominantly used for livestock and wildlife grazing.

Shortgrass Prairie

The shortgrass prairie occurs in the southeastern comer of the RMPPA and is characterized by buffalo
grass and blue grama. Other associated species include hairy grama, western wheatgrass, side-oats grama,
yucca, and prickly-pear cactus (Barker and Whitman 1994). This area lies in the 12- to 20-inch annual
precipitation zone in the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains. Soils are sandy loams, loams, and clay
loams. Most of the area is used for livestock grazing, and very little is managed by BLM. To the west,
this vegetation type is replaced by the ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine forests of the Laramie Range.

Desert Grassland

On sandier soils and dunes, where water is more available and the shifting dunes are restricted by shrub
establishment, desert grasslands commonly occur as a variant of shortgrass prairie. Common grass species
include thickspike wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, needle-and-
thread, Sandberg bluegrass, threadleaf sedge, and sand dropseed. Other shrubs and forbs growing among
the grasses are sand sagewort, phlox, Hooker sandwort, bud sagebmsh, fringed sagebrush, Wyoming big
sagebmsh, mbber rabbitbrush, horsebmsh, and prickly-pear cactus (Knight 1994).

Rawlins RMP

3-105

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

Final EIS

Saltgrass meadows occur in shallow depressions or adjacent to playa lakes where groundwater is near the
desert surface. These areas are characterized by inland saltgrass, alkaligrass, alkali sacaton, and, in wetter
areas, alkali cordgrass (Knight 1994). Desert grasslands provide palatable forage and often provide
islands of diversity within the desert shrublands.

Shrub Communities

Shrublands dominate the majority of lands administered by BLM in the RMPPA. These areas are very
diverse; therefore, several shrub community types are discussed in this section.

Greasewood (4 Percent)

Greasewood-dominated shrublands occur on the fringes of playas, desert lakes, ponds, and desert streams.
Greasewood is a halophyte that does well in very saline soils; however, it needs more soil moisture to
survive than does saltbush.

Where greasewood is the dominant shrub, subdominant shrubs include shadscale, Gardner saltbush, alkali
sagebrush, and basin big sagebrush. The understory is limited to salt-tolerant herbaceous vegetation such
as inland saltgrass, western wheatgrass, alkali sacaton, bottlebrush squirreltail, Sandberg bluegrass,
biscuit root, pepperweed, and sea blight.

Large expanses of this vegetation type occur in the Great Divide Basin. Greasewood shrublands often
occur on the terraces above wetter areas, where silver sagebrush or basin big sagebrush dominate (Knight
1994). Greasewood communities are often found adjacent to saltbush-dominated communities, growing
in deeper, sandier soils and alluvial fans. Although greasewood is not considered palatable forage,
pronghorn and sheep will eat the spiny twigs and leaves in the spring and early summer, and cattle use
this species in summer and fall as a source of salt.

Mountain Shrub (6 Percent)

Bitterbrush Shrub Steppe

Bitterbrush-dominated plant communities exist on sand, sandy, and sandy loam soils in the 10- to 14-inch
annual precipitation zones. Bitterbrush varies in height depending on soil depth, precipitation, and
browsing. It may appear as a low spreading shrub about 6 inches tall, or as a tall shrub reaching 6 feet in
height.

Bitterbrush is often a co-dominant with mountain or basin big sagebrush, and in the sand hills south of
Rawlins it is intermixed with silver sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, and rabbitbrush in deep sand soils. At
higher elevations and precipitation levels, bitterbrush occurs in mixtures with sagebrush, snowberry,
serviceberry, mountain mahogany, and, occasionally, chokecherry. Herbaceous plants associated with
bitterbrush include grasses such as needle-and-thread, bluebunch wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, sand
dropseed, and thick spike wheatgrass, and include forbs such as lupine, penstemon, sego lily, wild onion,
larkspur, and prickly-pear cactus.

Bitterbrush is probably the most important winter browse species for mule deer in the region. Elk and
cattle use it as well in the fall and spring. It responds best to low-intensity (cooler-season) prescribed
bums, bmsh beating, and chemical treatment directed at killing sagebrush. Resprouting response to fire is
considered fair to moderate when fires occur in low-intensity fires. High-intensity fires (fires with
extreme energy release components and residual heat) will kill bitterbrush.

Mesic Upland Shrub Steppe

Serviceberry or chokecherry, or a combination of both, dominates the mesic upland shrub steppe
community, often in conjunction with snowberry, currant, and wood rose. Good examples of this plant
community occur on the middle elevations of Battle Mountain near Savery. These shrubs may reach 10 to

3-106

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

15 feet in height. They occur in dense stands or scattered patches, often adjacent to aspen or willow.
Understory grasses include basin wildrye, green needlegrass, Columbia needlegrass, and Kentucky
bluegrass, and forbs include bluebell, columbine, aster, violet, elkweed, chickweed, and stinging nettle.

This community provides hiding and thermal cover for deer, elk, and other wildlife species. The dominant
shrubs provide excellent forage for browsing animals when their softer leaves and shoots stay within
reach. These shrubs will reestablish following fire, often in less dense patches, making them more
accessible to wildlife and livestock.

Xeric Upland Shrub Steppe

True mountain mahogany dominates the xeric upland shrub steppe plant community on dry rocky slopes
or in very shallow, undeveloped soils in the 10- to 14-inch precipitation zone. It occurs as both the
dominant shrub or as an understory of Utah juniper, occurs at higher elevations, and mixes with
bitterbrush, snowberry, serviceberry, green rabbitbrush, broom snakeweed, and mountain big sagebrush.
Common herbaceous plants include bluebunch wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, Sandberg bluegrass, and
mat-forming forbs such as phlox, buckwheat, false locoweed. Hooker sandwort, goldenweed, and
milkvetch.

True mountain mahogany may reach 5 to 7 feet in height depending on the amount of browsing and soil
depth. Typical mountain mahogany communities occur in Telephone Canyon along 1-80 east of Laramie,
on the west end of the Ferris Mountains, and on Chalk Mountain near the Shirley Mountains. Fire
generally lessens the density of the shrub stands, allowing grasses and other herbaceous plants to increase
while still providing wildlife browse. Mountain mahogany is an important wildlife fall and winter forage.
A notable characteristic is the hedging growth pattern exhibited by mountain mahogany plants after they
have been browsed by mule deer and elk.

Sagebrush (36 Percent)

The GAP data represent sagebrush as black sagebrush, mountain sagebrush, and Wyoming sagebrush
plant cover types, which are mapped collectively as sagebrush on Map 3-10. These three categories
cannot readily be partitioned into the species of sagebrush actually found in the RMPPA, which are
discussed below.

Wyoming Big Sagebrush/Grassland

The Wyoming big sagebrush/grassland is the most common vegetative cover type in south-central
Wyoming. It occurs in shallow-to-moderately deep soil at lower elevations, giving way to basin big
sagebrush in deeper soils and to mountain big sagebrush above 6,500 feet in elevation and within the 9- to
16-inch annual precipitation zones (Knight 1994). Shrub height varies from as little as 6 inches on
shallow sites to around 30 inches in deeper soils. Canopy cover is generally lower than observed in either
basin or mountain big sagebrush — usually under 30 percent.

Wyoming big sagebrush often appears as the dominant plant in mosaic communities intermixed with
Gardner saltbush and open grasslands. In shallow, rocky-to-gravelly soils, Wyoming big sagebrush may
co-dominate with black sagebrush, green rabbitbrush, and sometimes winter fat. Grass and forb species
vary depending on soil texture, aspect, and slope. Common grass and grass-like species include
bluebunch and thickspike wheatgrass, Sandberg and mutton bluegrass, Indian ricegrass, needle-and-
thread, threadleaf sedge, and bottlebrush squirrel tail. Common forbs include phlox, Hooker sandwort,
onion, goldenweed, sego lily buckwheat, penstemon, Indian paintbrush, globemallow, and prickly-pear
cactus.

Wyoming big sagebrush is the most frequently eaten sagebrush and is a staple for pronghorn antelope,
mule deer, and greater sage-grouse. It is also one of the dominant species found on antelope and mule
deer crucial winter ranges. Fire is an important component of all sagebrush-dominated plant communities.

Rawlins RMP

3-107

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

Final EIS

Depending on the nature of the site, the fire return interval can be between 25 and 100 years (Knight
1994).

Basin Big Sagebrush Shrubland

Basin big sagebrush shrubland is found in moderately deep-to-deep soils of all soil textures, in zones of
10 to 16 inches of annual precipitation (Beetle 1960). It occurs as pockets within Wyoming big sagebrush
and Gardner saltbush communities, as the dominant plant type along valley bottoms and canyons, and
along ephemeral washes. This subspecies of big sagebrush may reach 12 feet in height, with canopy cover
reaching 70 percent.

Basin big sagebrush mixes with serviceberry, green and rubber rabbitbrush, snowberry, bitterbrush, silver
sagebrush, and mountain mahogany, depending on the soil depth, annual precipitation, and elevation.
Grasses occurring in these communities include basin wildrye, green needlegrass, Idaho fescue,
thickspike wheatgrass, Kentucky and mutton bluegrass, and bottlebrush squirrel tail. Common forbs
include bluebells, groundsel, onion, violet, buttercup, false dandelion, buckwheat, penstemon, Indian
paintbrush, lupin, locoweed, and prickly-pear cactus.

Basin big sagebrush is not palatable forage. It usually shows little or no use, even in extreme winters
when use levels of other plants are severe. It is important, however, as hiding cover for mule deer and elk
and as habitat for other wildlife species. In some areas it also provides critical winter habitat for greater
sage-grouse when snow covers most other shrubs. Basin big sagebrush increases in density and cover as
the dominant plant species, and to even a greater degree when associated with poor livestock management
and/or interruptions in the fire cycle. To increase diversity in basin big sagebrush shrublands, prescribed
fires and chemical and mechanical treatments are employed, resulting in increases of grasses and other
understory plants. The natural fire recurrence interval in the sagebrush type is approximately 30 to 75
years.

Mountain Big Sagebrush/Grassland

Mountain big sagebrush is located in shallow or moderately deep soils at elevations above 6,500 feet, in
12- to 20-inch annual precipitation zones. It is the dominant plant community on the Brown’s Hill-to-
Miller Hill plateau south of Rawlins. This is one of the largest homogeneous communities of this
sagebrush type in the United States. Mountain big sagebrush also occurs as smaller plant communities at
the lower mountain elevations, intermixed with aspen and conifer woodlands. Shrub height will vary from
10 to 30 inches, with canopy cover reaching 50 to 60 percent.

Mountain big sagebrush is usually the dominant shrub in foothill and mountain sage communities, with
bitterbrush, serviceberry, snowberry, and mountain mahogany providing subdominant brush diversity.
Grasses include Idaho fescue; king spike fescue; green and Colombia needle grass; Kentucky, mutton,
and big bluegrass; elk sedge; and Ross’ sedge. Common forbs found in these areas include Indian
paintbrush, phlox, balsamroot, locoweed, lupine, larkspur, penstemon, and Oregon grape.

Mountain big sagebrush is palatable to wildlife, although browsing is limited during the winter when
these habitats become unavailable because of snow. Following fire, mountain big sagebrush reestablishes
as the dominant species more quickly than do other sagebrush types, often resuming dense canopy cover
after approximately 40 years. The natural fire recurrence interval in this sagebrush type is approximately
25 to 75 years.

Silver Sagebrush/Grasslands

Silver sagebrush/grasslands have two subtypes with very different habitats. The most common is found in
deep sandy soils and consists of silver sage as the dominant species. It is associated with basin big sage,
green rabbitbrush, serviceberry, chokecherry, and wood rose. Herbaceous species include needle-and-
thread, Indian ricegrass, prairie sandreed, sand dropseed, scurfpea, and prickly-pear cactus.

3-108

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

The second type of silver sagebrush is located in riparian habitat along streams above the wet sedge and
willow riparian zone. This second riparian terrace is also habitat for basin wildrye, Kentucky bluegrass,
streambank wheatgrass, redtop, Baltic rush, clover, checkermallow, aster, and, occasionally, cottonwood
and willow.

Silver sagebrush is desirable forage for both livestock and wildlife, and it provides important habitat for
big game and nongame species. Silver sagebrush responds well to prescribed fire as a management tool
when it is dry enough to bum. Any disturbance in the silver sagebrush community may result in less
desirable species increasing in prevalence due to the transition of soil types or low-moisture regime.

Low Sages — Alkali, Birdsfoot, Black, and Wyoming Three-Tip Sagebrush/Grassland

Alkali sagebrush is found growing in clay soils and, as its name implies, can withstand soils of higher
alkalinity than can other sagebrushes (Beetle and Johnson 1982; Knight 1994). It occurs in relatively pure
communities because of the high clay content and high cation exchange capacity in the soils in areas
below 7,500 feet in elevation. Understory grasses include bluebunch wheatgrass, western wheatgrass,
mutton bluegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, and Indian ricegrass. Forbs noted at this site include wild
buckwheat, biscuit root, and wild onion. Browsing on this sage is light.

Birdsfoot sagebrush is found in alkaline soils, where pH ranges from 8.5 to 1 1, and below 7,500 feet. At
lower pH levels, birdsfoot sage mixes with Gardner saltbush, and it appears with a mixture of grasses and
forbs on windswept ridges and hills. At higher pH levels, birdsfoot sagebrush occurs as a monoculture.

Black sagebmsh occurs on gravelly-to-rocky soils that have a ’’shallow effective” rooting depth (less than
15 inches) and various textures from sandy loams to clay loams. On the plains north of the Ferris and
Seminoe Mountains, it is the principal shrub present, but it will often intermix with Wyoming big
sagebmsh. Above 7,400 feet, it gives way to Wyoming three-tip sagebmsh. It also has been observed as
an understory shrub in true mountain mahogany stands. On sandy sites, it is commonly found with
needle-and-thread, threadleaf sedge, Junegrass, sandwort, and buckwheat, whereas on loamy soils it will
occur with wheatgrasses, bluegrasses, Indian ricegrass, phlox, onion, paintbrush, and penstemon. Black
sagebmsh sites rarely bum, probably because of the low production and shrub cover these sites support.
In some locations, black sagebmsh is considered an important browse species for mule deer.

Wyoming three-tip sagebmsh occurs above 7,000 feet in the foothills and at the higher elevations of the
mountain ranges. It normally grows between 4 inches and 15 inches tall in moderately deep, well-drained
soils (Beetle and Johnson 1982). It is often found intermixed with mountain big sagebmsh and black
sagebmsh. Understory grasses and forbs include Idaho fescue, king spike fescue, Colombian needlegrass,
elk sedge, Ross’ sedge, Indian paintbmsh, mountain pea, larkspur, balsamroot, phlox, and buckwheat.
Wyoming three-tip sagebmsh-dominated areas are often used as forage for wildlife. This species does
bum, but because of a lack of fuel continuity, large, resource-damaging fires are rare.

Saltbush (5 Percent)

Salt desert shmbland is perhaps the most arid vegetation type in the intermountain West (Knight 1994).
Gardner saltbush dominates the salt desert shrub community type and in some instances occurs as up to
90 percent of the vegetation cover. These areas are characterized by accumulations of salt in poorly
developed soils. Soils of these areas usually have a pH of 7.8 to 9, which restricts the uptake of water by
all but the most salt-tolerant plants (halophytes). Soil textures can be sandy loam, sandy clay loam, or
loam and clay. Salts accumulate around these plants each year with leaf fall. Halophytes function
essentially to redistribute salts from the soil depths to the surface, thereby concentrating salts around the
perimeter of the plant. This enables the plant to eliminate competition for scarce water and nutrients from
other, less salt-tolerant plants (Goodin and Mozafar 1972).

Gardner saltbush normally grows no higher than 12 inches. It may grow along the ground, forming a mat.
Subdominant shrubs include birdfoot sage, bud sage, spiny hopsage, greasewood, broom snakeweed.

Rawlins RMP

3-109

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

Final EIS

shadscale, spiny horsebrush, and winterfat. Grasses associated with these sites are Indian ricegrass,
bottlebrush squirreltail, Sandberg bluegrass, and western wheatgrass. Forbs found in these areas include
wild onion, biscuit root, woody aster, globemallow, princess plume, and prickly-pear cactus.

Salt desert shrublands occur at elevations between 6,000 and 7,600 feet within the lowest precipitation
areas in the RMPPA. These areas are typically flat or rolling hills. Excellent examples of this type exist in
the Separation Flats area west of Rawlins. Gardner saltbush is a valuable forage species on winter and
spring ranges. In the spring when green, it has higher protein concentrations than does late-season alfalfa,
and it is a preferred livestock forage.

Sand (1 Percent)

The sand vegetation zone is mapped as a combination of active sand dune type and sand dune complex
type. A band of sand dunes stretches across the northern portion of the RMPPA. In addition, dunes are
found near the western boundary of the RMPPA and in the Sand Hills, which are southwest of Rawlins
and near the Dad homestead.

Blowout grass is a common early colonizer species on sands. Species that survive in the frequently
shifting sands include Indian ricegrass, needle-and-thread, alkali wildrye, and slimflower scurfpea. Alkali
cordgrass commonly occurs in areas where water accumulates (Knight 1994). Dune areas typically have
earlier successional plant species unless the continued growth of vegetation leads to increased soil organic
matter, increased soil structure, and lower wind velocities across the dunes, thereby stabilizing them.
Stabilized dunes may provide habitat for later successional species, such as thickspike wheatgrass,
Sandberg bluegrass, sand dropseed, Hooker sandwort and bud sagebrush, fringed sagebrush, Wyoming
big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, horsebrush, spiny hopsage, and prickly-pear cactus (Knight 1994).

Some dunes may become vegetated for a while only to suffer a blowout from atypical wind speeds or
directions. Once such a blowout starts to enlarge, the destabilized dune becomes active again. These
dunes provide habitat for unique plant species, such as blowout penstemon, which is Wyoming’s only
endangered plant species. Some places in these dunes may have more water than other places. Ice that
forms in interstices between the sand grains provides supplemental water when it melts in the spring. In
addition, snowdrifts that become insulated by a blanket of overblown sand may serve as a source of water
for more permanent dunal ponds, particularly if there is an impermeable layer beneath the sand. High
water levels in Seminoe Reservoir that indirectly raise the ground water table may also support the dunal
ponds. Such ponds are an important source of water for wildlife in the midst of the sandy dunes.

Wetland/Riparian Communities (1 Percent)

The GAP data use three plant cover types to depict wetland/riparian communities: graminoid/forb-
dominated wetlands, graminoid/forb-dominated riparian areas, and shrub-dominated riparian areas. These
types provide the best reflection of wetland/riparian communities in smaller drainages, where agriculture
has not extensively modified the vegetation. As noted previously, forest-dominated riparian communities
have been mapped as part of the agriculture/town zone because of their extensive modification. These
communities are no longer available as a substantive habitat, particularly in the eastern portion of the
RMPPA.

Wetland/riparian vegetation communities in arid and semi-arid environments often are key sites for the
local ecosystem. Most terrestrial animal and insect life depends on riparian or wetland areas as sources of
water, forage, and cover. Wetland/riparian areas in good health maintain water quality and aquifers,
control erosion, diminish the impact of floods, and act as a stabilizing force in western landscapes subject
to frequent drought and dynamic precipitation cycles.

3-110

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

Wetland/Riparian Areas

Wetland vegetation depends on the hydrologic network of the watershed, the duration of water
availability, geologic conditions, soil types and depth, climate, and management history. Sedges, rushes,
cattails, willows, and other wetland obligates dominate the environment. As water availability decreases,
herbaceous vegetation shifts from sedges (wetland obligates) to grasses and wetland facultative plants
(plants that usually occur in wetlands but are occasionally found in other habitats).

Wetlands are a valuable natural resource, and impacts to these areas should be avoided wherever possible.
Wetlands in the RMPPA are represented by —

• Shoreline vegetation around open water bodies

• Riparian vegetation along streams

• Open meadows that accumulate moisture in the winter and spring

• Dunal ponds associated with the Great Basin Divide Basin.

Based on GAP data, there are 87,445 acres in the RMPPA that can be classified as wetlands. Many of
these areas are seasonally dry and infrequently inundated with water. Vegetation in these areas varies
according to the frequency, depth, and duration of inundation. From an ecosystem perspective, an area
that is unique to the wetland areas in the RMPPA is the dunal ponds, which are seasonally supported by
precipitation that is trapped in the Great Divide Basin sand deposits. The variety of shrubs, grasses, and
forbs present depends on the degree and duration of wetness and exposure at each location.

In most cases salt accumulation is not excessive in the wetland areas. Where drainage is limited, alkaline
conditions can occur, and these can affect the types of plants that can be sustained. Wetland/riparian
vegetation moderates stream water temperatures; adds structure to the river network; provides habitat for
fish, birds, and wildlife; and provides organic material for insect production. Vegetated wetlands and
flood plains dissipate stream energy, store water for later release, provide areas of infiltration for ground
water, support the hyporheic zone of the river, and provide rearing areas for fish and animal species.

Public lands within the RMPPA boundaries provide potential habitat for obligate and facultative
wetland/riparian plants (Appendix 28). Wetland vegetation can form nearly monotypic stands of
vegetation (e.g., sedges or cattails) or diversified assemblages of plants. The detennining factors appear to
be availability of water, soils, and management actions on the surrounding lands. Meadows typically have
a wider variety of plants, probably because of their more gradual transition from dry to wet conditions.
Wetlands that are isolated by location and distance from other vegetation types typically are more likely
to have a monotypic plant assemblage.

Three primary drainages occur within the RMPPA: the Colorado River watershed in the western portion,
the North Platte River watershed in the eastern portion, and the Great Divide Basin in the northwest. Each
of these basins has unique soil, geologic, and hydrologic characteristics that affect the potential for
wetland development.

Desert Riparian

Many different types of desert riparian occur in the RMPPA, depending on the timing and duration of soil
wetting, soil type and depth, and topography of the area. These types usually occur on alluvial material of
sand, sandy loam, loam or an unconsolidated mixture of soil and cobble material. Soils are usually well-
drained and are higher in organic matter content than the surrounding uplands. Streams are often
ephemeral or intermittent; therefore, vegetation depends on spring runoff or spring and summer rain.

The wettest areas in the desert commonly support Baltic rush, Nebraska sedge, water sedge, and tufted
hairgrass, with mountain iris, sandbar willow, and narrowleaf cottonwood occasionally occurring along
the fringes. Seasonally wet areas in the desert and steppe communities commonly contain Kentucky
bluegrass, tufted hairgrass, foxtail barley, redtop, northern reedgrass, slender wheatgrass, basin wildrye,

Rawlins RMP

3-111

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

Final EIS

field horsetail, wood rose, shrubby cinquefoil, silver sage, basin big sagebrush, greasewood, and a variety
of willow species.

Desert ephemeral washes may lie on saltier soils and therefore support salt-tolerant species. Inland
saltgrass and western wheatgrass dominate this herbaceous community, whereas greasewood and basin
big sagebrush are the dominant shrubs.

Irrigated nonfederal lands along the major streams and rivers in the desert have limited the extent of
native vegetation in some riparian areas. Where topography and soils restrict irrigation of nonfederal
lands, native vegetation persists. These areas sustain riparian woodlands that support trees and shrubs
such as plains cottonwood, narrowleaf cottonwood, Fremont cottonwood, Geyer willow, sandbar willow,
and yellow willow. The trees and shrubs often give way to herbaceous communities where soils are
shallow. Herbaceous plants and lower shrubs dominating these areas would be part of the understory in
the riparian tree communities. Vegetation includes slender wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass, smooth
brome, tufted hairgrass, meadow foxtail, timothy, mountain iris, horsetail, gooseberry, currant, buffalo
berry, and basin big sagebrush. Such communities are located along the fringes of the riparian areas or in
rocky areas.

Riparian areas are associated with the highest production of grasses and other very palatable herbaceous
species in the desert as well as with the greatest plant diversity. Often open water is also present. These
characteristics draw both livestock and wildlife and also provide critical habitat to many species that
depend on water for survival. Desert riparian communities normally represent less than 1 percent of the
total area in the desert. This places additional pressure on the management of riparian sites for ecological
and hydrological sustainability. Management of BLM livestock allotments is often focused on limiting
grazing on the desert riparian areas to preserve their valuable diversity and productivity.

Foothills and Mountain Riparian

Riparian areas in the foothills and mountains are generally moister for longer periods of time and support
plants that need to be in wet or saturated soils throughout the growing season. The stream gradients are
also steeper, and the streambed material much larger. Riparian areas in the foothills and mountains
receive snowmelt and spring discharges that provide perennial flow and cooler water. The soils are
usually coarser, with higher organic matter content and increased soil development compared with lower
elevations. These areas range in elevation from 7,500 to 10,000 feet and may include alpine tundra
characteristics in the upper reaches of the watersheds.

Willow is often the dominant species in these environments. Frequently observed are sandbar willow,
Geyer willow, yellow willow, whiplash willow, Wolf willow, Booth willow, Bebb’s willow, and plain
leaf willow. Species prominent in the composition of the willow understory include beaked sedge,
Nebraska sedge, water sedge, field sedge, Baltic rush, bull rush, spike rush, tufted hairgrass, Kentucky
bluegrass, meadow foxtail, and reedgrass. These understory plants dominate in the open meadows and
marshes. Other shrubs and trees that occur are water birch, shrubby cinquefoil, redosier dogwood,
snowberry, skunkbrush sumac, narrow leaf cottonwood, aspen, Englemann spruce, and lodgepole pine
(Knight 1994).

As in the desert riparian area, mountain riparian vegetation is more diverse and higher in productivity
than the surrounding uplands, causing livestock and game to concentrate there. The forage also stays lush
and more palatable into the late summer (when upland grasses have cured), adding to the attractiveness of
these areas. Livestock management strategies often include controlled season and duration of use of these
areas.

3-112

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

3.15.3 Riparian Proper Functioning Condition

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) is the assessment tool the RFO staff uses to determine the relative
health of stream hydrology, riparian vegetation, and the aquatic fauna and flora of creeks in the RMPPA.
Wetlands are also evaluated. Emphasis is placed on these communities because of the importance of
aquatic systems in the semi-arid climate of the RMPPA and because the deterioration of vegetative health
can result in excessive erosion, alteration of narrow sinuous creek beds into fan-shaped drainages that no
longer feed the water table, and the consequent conversion of perennial streams into ephemeral drainages.
A wetland system is considered rated as PFC when adequate vegetation or land form is present to
dissipate energy associated with high water flows or other environmental disturbance; is able to function
as a wetland appropriate to the setting to filter sediment, develop root masses that stabilize banks, and
improve water retention; and provides diverse ponding or channel characteristics and the biodiversity and
habitat needed to support aquatic organisms and waterfowl.

PFC surveys are used to evaluate Standard No. 2, Wetland/Riparian Health, of the Rangeland Standards
Assessment Process. PFC surveys determine whether the stream and riparian areas are meeting minimum
requirements for proper ecological and physical processes. The PFC assessment takes into
consideration —

• Frequency at which the streamflow exceeds bankfull and inundates the floodplain

• Past and present beaver activity

• Channel morphology in relation to landscape setting

• Changing riparian and watershed relationships that may impact stream integrity

• Upland watershed condition and its potential effect on riparian and stream channel condition

• Age structure of the riparian plant community

• Presence and absence of indicator riparian species

• Riparian stream soil moisture

• Ability of the stream bank vegetation root system to resist high flows and subsequent erosion

• Vigor and condition of indicator wetland/riparian species

• Adequacy of water energy dissipation and stream armoring by vegetative cover

• Maintenance of organic woody material in wetland/riparian areas

• Stream channel roughness and ability to resist erosion caused by increased flows

• Evaluation of in-channel vegetation as an indicator of seasonal flow regimes

• Channel stability in regard to lateral and vertical movement

• Sediment and water discharge relationships in relation to watershed dynamics.

PFC surveys can be combined with macroinvertebrate and vertebrate sampling, stream/riparian cross-
section surveys, upland vegetation cover analysis, and assessment of the watershed and riparian area
management. Photographs are also taken from specified points associated with the surveys. Additional
surveys that address specific water quality and aquatic habitat parameters may be initiated if species or
habitat needs indicate that more detailed information is required.

The RFO staff has been conducting PFC assessments for many years. Data from these surveys are used
together with data collected in overall watershed assessments under BLM Standards and Guidelines.
Assessments are being conducted on seven watershed management areas that represent the fourth-order
watersheds in the RMPPA (Section 3.17). PFC data are used to supplement the Standards and Guidelines
assessments.

3.15.4 Noxious and Invasive Weed Management

Noxious and invasive weeds are identified as a major threat to native ecosystems and multiple-use. They
contribute to the loss of rangeland productivity, increased soil erosion, reduced native species diversity,

Rawlins RMP

3-113

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

Final EIS

and loss of wildlife habitat and, in some instances, are hazardous to human and animal health and welfare
(Federal Noxious Weed Act, Public Law 93-629). Waterways, roads, and animals are the principal
vectors for expansion of noxious and invasive weed species. Weeds are a component evaluated during
Standards for Healthy Rangelands assessments (Appendix 8).

Noxious and invasive weeds cannot be adequately controlled unless federal, state, county, and private
interests work together. The Carlson-Foley Act (Public Law 90-583) as well as state and county laws hold
the Federal Government responsible for control of designated weeds on federal land and provide direction
for their control. The Noxious Weed Prevention Plan (Appendix 31) outlines Best Management Practices
that can be used at the project level to reduce the occurrence and dispersion of weeds in the RMPPA.

The following list contains Wyoming designated noxious plants and their current known general locations
(Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act 1973). (This list is not all-inclusive.)

• Leafy Spurge. North Platte River corridor down to Seminoe Reservoir; Muddy Gap; and Baggs

• Spotted Knapweed. Saratoga Valley, Upper North Platte River, Seminoe, Arlington, Elk
Mountain, Rawlins, Highway 789: Creston Junction to Dad

• Diffuse Knapweed. Seminoe, Saratoga, and Roger’s Canyon by Laramie

• Russian Knapweed. Muddy Gap, Sage/Little Sage Creek south of Rawlins, Seminoe,
Wamsutter, Hay Reservoir, North Platte River corridor, and Bell Springs

• Musk Thistle. Saratoga/Encampment, Atlantic Rim, and Baggs

• Scotch Thistle. Seminoe Road, Robbers Gulch

• Plumeless Thistle. Seminoe, Loco Creek, and Highway 789: Creston Junction to Baggs

• Canada Thistle. Along drainages throughout the RMPPA

• Field Bindweed. Scattered throughout the RMPPA

• Dyers Woad. Railroad corridor Tie Siding to Cheyenne

• Hoary Cress. Wamsutter, Sage/Little Sage Creek south of Rawlins, North Platte River corridor,
and Hanna

• Perennial Pepperweed. Little Sage Creek, Sugar Creek, Rawlins, Dixon, Hay Reservoir, and
Herrick Lane

• Dalmatian Toadflax. Rawlins, Laramie, Snowy Range-Centennial, Hanna, Seminoe, Vedavoo,
1-80 and railroad corridors Cheyenne to Laramie/Tie Siding

• Yellow Toadflax. Upper North Platte River, Encampment, and Muddy Creek southwest of
Rawlins

• Skeletonleaf Bursage. None known

• Houndstongue. Baggs, Arlington, Ryan Park, Battle Mountain-Horse Creek, Loco Creek,
Lindsey Creek/Spring, Laramie Peak area, and Sybille Canyon

• Common Burdock. Arlington, Baggs-Battle Mountain, and Sybille Canyon

• Quack Grass. Not inventoried

3-114

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

• Perennial Sowthistle. Not inventoried

• Oxeye Daisy. Upper North Platte River

• Purple Loosestrife. None known

• Saltcedar. Hay Reservoir, Sand Creek and Willow Creek north and west of Baggs, Wamsutter,
Robbers Gulch/Blue Gap/Muddy Creek area, Saratoga, and North Platte River corridor Fort
Steele to Kortez Reservoir

• Common Tansy. Not inventoried

• Common St. Johnswort. None known.

The current treatment focus is on noxious weeds; however, controlling invasive species (halogeton,
henbane, and cheatgrass) that cause management problems related to livestock, wildlife, and human
activities is a secondary focus. Surface disturbing activities, such as road and pipeline construction, are
increasing the presence of invasive species. Historic livestock management practices also led to the
introduction and expansion of weeds. For example, some species require bare ground to germinate.
Improved livestock management practices increase ground cover, which reduces the frequency of these
species. Prompt reclamation of surface disturbances also reduces the opportunities for weed expansion.
However, herbicide treatments are usually required for control. Perennial weed species, such as
knapweeds, spurge, and saltcedar, usually spread regardless of land management practices and also
require additional control methods to contain them and reduce spread. In larger, more established patches,
eradication is often not possible, so control and containment methods are used to reduce spread.
Halogeton is of concern because it is commonly found in finer textured disturbed soils and is poisonous to
livestock, especially sheep. Cheatgrass is of concern because it outcompetes native grasses and increases
the potential for wildland fire. Cheatgrass occurs in the Laramie Peaks region, Upper North Platte regions,
Sweetwater Rocks, and other localized areas with shallow soils on south- and west-facing slopes and in
areas of disturbance (e.g., roadsides, livestock and wildlife concentration areas, recreation sites).

The current untreated, known weed-infested acreage is estimated at 20,000 acres (not including areas
infested with cheatgrass). However, most of the RMPPA has not been inventoried for noxious and
invasive species; thus, the actual number of acres needing treatment has not been established. Also,
unknown patches will continue to spread until found and controlled.

3.15.5 Poisonous Plants

Poisonous plants are a nonnal component of the ecosystem. Most poisonous plant species will kill
animals only if they are eaten in large amounts, such as a virtual straight diet (Stoddart, Smith, and Box
1975). Several factors, such as time of year and climate conditions, influence poisoning occurrence and
severity, in addition to the animals’ seasonal susceptibility, the age and species of animal, and a mineral
deficiency in the diet.

A shortage of salt in the diet may cause animals to eat plants they would not normally eat. Shortages of
other minerals such as phosphorus induce abnormal appetites, causing animals to consume low-value
vegetation, including poisonous plants. On a large scale, poisonous plants have a minimal effect on
livestock operations. However, on a local scale, use of specific areas or pastures can be limited by
poisonous plant presence.

The high occurrence of selenium in soils of south-central Wyoming results in specific plants (woody
aster, for example) absorbing selenium, which can be toxic when consumed by livestock. Selenium acts
as a cumulative poison, and can cause chronic poisoning effects over a long period or quick death if
consumed in quantity. Local names for this poisoning effect include “alkali disease” and “blind staggers.”

Rawlins RMP

3-115

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

Final EIS

Large concentrations of woody aster and other selenium-accumulating plants occur in Poison Basin west
of Baggs, Sage Creek Basin south of Rawlins, Alkali Basin north of Sinclair, and Hanna and Shirley
Basins.

More than 20 species of poisonous plants are known to exist in the RMPPA. Table 3-33 lists some of the
poisonous species, dangerous seasons, and grazing animals endangered. Poisonous noxious species are
not included in the table.

Table 3-33. Poisonous Plants in the RMPPA

Species

Dangerous Season(s)

Kind of Livestock Endangered

Arrowgrass

All

All

Chokecherry

All

All, especially sheep

Death camas

All, especially spring

All, especially sheep

Greasewood

Spring, summer, fall

All, but mostly sheep

Halogeton

All

All, but mostly sheep

Horsebrush

Spring

Sheep

Horsetail

Haying season

All, especially cattle and horses

Low larkspur

Early spring

Cattle

Tall larkspur

Early summer

Cattle

Loco

All, especially spring

All

Lupine

Spring, summer, fall

Sheep

Prince’s plume

Spring and summer

All

Russian knapweed

Senecio

Spring and summer

All

Western waterhemlock

Spring

All

Woody aster

Spring and summer

All

Source: Stoddart, Smith, and Box 1975; Poisonous Plants of Livestock in the Western States , USDA, 1980.

3.15.6 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Plant
Species

Special Status Plant Species include candidate, proposed, threatened, and endangered species as well as
Wyoming BLM State Sensitive Species. The list of Wyoming BLM State Sensitive Plant Species includes
species that are of concern. Appendix 10 lists current threatened and endangered (T&E) plant species in
the RMPPA and other current species on the BLM Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species List.

Special Status Plant Species occur in a variety of plant associations and a variety of physical habitats,
many of which have distinctive soil types. Several Special Status Plant Species often occur together in
plant communities that may exhibit fidelity to specific locations and substrates and ultimately result in the
development of unique subspecies. BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Policy , sets guidelines for
Special Status Plant Species. These selected species receive priority attention for inventories, research,
monitoring, and management decisions concerning surface disturbing activities. There is one endangered
plant species (the blowout penstemon) and there are two threatened species (the Ute ladies’ -tresses and
the Colorado butterfly plant) that are located within the RMPPA. In addition, plant species that have been
identified on the BLM Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species List will be discussed in further detail
in Section 3.15.7.

3-116

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

Blowout Penstemon Plant

The blowout penstemon plant is of particular interest in the RMPPA. This plant is a federally listed
endangered plant that was previously thought to occur only in the Nebraska Sand Hills. It is the rarest
plant species native to the Great Plains, is the only endangered plant in the state, and occurs in the band of
moving sand dunes across the northern portion of the RMPPA (USDI, BLM 2004b).

Ute Ladies’-Tresses Plant

The Ute ladies’-tresses plant has the potential to occur in riparian habitat on public lands within the
RMPPA. It is a perennial terrestrial orchid known to occur in western Nebraska, central and southeastern
Wyoming, north-central Colorado, northeastern and southern Utah, east-central Idaho, southwestern
Montana, and north-central Washington (USDI, BLM 2004b). In Wyoming, the plant is currently known
from four counties and nine occurrences that represent three watersheds and geographic centers of
distribution in eastern Wyoming, including a portion of the Antelope Creek watershed (Converse
County), a portion of the Niobrara River watershed (Niobrara County), and a portion of the Horse Creek
watershed (Goshen and Laramie Counties) (Heidel 2007).

Colorado Butterfly Plant

The Colorado butterfly plant has the potential to occur in riparian habitat on public lands within the
RMPPA. The plant is a short-lived perennial herb. Prior to 1984, no extensive documentation of the
plant’s range had been achieved. The plant is a regional endemic of southwestern Nebraska, southeastern
Wyoming, and northeastern Colorado. In Wyoming, this plant is known only from the southeastern plains
in Laramie and Platte Counties, between the boundary of the Medicine Bow National Forest and the
Wyoming-Nebraska border. Recent surveys in Wyoming suggest that the extant populations are probably
stable, although population sizes may vary from year to year.

Two populations of this plant have been documented to occur at the F.E. Warren Air Force Base in
Cheyenne. Other populations within the RMPPA are located on private lands between the Medicine Bow
National Forest Boundary (Pole Mountain) and the Wyoming-Nebraska border on Middle Crow Creek,
North Fork Crow Creek, South Branch Crow Creek, Lodgepole Creek, and Horse Creek. There are three
small populations that are found partly or fully on state school trust lands, which are managed mostly for
agricultural uses. Most of the plant population locations that are known to occur for the Colorado
butterfly plant exist on private lands. No populations are known to occur on BLM-administered federal
lands in the RMPPA (USDI, BLM 2004b).

3.15.7 BLIVi Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species List for

Plants

BLM is responsible for managing sensitive plants species on the Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive
Species List. Plant species listed on the BLM Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species List and their
associated habitat types are discussed in detail below. These plants are recognized as being of particular
interest to the public and are a focus of management:

• Laramie Columbine. Crevices of granite boulders and cliffs at 6,400-8,000 feet in elevation

• Nelson’ Milkvetch. Alkaline clay flats, shale bluffs and gullies, pebbly slopes, and volcanic
cinders in sparsely vegetated sagebrush, juniper, and cushion plant communities at 5,200-7,600
feet in elevation

• Cedar Rim Thistle. Barren, chalky hills, gravelly slopes, and fine-textured, sandy-shaley draws
at 6,700-7,200 feet in elevation

Rawlins RMP

3-117

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

Final EIS

• Weber’s Scarlet Gilia. Openings in coniferous forests and scrub oak woodlands at 8,500-9,600
feet in elevation

• Gibben’s Beardtongue. Sparsely vegetated shale or sandy-clay slopes at 5,500-7,700 feet in
elevation

• Persistent Sepal Yellowcress. Riverbanks and shorelines, usually on sandy soils near the high
water line

• Pale Blue-Eyed Grass. Wet meadows, stream banks, roadside ditches, and irrigated meadows at
7,000-7,900 feet in elevation

• Laramie False Sagebrush. Cushion plant communities on rocky limestone ridges and gentle
slopes at 7,500-8,600 feet in elevation.

3.15.8 Unique Plant Communities

In addition to Special Status Plant Species, the RMPPA contains rare or unique plant communities that
may or may not contain Special Status plants, such as the Muddy Gap cushion plant community. Two
other examples of these communities include the alkaline desert wetland communities found in the Chain
Lakes area and the Sandhills “sand dune” plant community.

Chain Lakes Alkaline Wetlands

These wetlands are located about 25 miles northwest of Rawlins (Township 23 North, Ranges 92-93
West) and are managed cooperatively by the WGFD and BLM as the Chain Lakes WHMA. This area is
one of the lowest (6,500 feet in elevation) topographic regions within the Great Divide Basin, resulting in
numerous perennial and intermittent shallow lakes that are alkaline due to the lack of external water
outlets. The annual precipitation of less than 7 inches, high evaporative loss rates, and surface salt
crusting also contribute to shaping this community. The lakes and adjacent moist soils support a variety of
plant species adapted to this environment. These species include NuttalTs alkaligrass, tufted hairgrass,
inland saltgrass, alkali cordgrass, mat muhly, Baltic rush, American bulrush, slim sedge, alkali plantain,
sea milkwort, Rocky Mountain glasswort, hairy goldaster, buttercup, cinquefoil, and greasewood. This
plant community and aquatic habitat are important for local wildlife such as greater sage-grouse, antelope,
coyote, and small mammals as well as many migratory birds in both the spring and the fall. Commonly
observed bird species are avocet, stilt, killdeer, phalarope, sandpiper, swallow, northern harrier, sandhill
crane, duck, grebe, and various neotropical birds.

Sandhills (Dunes) Shrubland Community

The Sand Hills are located midway between Rawlins and Baggs in the west half of Township 1 7 North,
Range 90 West. This site consists of deep, predominantly stable sand dunes, on a west-facing slope
ranging from 7,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation that receives 10 to 14 inches of precipitation annually.
Shrubs are the dominant plant lifeform, consisting of silver sagebrush, bitterbrush, big sagebrush, prickly-
pear cactus, cotton horsebrush, and rabbitbrush, with pockets of serviceberry, snowberry, wild rose, and
chokecherry occurring at the middle and higher elevations. Small stands of aspen also are present at
higher elevations on north-facing slopes. Common herbaceous species include needle-and-thread, Indian
ricegrass, prairie sandreed, thickspike wheatgrass, sand scurfpea, cryptantha, veiny dock, lupine,
goosefoot, evening primrose, groundsel, and tansy mustard. This area provides crucial winter range for
mule deer and elk, as well as seasonal habitat to many small birds and mammals and to greater sage-
grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.

3-118

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Vegetation

Cushion Plant Communities

Cushion plants communities are usually referred to by the growth form of vegetation found along
windswept ridges on shallow soils. These plants have stems and leaves that are densely compacted near
the ground. It is believed that these plants’ growth form has adapted to conserve energy under severe
environmental conditions such as high winds and extreme cold.

Muddy Gap Cushion Plant Community

This plant community is located 45 miles north of Rawlins (NE comer of Township 27 North, Range 89
West) on the west end of the Ferris Mountains and immediately southeast of Muddy Gap. The uplift
limestone formations or “hogback ridges” combined with strong winds, dry climate, and shallow rooting
depths form the contributing characteristics of this community. Most of the plant species found here have
a cushion plant growth form and nearly all are endemics (known to occur only in Wyoming). Endemic
species include bun milkvetch, Wyoming locoweed, and Devil’s Gate twinpod, while near-endemic
species include summer orophaca and Wyoming miner’s candle. Other plant species observed in this area
include bluebunch wheatgrass, little bluegrass, black sage, fringed sage, Hood’s phlox, Hooker sandwort,
stemless hymenoxys, and fleabane.

Laramie False Sagebrush ( Sphaeromeria Simplex) Cushion Plant Communities

Laramie false sagebrush is on the BLM sensitive species list and occupies rocky limestone ridges and
gentle slopes between 7,500 and 8,600 feet in elevation. This plant is endemic to southeastern Wyoming
and known to occur from numerous cushion plant sites in the Shirley basin region north and northeast of
Medicine Bow in Carbon and Albany Counties. The specific locations are on record with the Wyoming
Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) at the University of Wyoming. Other associated plant species
include American Rock Cress, Devil’s Gate Twinpod, Feverfew, Wyoming locoweed, bluebunch
wheatgrass, and Wyoming three-tip sagebrush.

Rawlins RMP

3-119

Chapter 3 — Visual Resources

Final EIS

3.16 Visual Resources

Visual resources within the RMPPA are influenced by a wide variety of topographic, geologic,
hydrological, vegetative, and other characteristics of the region. Landforms range from relatively flat
land; to low mountains, low rolling or flat-topped hills, and isolated hills; to higher elevations near the
Medicine Bow National Forest containing mountain shrub vegetation and alpine forest atop the highest
areas. Elevation and precipitation vary widely within the RMPPA and determine the dominant vegetation.
With the widely diverse vegetation patterns that result from varying topographic soils and precipitation
characteristics come changes in color, form, line, and contrast. These four elements form the basis for the
analysis of the visual resources of the area.

Visual resources are often associated with recreational opportunities, as discussed in Section 3.11. Many
recreational activities, such as backpacking, geologic and nature study, photography, and hiking, depend
on the natural settings and scenic views that visual resource management (VRM) is intended to protect.

3.16.1 Natural Settings and Scenic Views

Much of the RMPPA contains natural settings with limited development, open spaces with panoramic
vistas, and scenic views. In the non-mountainous, lower elevations of the area, summer views are
characterized by scrubby low-growing gray-green vegetation, distant mountains, and an intense blue sky.
In contrast, winter views are monochromatic gray, with clear skies and an apparently lifeless gray-to-
brown foreground backed by distant snow-capped mountain peaks. Different combinations of plant
communities create subtle changes in mosaics of textures and colors. More extensive views that
encompass several viewsheds are available from high points. The horizon is a significant aspect of all
distant views.

Several areas within the RMPPA that exhibit high scenic quality are easily accessible for tourists and
other recreationists. The highest quality scenic views in the RMPPA are the WSAs, particularly the Ferris
Mountains and Adobe Town WSAs because of their unique geological formations. Both of these areas are
quite rugged and untrammeled by humans (Clair 2002b).

Visibility

Visibility can be defined as the distance one can see and the accompanying ability to perceive color,
contrast, and detail. The RMPPA is essentially rural in character, and the Wyoming Air Quality Division
has designated the area in attainment of all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) national
pollution and ambient air quality standards. As discussed in Section 3.2, the Savage Run Wilderness and
Rocky Mountain National Park have been designated as prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
Class I areas. PSD Class I areas receive the highest degree of protection from air pollution; only small
amounts of particulate, S02, and N02 air pollutants are allowed in these areas.

Visibility trend analysis for Rocky Mountain National Park (to the south and southeast of the RMPPA)
reveals no significant worsening of visibility from 1989 through 1998. The information from this nearby
monitored area and from local observations indicates that the air quality of the RMPPA is generally
excellent, and that pollutants very seldom obscure visibility.

Visual Resource Management System

Guidance to manage visual resources is found in BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H- 1601-1,
Appendix C. Land use planning decisions mandate BLM to manage visual resource values in accordance
with VRM objectives (management classes) and to designate VRM management classes for all areas of
BLM land, based on an inventory of visual resources and management considerations for other land uses.
VRM management classes may differ from VRM inventory classes based on management priorities for

3-120

Ralins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Visual Resources

land uses. (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H- 160 1-1, Appendix C, Page 11). The RMPPA has been
inventoried using the BLM VRM classification system. Under this system, the RMPPA was classified
into four visual management categories (Classes I through IV) based on scenic quality, visual sensitivity
levels, and viewer distance zones. Each VRM classification has a management objective, as described
below:

• Class I. The objective of Class I is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class
provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management
activities. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and should not
attract attention.

• Class II. The objective of Class II is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of
change to the landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen but should not attract
the attention of the casual observer. Any changes to the landscape must repeat the basic elements
of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic
landscape.

• Class III. The objective of Class III is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape.
The level of change to the landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract the
attention of the casual observer but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes
should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic
landscape.

• Class IV. The objective of Class IV is to provide for management activities that require major
modifications to the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the landscape can
be high. The management activities may dominate the view and may be the major focus of viewer
attention. Every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through
careful location, minimal disturbance, and repetition of the basic visual elements of form, line,
color, and texture.

The established VRM classes for the RMPPA are depicted in Map 2-5 1 . The acreage for each VRM class
within the RMPPA is shown in Table 3-34. About 75 percent of the lands within the RMPPA are
categorized as Visual Class III. Class II lands are primarily associated with areas around the Pathfinder
and Seminoe Reservoirs and with the close-range viewsheds of the Medicine Bow National Forest. Only
the WSAs are rated as VRM Class I.

Table 3-34. Visual Resource Management Classifications and Acreages in the RMPPA1

Classification

Acres

Percentage

i

68,160

2

ii

359,610

10

ill

2,676,950

75

IV

446,760

13

Total

3,551,480

100

1 All lands in the RMPPA were rated; however, only the BLM-administered lands are managed
within the VRM system, and only BLM lands are included in the above-referenced acreages.

The current objective of VRM within the RMPPA is to minimize adverse effects on visual resources
while maintaining the effectiveness of other land use allocations. Visual resources in the RMPPA are
managed according to the VRM classes to which they are assigned.

Rawlins RMP

3-121

Chapter 3 — Visual Resources

Final EIS

Visual Resource Trends and Issues

There are several visual resource trends in the RMPPA (Clair 2002b), as follows:

• The existing Rawlins RMP describes those areas that have been designated for OHV use. OHV
use is not yet highly popular in the RMPPA; however, an increase in unmanaged, unmonitored
OHV use within the area for both recreation and access to the surrounding USFS-managed lands
in the Medicine Bow National Forest and to the dunes area is creating direct, negative visual
impacts in certain parts of the area. OHV use has affected some vegetative communities more
than others.

• The widespread development of petroleum, natural gas, and coal in the RMPPA is creating direct,
negative visual impacts within the RMPPA. Currently, visual mitigation of this activity is
preventing mineral development activities from exceeding the established VRM objectives within
these areas. The trend toward continued expansion of natural resource development is creating
areas of potential conflict between this activity and the established VRM class objectives.

• Utilities are also having an increasing visual impact in the RMPPA. Even buried fiber-optic lines
leave obvious visual effects.

• Although visual sensitivity is clearly not the highest priority for many residents and visitors, as
increasing numbers of sightseers and persons seeking various types of recreational opportunities
pass through the RMPPA an awareness of scenic values and the existing scenic quality grows for
some residents and visitors.

Emerging visual resource issues (Clair 2002b) include the following:

• Degradation of visual resources within the coalbed natural gas project on Seminoe Road. The
road is a backcountry byway, and portions of the project area are in the VRM Class II area.
Efforts are needed to hide the roads, use the topsoil as berms to hide the well pads, and paint the
fixtures to match natural conditions. However, there is no control over what effects occur within
the private portion of the land ownership checkerboard.

• The need for more effective mitigation on seismic projects.

• The need for more effective mitigation within the transportation corridors (such as 1-80), even if
they are Class IV lands. Because the transportation corridors are also the utility corridors, the
existing impacts are difficult to change.

• The need for more effective mitigation on wells to reduce visual and environmental impacts
associated with oil and gas development to prevent exceedance of VRM Management Class
Criteria. See Appendix 15 and Appendix 25.

3-122

Ralins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

3.17 Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

3.17.1 Water Quality and Watershed

Climate, geology, and topography shape the water quality and quantity for both surface and ground
waters in the RMPPA. The climate of the RMPPA has been broadly classified by Martner (1986) as
steppe, desert, alpine, and alpine tundra. In most climate classification systems, Martner’ s definition of
alpine and alpine tundra would correspond to subalpine and alpine, respectively. The geology of the
RMPPA is dominated by geologic structural basins (Hanna, Great Divide, Green, Washakie, Kindt,
Laramie, and Shirley Basins) and five major uplifts (Rawlins Uplift, Sweetwater Arch [including the
Ferris and Seminoe Mountains], Shirley-Freezeout Mountains, Medicine Bow Mountains, and Sierra
Madre). The watersheds in the RMPPA drain into the Colorado River, Platte River, and Great Divide
basins. Streamflows are dominated by spring snow melt runoff and rain storms in May and June for
intermittent to perennial systems and summer rainstorms for ephemeral systems. Precipitation ranges
from almost 44 inches in the Sierra Madre mountain range to less than 6 inches per year in portions of the
Great Divide Basin (Bartos et. al. 2006).

The climate of the RMPPA outside of the mountains is semi-arid to arid, with most locations having
rainfall of 6 to 15 inches except for the shortgrass prairie near Cheyenne, which has 1 6 to 20 inches of
rain (Curtis and Grimes 2004). Surface water resources include lakes, rivers, reservoirs, streams, creeks,
water wells, and springs and are important for a variety of reasons, including economic, ecological,
recreational, and human health. These water resources are important for the wildlife habitat they provide
and as water sources for livestock, wildlife, and people in this arid and semi-arid environment.

The geological history of the RMPPA includes vast inland seas that formed into the Rocky Mountain
intermountain basins. Sediments deposited in these inland seas formed structural basins made up of the
coals, sandstones, shales, and other geologic material found in the RMPPA. The uplifts and mountain
ranges have deformed these basins, creating dips and faults while exposing layers to erosion. These
formations contain fresh and saltwater aquifers within these sediments as well as energy-rich mineral
resources such as coal, uranium, oil, and natural gas. The geology of basins and ranges forms a
topography important for surface water resources in the RMPPA (USGS 2004).

The RMPPA is topographically dominated by the Medicine Bow Mountains and the Sierra Madre in the
south-central part of the RMPPA; the highest point is Medicine Bow Peak at 12,013 feet. The areas
outside the mountain ranges include several commonly occurring landforms and vegetation types such as
sage brush steppe, shortgrass prairie, active and vegetated sand dunes, playas, ridges formed by
sedimentary rock outcrops, entrenched intermittent and ephemeral stream systems, river valleys with
willow- and cottonwood-dominated floodplains, and land surface dissected by erosion, ranging from
branching stream erosion patterns to intensely eroded badlands (Bartos et. al. 2006). The North Platte
River is the largest stream system in the RMPPA and is regulated by three dams (Seminoe, Kortes, and
Pathfinder), forming Pathfinder and Seminoe Reservoirs and forming the Miracle Mile, a Blue Ribbon
trout fishery categorized as a Class 1 water between Kortes Dam and Pathfinder Reservoir. The Colorado
River Basin includes the Muddy Creek and Savory Creek drainages that flow into the Little Snake River
near Baggs and the Colorado border.

The Continental Divide splits around the Great Divide Basin, forming the western portion of the RMPPA.
The Great Divide Basin has no known external drainage and contains ephemeral stream systems with the
exception of portions of Filmore and Separation Creeks that are perennial near the headwaters. There are
a number of large playas and regions with many small playas in the Great Divide Basin and in other
basins in the RMPPA. Playas are low, flat, undrained areas, typically with clay bottoms, that pool water
on the surface and accumulate salts.

Rawlins RMP

3-123

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

Final EIS

The diverse climate, geology, and topography in the RMPPA form the surface and ground water
resources. Portions of the headwaters of the Platte and Colorado Rivers are found in the RMPPA; these
rivers supply water to millions of people in the western and midwestem United States. Water in the
intermountain west is less abundant than in most of the United States and is an important source of water
for other regions; therefore, proper and cautious management of water resources is essential.

Surface Water Characteristics

There are 22 fourth-order watershed sub-basins in the RMPPA, along with the major rivers, lakes, and
reservoirs. Acreage for each of these watersheds is indicated in Table 3-35. Map 3-11 shows major
surface water basins in the RMPPA. The RMPPA is topographically divided by the Continental Divide,
which means that streams in the southwestern portion of the RMPPA are drained by Muddy Creek and
the Little Snake River, which flows into the Colorado River system and eventually into the Gulf of
California. Within the RMPPA, the North Platte, Medicine Bow, and Laramie Rivers drain watersheds
east of the Continental Divide. These rivers flow into the Mississippi River system via the Platte River
and eventually into the Gulf of Mexico. Streams to the north and west of Rawlins lie in the Great Divide
Basin, which is a large, internally drained basin with no outflow. The rivers that convey the most water
within the RMPPA are the Encampment River, Medicine Bow River, Laramie River, North Platte River,
and Little Snake River, which consequently have long-term stream gauges operated by the USGS. Table
3-36 shows the monthly mean discharge data for these rivers at USGS gaging stations. Figures 3-53
through 3-58 present hydrographs of the daily statistics for these rivers. All the rivers have peak flows in
May or June in response to snowmelt and display peaks in the maximum values in the late summer in
response to thunderstorms. The flatter peaks in the mean values for the Laramie, Little Snake, and
Medicine Bow Rivers indicate modifications to the system due to diversions for irrigation. Irrigation can
also shift the peak to later in the year, as can be observed by comparing the maximum and mean and the
2003 values for the Medicine Bow River. In addition to using USGS data, BUM and/or local conservation
districts collect additional flow data from other locations, such as Muddy and Sage Creeks, where water
quality data are collected.

3-124

Rawlins RMP

Table 3-35. Watersheds and Acreage Values Within the RMPPA

w

0

CO

■D

c

10

■tf

0)

■c

2

(1)

k.

0

u

3

C

ACRES

1,354,118

1,070,448

654,576

1,528,285

920,518

2,210,280

637,713

641,775

1,845,320

1,384,875

1,849,524

1,207,681

890,192

361,861

853,707

474,460

726,583

2,473,410

1,413,961

609,582

1,940,746

649,962

Cataloging Unit

Giendo Reservoir

Horse

Little Medicine Bow

Lower Laramie

Medicine Bow

Middle North Platte-Casper

Pathfinder-Seminoe Reservoirs

Pumpkin

Sweetwater

Upper Laramie

Upper North Platte

Cache La Poudre

Crow

Lone Tree-Owl

Lower Lodgepole

Sidney Draw

Upper Lodgepole

Great Divide Closed Basin

Bitter

Vermilion

Little Snake

Muddy

Accounting Unit

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

South Platte

South Platte

South Platte

South Platte

South Platte

South Platte

Great Divide Closed Basin

Upper Green

Upper Green

White-Yampa

White-Yampa

Sub-Region

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

North Platte

South Platte

South Platte

South Platte

South Platte

South Platte

South Platte

Great Divide — Upper Green

Great Divide — Upper Green

Great Divide — Upper Green

White-Yampa

White-Yampa

(/>

© ^

o

o

o

o

o

“O

“D

•O

~o

"O

0)5-0

CD

CD

CD

CD

CD

ro o 5)

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

> W (V

‘3

Cl

'i—

Cl

'3

i—

'3

'i—

O

o

o

o

o

0) Lt-

3

13

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

ry

O

O

o

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

C

O

O

CD

CD

0

o3

0

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

Cl

o

o

Q_

o

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

(O

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

Cl

o

o

o

Cl

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

Rawlins RMP 3-125

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils Final EIS

<

a*

a*

JS

5/5

e

vs

cz)

£

o

5=

S 05

g CO

u ol

<

Cl

Ol

§

DC

3

o

=C

S3

3

O

CO

c

o

-3

■s=>

m\

5

o

in

in

a

in

-s

<u

n

E

©

*

©

©JD

Sa

S3

£

o

!/>

L©

i

QJ

25

C3

H

co

3

T3

®

■*«*

a

—

a>

(A

£

o

^ I

4—

03

CT

!=

(0

X

o

(A

73

ro

©

a

T3

C

ro

To

3

c

c

<o

x:

■*=•

c

o

£

c

<u

©

T3

a)

ro

■o

CL

3

Q.

£

ai

o

c

ai

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

Water bodies in Wyoming are classified for water quality regulation according to beneficial uses by the
Wyoming DEQ (Table 3-37). These classifications define numerical or empirical standards. All point
source discharges are permitted with these classifications in mind using the WYPDES system. According
to onshore order no. 7, BLM approves methods of disposal of produced water from oil and gas activities
(Section 1.4.4). Wyoming standards for healthy rangelands (Appendix 8) provide consideration of non-
point source pollution inputs for all BLM-permitted activities in order to meet Wyoming water quality
classifications. BMPs such as those described in Appendix 13 and others as appropriate are applied during
project planning or permitting, and they become conditions of approval when appropriate.

Table 3-37. Classification of Wyoming Surface Waters

Drinking Water

Game Fish

Nongame Fish

Fish .

Consumption

Other Aquatic
Life

Recreation

Wildlife

Agriculture

£

•*->

</>

3

T3

£

Scenic

Value

1*

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2AB

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2A

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2B

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2C

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3A

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3B

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3C

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

4A

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

4B

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

4C

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

* Class 1 waters are not protected for all uses in all circumstances; actual uses on each particular Class 1 water must be
determined independently.

Source: WDEQ 2005a.

In general, the upper North Platte and Medicine Bow Rivers above Seminoe Reservoir are Class 2ab or
Class 1 waters, depending on the location. Individual tributaries can be Class 2ab to Class 2c or 3b
depending on background conditions. Very small portions of the Laramie or South Platte River
watersheds are managed by BLM, and water quality classifications can vary greatly. The Lower North
Platte (Seminoe and below) includes Class 1 waters at the Miracle Mile (a Blue Ribbon tailwater trout
fishery) and the rest predominantly Class 2ab. A large portion of the Great Divide Basin is managed by
BLM, and water quality is typically Class 3b, with some portions 4c, such as Red Creek.

The main watersheds in the Colorado River Basin included in the RMPPA are the Savery and Muddy
Creek watersheds. Both of these systems drain into the Little Snake River very near the Wyoming-
Colorado border. Savery Creek is predominantly 2ab with Class 3 waters in the headwaters. Muddy Creek
is primarily Class 2c (Table 3-38).

Rawlins RMP

3-127

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

Final EIS

Table 3-38. Classification of Selected Streams in the RMPPA

Surface Water*

Classification

Colorado River Basin

Little Snake River

2AB

Savery Creek

2AB

Little Savery Creek

2AB

North and East Fork Savery Creek

2AB

Muddy Creek (Mouth to Sec. 29, T.17N, R.89W)

2C

Muddy Creek (Remainder)

2AB

Wild Cow Creek

2C

Cow Creek

2C

Dry Cow Creek

3B

Deep Gulch Creek

3B

Barrel Springs Draw

3B

McKinney Creek

2AB

Great Divide Basin

Separation Creek

4C

Fillmore Creek

3B

Red Creek

3B

North Platte River Basin

Little Laramie River

2B

Encampment River (USFS boundary to Colorado state line)

1

North Platte River (Pathfinder Reservoir to Kortes Dam)

1

North Platte River (Kortes Dam to Sage Creek)

2AB

Sage Creek

2AB

Little Sage Creek

2C

Sugar Creek

3B

North Platte River (Sage Creek to Colorado state line)

1

Encampment River (USFS boundary to Colorado state line)

1

South Platte River Basin

Crow Creek (Above Avenue C in Cheyenne)

2AB

* Wetlands adjacent to listed waterbodies have the same classification.
Source: WDEQ 2005b.

Water quality classifications and background water quality are assessed during project planning and
permitting. Surface water quality is protected to the maximum extent possible within the BLM’s authority
based on requirements with the State of Wyoming and EPA’s administration of the Clean Water Act,
BLM guidance, memoranda and directives, best science/monitoring, and environmental planning
documents such as this one. Water quality is measured by the State DEQ, USGS, Water Conservation
Districts, and other agencies depending on funding and interest (Section 3.17.2). The most long-term
water quality sampling locations are on the larger main drainages such as the North Platte above Seminoe
and are managed by USGS. Starting in the 1940s and 1950s, Water Conservation Districts began gaging

3-128

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

and sampling water quality. For a brief description of water quality conditions in the RMPPA, see
Appendix 1 1 .

Various streams in the RMPPA are identified in WDEQ’s 2004 Wyoming 305(b) Water Quality
Assessment Report to the EPA (WDEQ 2004b) as having water quality impairments or threats. Table
SI 1-1 in this report summarizes the streams and potential problem parameters as listed on Wyoming’s
303(d) list of waterbodies with water quality threats.

Most watersheds in the RMPPA are shrub-dominated rangelands below 8,500 feet. Watersheds in the
desert and range areas of the RMPPA are in a water balance deficit, meaning the annual potential
evapotranspiration exceeds the annual precipitation. Therefore, there is limited runoff from watersheds in
these desert areas, and most streams originating in these areas are ephemeral.

Areas above 8,500 to 9,000 feet are in a water balance surplus, meaning that annual precipitation exceeds
annual potential evapotranspiration. Most of the streamflows in these areas are perennial, and most of the
large rivers originate in these high elevation areas, which are mostly located in national forests.

Watersheds originating in the mountains receive flow from melting snow and summer rainstorms.
Discharge in these streams typically peaks in May or June. There is an additional peak in the daily records
of most systems in August or September before discharge tapers off to a base flow. Streams originating in
the desert areas respond to snowmelt as well; however, the peak flow from these streams occurs in April
and May, and desert streams may go dry by early June. Following spring runoff, these streams flow only
as a response to rainfall events. Perennial and intermittent streams that flow into sandy substrates may
disappear or become intermittent along certain reaches.

The many dams and diversions along streams and rivers dampen the peak flows and enable higher flows
through the late summer when irrigation water is needed. Dams and diversions have altered the normal
seasonal flow patterns of many streams and rivers in the RMPPA and resulted in changes to the natural
hydrograph. Dams have also altered the movement of sediment down rivers and most discharge cold,
clean water during the hot months. This has enabled a prime trout fishery in the Miracle Mile below
Seminoe Reservoir.

The Great Divide Basin lies in the northwestern portion of the RMPPA. This is a large, closed basin that
splits the Continental Divide. None of the precipitation falling within the basin leaves through surface
flow. This is a unique geological and hydrologic feature, because the Continental Divide does not split
anywhere else in the United States.

Surface Water Quality

Water quality within the RMPPA is influenced by the type of rock and soils with which the water has
been in contact, vegetation, groundwater interaction, and pollutants discharged into water bodies from
point and non-point sources.

Table 3-39 shows water quality at USGS sites located around the RMPPA, and historical streamflow data
are shown in Table 3-37 and in Figures 3-53 though 3-58. Human-induced impacts, such as changes in
thermal and turbidity conditions in water bodies and impacts from increased salinity, heavy metals, and
nutrients from irrigation or other discharges, affect natural water quality in this region. Water quality
impacts within the RMPPA may be associated with agricultural runoff, road maintenance, removal of
riparian vegetation, channel modification, stream bank destabilization, atmospheric deposition, resource
extraction, oil and gas activities, urban runoff, and grazing activities. Heavy metal, nutrient, sediment, and
salinity impacts can be associated with mining, oil and gas extraction, agricultural runoff, and other
surface disturbing activities. Water quality typically varies as a function of flow conditions.

As water quality decreases, the ability of aquatic benthos, food base, and fisheries to maintain themselves
is diminished. Stressors associated with increasing temperatures, lower dissolved-oxygen levels, changing

Rawlins RMP

3-129

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

Final EIS

pH, and smothering from sediments negatively impact the aquatic ecosystem and diminish the ability of a
stream system to sustain natural conditions.

The primary surface water quality concerns in the RMPPA are salinity in the Little Snake River basin and
turbidity in the North Platte River Basin (Appendix 11). The Little Snake River is part of the Upper
Colorado River Basin and is therefore covered by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. Many
of the watersheds discharging water within the RMPPA are on highly erodible soils, notably Muddy
Creek flowing into the Little Snake River and Sage Creek flowing into the North Platte River (Appendix
11). Elevated dissolved salt loading has been documented in Muddy Creek, and elevated suspended
sedimentation loading has been documented in both Muddy and Sage Creeks. Reaches on both these
streams have been or are listed as threatened on the State 303(d) list for sediment and/or habitat
degradation (Table 11-1 of the 303 [d] list).

All water discharged must be approved by the State of Wyoming under its National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (WYPDES) Program (http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/). The WYPDES Program requires
that water quality not be degraded below numerical requirements for beneficial uses specified for the
water bodies receiving the discharges or located below the discharges. Seminoe Reservoir and the North
Platte River are water quality classification 2ab, which is the highest numerical standard and is protected
for gamefish and drinking water. Portions of the North Platte River (the Miracle Mile and the headwaters)
are considered Class 1 waters, meaning that water quality cannot be degraded by point source discharges.

Stream bank degradation and erosion due to poor vegetation cover within watersheds are the predominant
sources of sediment and salinity found in RMPPA streams. Management of livestock grazing, road
design, recreation planning, and regulation of oil and gas activities within the RMPPA often mitigate the
impacts of these activities to the maximum extent possible. All small construction activities (1-5 acres)
and large construction activities (greater than 5 acres) should follow the Wyoming WYPDES Storm
Water Program requirements (see http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/ for more information). However,
application of mitigation measures and BMPs will not remove all potential impacts from approved
activities.

Water quality analysis from sampling taken at the USGS Streamflow Gaging Station shown in Table 3-36
is shown in Table 3-39. Average, high, and low values as well as periods of record are listed for selected
parameters.

3-130

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

Table 3-39. Summary Data from USGS Surface Water Quality Stations Within the RMPPA

Stream Name and Location

Encampment
River at
Mouth near
Encampment,
Wyoming

North Platte
River above
Seminoe
Reservoir
near
Sinclair,
Wyoming

Medicine
Bow River
above
Seminoe
Reservoir
near Hanna,
Wyoming

Laramie
River
near Fort
Laramie,
Wyoming

Little

Snake

River

near

Slater,

Colorado

USGS Site Number

6625000

6630000

6635000

6670500

9253000

Sample period

1965-1989

1960-2005

1965-1993

1965-2005

1957-2004

Drainage area (mi2)

265

4,061

1,942

3,933

285

Number of samples'

233

480

222

297

211

Temperature (°C)

6.5(196)

8.9(262)

9.2(203)

1 1-1 (243)

8-0(325)

pH

7. 8(167)

7 .9(471)

8.0(128)

8.1(214)

8.0(22)

Conductance, pmhos/cm (mean)

270(169)

408(480)

1 ,244(142)

757(249)

146(205)

Conductance, pmhos/cm (min.)

43(169)

142(480,

422(142,

365(249)

17(142)

Conductance, pmhos/cm (max.)

560(169)

7 1 9(480,

2,260(142)

960(249)

300(142)

TDS3 (mean)

171 (90)

269(311,

909(gi)

502(i5i)

3894(i4i)

TDS3 (min.)

40(90)

106(311,

316(91,

242(151)

34(141)

TDS3 (max.)

344(90)

481(311,

1 ,620(91)

640(151)

3,7704,i4i)

Suspended solids2 (mean)

nm

67(58)

389(141,

91(135)

34(6)

Suspended solids2 (min.)

nm

3(58)

3(141)

6(135)

2(6)

Suspended solids2 (max.)

nm

1,220,58)

3,770(i4i)

2,240(135)

1 56(6,

Turbidity, JTU

2(60)

2 1 (82)

365(12,

47(82)

1(D

Calcium

33(233)

45(439)

1 12(218)

77(297)

1 6(60)

Magnesium

5(232)

1 2(439)

52(218)

24(297)

4(59)

Potassium

2(229)

3(439)

3(222)

5(297)

1(56)

Sodium

1 4(233)

25(439)

95(218)

53(297)

4(59)

Sulfate

36(230)

85(439)

497(217)

170(297)

9(58)

Chloride

8(229)

9(438)

29(218)

1 8(297)

3(60)

Iron, pg/L

212(24)

61(55)

1 ,859(49)

183(23)

30(1)

SAR (Sodium Adsorption Ratio)

0.6(198)

0.8(356)

1 -9(193)

1 -3(262)

0.5(42)

Bicarbonate

104(188)

144(352)

180(188)

253(251)

75(39)

Hardness (CaC03)

102(198)

1 65(356)

492(192,

292(262)

57(43)

Dissolved Oxygen

10(77,

9(250)

9(24)

1 0(107)

10(16)

Total number of grab samples analyzed; not every parameter was analyzed in every sample.

Total concentration; except as noted here, all reported values represent dissolved concentrations.

3

Residue on evaporation, dried at 180 degrees Celsius, water, filtered, milligrams per liter.

4

Residue, water, filtered, sum of constituents, milligrams per liter.

All units are mg/L except as noted,
nm = not measured

04) = Number of samples analyzed for that parameter.

Rawlins RMP

3-131

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

Final EIS

3.17.2 Water Management and Monitoring

The RMPPA occurs in the Colorado Plateau and Wyoming Basin groundwater regions described by
Heath (1984), the Upper Colorado River Basin groundwater region described by Freethey (1987), or
Washakie Basin described by Collentine et al. (1981) and Welder and McGreevy (1966). Regional aquifer
systems within the RMPPA are discussed by Heath (1984), Freethey (1987), and Driver et al. (1984).
Basin- wide evaluations of hydrogeology specific to the ARP A have been investigated by Collentine et al.
(1981). Groundwater resources include deep and shallow, confined, and unconfmed aquifers. Site-specific
groundwater data for the RMPPA are limited. Existing information comes primarily from oil and gas well
records from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, water-well records from the
Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO), and from USGS (Weigel 1987). Extensive water quality
surveys have been performed by USGS, which recently collected data in Carbon and Sweetwater
Counties (USGS 2004; Bartos et al. 2006). Ground water quality conditions vary in the RMPPA and are
defined by the geologic conditions in which the water is found.

Aquifers near the ground surface can be found in the Great Divide, Washakie, and Hanna Structural
basins. The sediments in these basins contain many confining layers (aquitards), which are generally thick
shales and extend over most of the structural basins. The Great Divide Structural Basin is a broad
synclinal depression lying west of the Rawlins Uplift and generally north of 1-80. North-south trending
anticlines, the Rock Springs Uplift and the Rawlins Uplift bound the basin on the west and east. The basin
is bound to the north by a series of major structural features and on the south by the Wamsutter Arch,
which separates the Great Divide Basin from the Washakie Basin. The Washakie Structural Basin is a
deep synclinal depression smaller in area than the Great Divide Basin. The Hanna Basin is a deep closed
geologic basin containing sedimentary rock reaching a depth over 30,000 feet; it covers an area of
approximately 1,750 square miles in the central portion of the RMPPA. Many of the areas outside of
these structural basins contain isolated BLM-managed lands and, other than the higher elevation mountain
areas, can be described by these areas.

Quaternary aquifers in these structural basins generally comprise alluvial deposits along major floodplains
and isolated windblown and lake sediments. Groundwater flow within the sandy Quaternary aquifers is
typically downward toward permeable underlying fonnations (Collentine et al. 1981). Ephemeral and
intermittent drainages also often contain groundwater in the associated unconsolidated valley fills.

Tertiary aquifers in the RMPPA occur in the extensive North Park Formation, in the Browns Park
Formation along the Little Snake River flood plain, and adjacent to the Sierra Madre Uplift and the Fort
Union Formation, among others.

Aquifers near the surface are recharged from direct downward percolation of precipitation and snowmelt
and from seepage losses from streams. Deep aquifers are also recharged by these processes in outcrop and
subcrop areas and from slow leakage from overlying and underlying aquifers.

Ground-water recharge primarily originates as precipitation in the mountain areas surrounding the
RMPPA where geologic formations outcrop or water resources were deposited during past geologic
periods. Aquifers providing usable water in the RMPPA can be found along streams and rivers in the
unconsolidated alluvium. These aquifers are termed unconfined, or water table, aquifers. Wells emanating
from these aquifers can supply water to ranches and farms as well as to municipalities. Deeper confined
aquifers supply water to artesian wells. Artesian wells may be flowing or not, depending on the
potentiometric surface of the aquifer. Artesian wells can be used for domestic, municipal, and irrigation
uses and are usually found where limestone or sandstone geologic formations are within 2,000 feet of the
surface.

Groundwater quality in the RMPPA is highly variable, in part reflecting the complex geologic history of
the region. In most areas within the RMPPA, the shallow groundwater is suitable for livestock. However,
these waters can be only marginally suitable or even unsuitable for domestic or irrigation uses, mainly

3-132

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

due to high total-dissolve solids (TDS) concentrations. Groundwater tends to deteriorate as the distance
from recharge sources and the ground surface increases. During its Sweetwater County water quality
survey, USGS found high concentrations of sulfate, fluoride, boron, iron, and manganese in several
shallow aquifers. Groundwater samples from the Battle Springs aquifer in the Great Divide Structural
Basin had high radionuclide concentrations (USGS 2004).

Some of the local municipal water systems use groundwater for all or part of their supplies; these include
Laramie, Rawlins, Elk Mountain, and Riverside (Appendix 11). Aquifers used for these supplies are
generally in the foothills of topographic features such as Atlantic Rim (in the case of Rawlins) and the
Medicine Bow Mountain Range for Elk Mountain and Riverside. Irrigation using groundwater also
occurs using some of these same mountain-related aquifers. Livestock watering in these areas is typically
a minor use.

Water Management

Water management within the boundaries of the RMPPA is primarily the responsibility of the Wyoming
State Engineers Office, which administers state-held water rights, and the BOR, which administers dam
and reservoir systems. BLM manages watersheds that supply irrigation water and water for other uses.
Therefore, it is the RFO staff s responsibility to manage these lands in a manner that maintains water
quality and quantity (USDI, BLM 1997). Other agencies involved in managing and regulating the water
resources of the area are the local conservation districts, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, WDEQ,
and WGFD.

As noted above, the Wyoming State Engineers Office administers water rights within the State of
Wyoming. Administration includes domestic, municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreational, and in-
stream flow. The Wyoming Board of Control issues all water permits and decides all state water rights
issues. All of the RMPPA is in Division One or Division Four as defined by the Wyoming Board of
Control. Water rights in Wyoming are managed under the Prior Appropriation Doctrine, meaning “first in
time, first in right.”

All depletions identified from any BLM-approved activity in the Platte and Colorado River basins will be
consulted on with USFWS according to the recovery or management plans for each basin as described in
Appendix 11. By using the best available science, the RFO evaluates the potential for water depletions
from oil and gas activities in consultation with USFWS. When fees to recovery programs are required as
mitigation, they will be paid by the project proponent as a condition of approval.

BOR manages the system of dams on the North Platte River, beginning with Seminoe Reservoir, to meet
the downstream requirements of irrigators, municipalities, industrial uses, and the States of Wyoming and
Nebraska. BOR distributes water according to Wyoming water law and the Final Settlement Stipulation
and Modified North Platte Decree. The Final Settlement, approved by the U.S. Supreme Court on
November 13, 2001, modified the 1945 North Platte Decree and ended the Nebraska v. Wyoming lawsuit.
This settlement established the North Platte Decree Committee (NPDC) and set in place new procedures
for the administration and use of North Platte River water by Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, and BOR.
The Supreme Court decision freed Wyoming to adjudicate water rights in the North Platte River drainage
and to continue to collect data and accomplish tasks associated with the settlement. The North Platte
River is still considered to be fully allocated, which limits new water development in the RMPPA from
sources connected to surface waters. Typical water development associated with the RFO management
actions involves troughs or pits for stock watering that must be permitted with the Wyoming State
Engineers Office.

Rawlins RMP

3-133

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

Final EIS

Interstate agreements, decrees, and treaties concerning water within the RMPPA include but are not
limited to the following:

• Colorado River Compact, 1922. Divides the basin at Lee Ferry, Arizona, and provides that
upper basin states may use 7.5 million acre-feet annually

• Upper Colorado River, 1948. Apportions 14 percent of the water allocated in the Colorado
River Compact to Wyoming

• Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, 1974 (P.L. 93-320). Limits the amount of total
dissolved salts flowing into Mexico; this was a result of Minute No. 242 (1973), an amendment to
the 1 944 treaty between Mexico and the United States

• Laramie River Decree, 1922. Allows the State of Colorado to divert 49,375 acre-feet of water
from the Laramie River and its tributaries per calendar year for use in Colorado, of which 19,875
acre-feet may be diverted out of basin

• Recovery Programs and Interagency Agreements. Relate to water depletions in the Colorado
and Platte River systems (Appendix 1 1).

BLM participates in efforts to manage and monitor water bodies listed on the 303(d) list, which flow
through land or are located on land it administers. Streams on the 303(d) list are listed on the WDEQ
webpage at http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/ and listed in Table SI 1-1 of the 303(d) list.

The Clean Water Act of 1987, as amended (33 United States Code 1251), established objectives to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s water. The act also requires
permits for point source discharges to navigable waters of the United States and the protection of
wetlands, and it includes monitoring and research provisions for protection of ambient water quality.
Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990) requires federal agencies to take action to minimize the destruction,
loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of
wetlands. Floodplain Management (EO 11988) provides for the restoration and preservation of national
and beneficial floodplain values and the enhancement of the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in
carrying out programs affecting land use.

In February 1998, President Clinton issued the “Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting
America’s Waters.” A key element in the Action Plan is the cooperative approach using the concept of
watershed protection activities. The RFO often participates as a stakeholder in 319 EPA-funded projects
designed to address water quality concerns on particular watersheds. This involvement typically yields
changes in grazing management and could involve different recreation or transportation management or
other changes in management actions designed to improve water quality. The Clean Water Action Plan
calls for federal agencies to affirmatively engage watershed management as a core, guiding principle for
water quality management. The principal goal of the “Riparian- Wetland Initiative for the 1990s” is to
restore and maintain riparian- wetland areas. This initiative continues, and the goal of obtaining PFC for
all riparian-wetland areas on BLM-administered land is contained in the Standards for Healthy
Rangelands (Appendix 8).

Water Monitoring

Water resource monitoring in the RMPPA is designed and managed to provide BLM with baseline
information on water quantity and quality as well as to answer project-specific questions. Monitoring
activities include the collection of streamflow data and water samples for analysis, evaluation of stream
health conditions, evaluation of springs and other water sources, and evaluation of streamflow conditions.
In addition to the PFC assessments discussed in Section 3.15.3, which are indirect indicators of water
quality and watershed health, direct methods are used to monitor water resources. Direct methods include

3-134

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

gaging stations (Table 3-36), water quality samples, and bioassessment protocols. Within the RMPPA,
water quality samples historically have been collected at springs, wells, stream locations, ponds, and
ephemeral washes. A watershed approach to water quality assessment in the RMPPA is used. Ground
water monitoring occurs at several wells in the project area, with grab samples being collected
periodically (Appendix 11 and 17).

Bioassessment protocols developed by WDEQ provide quantitative assessments on watershed health and
ecosystem integrity. The RMPPA is implementing the WDEQ protocols and developing an integrated
approach to the monitoring and assessment of watershed, aquatic, and riparian ecosystem conditions
within areas that are reviewed for Rangeland Standards and Guidelines.

Rangeland Standard 5 is met when water quality meets state standards. In the past, only streams listed on
the State’s 303d list for impaired waters were said not to meet this standard. In 2005, 15 sites were
selected to evaluate the seven watershed areas that are used for the periodic standards assessments. At
each of these sites, three permanent cross-sections were established, flows were measured, pools were
sampled for sediment deposition, water quality samples were taken, a green-line survey was performed to
collect quantitative information about riparian vegetation, and macroinvertebrates were sampled. These
sites will be visited before standards assessments to better characterize water quality. Sites were selected
on perennial streams that have a preponderance of BLM-managed land upstream. This monitoring project
collects data similarly to the State of Wyoming’s BURP Protocol, collecting chemical, physical, and
biological samples and assessing the relative health of the system. Management of aquatic habitats on
BLM-administered land would be according to BLM Manual 6720 (Appendix 1 1).

These collective monitoring efforts are helpful in providing information that is used to adjust management
within the watersheds and along riparian areas. Information is also shared with WDEQ for listing or
delisting water bodies on the 303(d) list. Assessments under the BLM Standards and Guidelines using a
watershed approach are conducted on a 10-year cycle. The RFO staff began this watershed approach in
2001, and it plans to complete the first round of these assessments in 2008. Initial efforts have
concentrated on watershed management areas in the western portion of the RMPPA, where BLM-
managed lands are most extensive.

3.17.3 Soils

Soil data have been used by BLM as a basis for decisions concerning range sites, range improvements,
and wildlife habitat sites and for determining reclamation practices to address surface disturbance due to
mineral development. In addition, soil data have been used to locate sources of gravel and to determine
the suitability of areas for use as water disposal pits for water produced from gas wells (USDI, BLM
1987). Order 3 soil surveys are not sufficiently detailed for many land management decisions and are in
need of updating. In the sections below, the soil types found within the RMPPA are identified and
discussed, along with specific conditions and trends. Watershed health standards are evaluated during
Standards for Healthy Rangelands assessments (Appendix 8).

Soil Conditions and Characteristics

Soils in the RMPPA vary. They include shallow-to-deep and fine-to-coarse-textured soils. They vary in
salt content, organic matter content, and parent material. Map 3-12 delineates soil zones based on
precipitation zones within the RMPPA for which generalizations can be made about soil productivity,
permeability, infiltration, stability and strength, and erosion potential. These areas are distinguished by
varying amounts of precipitation, elevation, soil temperature, and soil parent material (USDI, BLM 1987).
General conditions found in soils within Map Units A through F on Map 3-12 are discussed in more detail
in the following sections. These conditions collectively influence watershed function and the development
of healthy vegetation, which together enable human uses and provide wildlife habitat.

Rawlins RMP

3-135

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

Final EIS

Soil Productivity

Soil productivity is the most important soil value in the RMPPA because it determines stocking rates for
livestock through the amount of vegetation produced, it dictates the kinds of plant communities on which
wildlife habitat is based, and it determines reclamation potential in areas of surface disturbance. Most
soils in the RMPPA support vegetation that is used by livestock and that also serves as wildlife habitat.
Soil characteristics and environmental factors that affect soil productivity include organic matter content,
salt content, amount of precipitation, soil temperature, aspect, soil depth, and soil parent material.

Soil productivity is naturally low throughout the RMPPA, although it is higher around springs and along
natural drainage ways (USDI, BLM 1987). Productivity varies depending on a number of factors,
including soil depth, texture, topographic slope, slope aspect, and permeability. However, variability in
the amount of precipitation is the main factor in variations in soil production within the RMPPA. Within
the RMPPA, Map Unit A (shown on Map 3-12) receives the least precipitation, and Map Unit C receives
the most. The more precipitation an area receives, the more vegetative cover is present. Vegetative cover
contributes organic matter to the soil, which in turn provides nutrients for plants, stores more moisture,
and improves soil structure — all of which promote vegetative growth.

Map Units C and F have soils with thicker and darker surface horizons, indicating higher organic matter
content. The darker surface horizons are due to the higher amount of vegetation typically found within
these areas, and to colder temperatures in the case of Map Unit C. Colder temperatures slow the decay of
organic material, thus allowing more organic matter to accumulate. The warmer temperatures in Map Unit
F create a longer growing season, thus allowing more vegetation to grow and plants to produce more
vegetative material. Map Units B, D, and E contain more organic matter than does Map Unit A, although
none of these units has the dark surface layer (USDI, BLM 1987).

Other factors that affect productivity are depth to bedrock, crusting, and nutrient content. Soils in the
RMPPA are generally shallow, with a depth to bedrock of less than 20 inches occurring in all map units,
and occurring most in Map Unit C and least in Map Unit D. This restricts root penetration and lowers
water-holding capacity, because water tends to run off these areas faster than it infiltrates. Crusting, which
results from a breakdown in soil structure caused by high sodium content and raindrop impact on bare
areas, reduces water infiltration and thereby salt leaching and root penetration. This occurs particularly in
Map Unit A but can also occur in Map Units B, C, E, and F. Nitrogen and potassium are adequate for
plant growth throughout the RMPPA, but phosphorus is limited.

As a result of all these factors, Map Unit A has the lowest overall soil productivity; Map Units B, D, and
E are intermediate in production; and Map Units C and F have the highest soil productivity (USDI, BLM
1987). Bottomland and stream terrace soils are the most productive, but limitations include alkalinity,
high clay content, low permeability, and flooding. Upland soils are moderately productive. Limitations
include shallow depths, low permeability, and alkalinity. The productivity of dissected upland soil is
unknown but is likely to be low. Playa productivity may be high if salinity is not a limiting factor.

Soil Permeability

The permeability of a soil affects its use for reservoirs, water disposal pits, sanitary landfills, and sewage
lagoons. Such facilities require soils that are either impermeable or just sufficiently permeable to filter out
impurities before the leached water reaches natural surface or ground water. The soils in Map Unit A are
generally fine in texture and are either sufficiently impenneable to effectively hold or filter water or can
be compacted to function as such. Map Units B, C, E, and F are less effective at holding or filtering water,
but they can be aided in fulfilling this function through compaction. Map Unit D soils are very permeable,
and even compaction does not enable them to hold water. For any of these soils, if the underlying bedrock
(typically within 60 inches of the surface) is fractured, the ability of the soil to contain water is markedly
diminished. Piping (formation of tubular cavities) may also reduce the containment capacity of Map Unit

3-136

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

A, where gypsum seams have been dissolved or wet-dry cycles have produced cracks in clays. Finally,
the containment capacity of Map Units A, B, C, E, and F may be diminished adjacent to major drainages
where strata of coarser materials, which are permeable and typically not good filters, may be embedded
with finer materials.

Soil Strength and Stability

Soil strength is an important consideration during construction of roads and facilities because low-
strength soils are subject to deformation. In areas of low soil strength, building foundation stability is low,
and roads and drill pads can become rutted and slippery when wet. Soils composed predominantly of one
particle size exhibit low strength. Soils containing a variety of particle sizes exhibit the greatest strength
because they better fill in voids of varying sizes, causing more friction among particles. In the RMPPA,
soils within Map Unit A have low strength. Map Units B, C, E, and F have moderate strength; these
textures are typically loamy, and compaction may be possible to increase strength and reduce the potential
for deformation under a load. Soils in Map Unit D and portions of Map Unit A are sandy; because these
soils are loose, they are subject to displacement under dry conditions. In Map Unit A, many soils have
clayey or silty textures, making compaction difficult and creating deformation upon wetting under a load
(USDI, BLM 1987).

Soil stability problems occur in Map Units A, B, E, and F, but Map Unit C has the greatest stability
problems. Map Unit C receives the greatest amount of precipitation, primarily in the form of snow. Soil
becomes saturated from snowmelt, which increases soil weight. This can cause mass wasting, which is the
downslope movement of rock and soil under the influence of gravity (USDI, BLM 1987).

Soil Erosion

Accelerated rates of erosion do occur within localized areas, including areas of surface disturbance and
some drainage areas, especially riparian areas where animals tend to congregate. Reduced vegetation
along drainage ways tends to destabilize stream banks and contribute to stream downcutting and gullying.
Accelerated stream bank erosion has historically occurred within the RMPPA in numerous locations,
including the Muddy Creek, Sage Creek, Second Creek, and Third Sand Creek watersheds (USDI, BLM
1987).

Within the RMPPA the highest soil erosion rates occur within Map Unit A as a result of naturally low
vegetative cover, soil crusting, low organic matter content, and soft shales that are susceptible to erosion.
These characteristics are especially apparent in the Muddy Creek drainage. Because of greater vegetative
cover and organic matter content and lower sodium content, rates of water erosion are lower in Map Units

B, E, and F and lowest in Map Unit D. Map Unit D is susceptible to wind erosion; although it is protected
by good vegetative cover, it could actively erode if vegetative cover were reduced. Wind erosion also
occurs in Map Units A, B, C, E, and F, but at lower rates (USDI, BLM 1987).

In addition to the soil erosion that occurs in the generalized map units discussed above, stabilized
intermittent sand dunes are present in hilly upland areas within the RMPPA. For example, the RMPPA
contains the Sand Hills area, which is a unique and fragile dune area with diverse vegetation. BLM
management objectives include protection of the unique vegetation complex and minimization of soil
erosion. In addition, there is a band of frequently active sand dunes north of Seminoe Reservoir and
stretching across the northern portion of the RMPPA. Dune Ponds, also within the RMPPA, is a 1 50-acre
area consisting of large sand dunes. These scattered areas of sand dunes are easily eroded by wind when
vegetation is removed.

Soil Salinity

Soluble salt levels affect management potentials as a result of toxicity, reduced infiltration rates, limits on
nutrient availability, and reduction of water available to plants. Major causes of increased salinity

Rawlins RMP

3-137

Chapter 3 — Water Quality, Watershed, and Soils

Final EIS

contribution from public lands include overgrazing, OHV use, and energy exploration and extraction.
These activities compact the soil surface and cause a reduction in plant cover, creating increased runoff
carrying salt-laden sediments into drainages (USDI, BLM 1996). In addition, deteriorated riparian
conditions can eventually convert perennial streams into ephemeral drainages where seasonal water tables
fluctuate (Wichers 2002), as discussed in Section 3.15.3.

Salts in the soil stress plants by making water uptake more difficult. More precipitation received in an
area translates into more moisture available to leach salt out of the rooting zone. Areas in which soils are
sufficiently leached can produce good vegetative cover.

Varying concentrations of soluble salt in soil occur throughout the RMPPA. Leaching occurs the most in
Map Units C, D, and F, and the least in Map Unit A. Map Units B and E have soils that are sufficiently
leached to produce good vegetative cover (USDI, BLM 1987).

3-138

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wild Horses

3.18 Wild Horses

Following passage of the Wild, Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act in 1971, BLM identified six areas
used by wild horses within the current RMPPA. The following three herd areas failed to meet the criteria
for suitably maintaining a healthy population of wild horses in accordance with the intent of the Act:
Bolten, Checkerboard South, and Muddy Creek (subsequently known as “Doty Mountain/Cherokee”).
Management of horses in these areas was not considered for the following reasons:

• The area was more than 50 percent privately controlled land, and the private landowners showed
no interest in having their lands included in an HMA.

• Most of the horses were privately owned and claimed.

• Fencing and other barriers precluded free movement of wild horses to year-round habitat.

Land ownership and current conditions have not changed significantly since these decisions were made;
however, these areas still maintain their herd area status according to the Act. Horses in these herd areas
were removed.

A brief history of Wyoming BLM management of wild horses is contained in Appendix 12.

The following three herd areas were determined to be able to support viable healthy populations of wild
horses: Sand Creek (later renamed “Adobe Town”), Stewart Creek/Chain Lakes, and Cyclone Rim (later
renamed “Lost Creek”). Three HMAs currently correspond to these three herd areas. Wild horses that
leave designated HMAs are considered excess and are removed.

3.18.1 Herd Management Areas

The following paragraphs briefly describe the habitat and wild horses in the three identified HMAs within
the RMPPA.

Adobe Town HMA

The Adobe Town HMA is located in south-central Wyoming between 1-80 and the Colorado- Wyoming
border (Map 2-21). Topography in the area is varied, with everything from colorful eroded desert
badlands to wooded buttes and escarpments. In between these two extremes are extensive rolling-to-rough
uplands interspersed with some desert playa and vegetated dune areas. The Adobe Town WSA is
contained entirely within the Adobe Town HMA. Off-road restrictions and difficult terrain within the
WSA provide a relatively undisturbed location for wild horses.

Total acreages for the HMA are shown in Table 3-40. It should be noted that 6.1 percent of the HMA is
deeded or Wyoming state lands. These privately controlled lands are generally unfenced and freely
available to the horses. A disproportionate share of the dependable water sources occurs on these lands.
Typically, these lands are controlled by the grazing permittee(s) in the area and used in conjunction with
their public grazing operations.

Table 3-40. RMPPA Wild Horse Appropriate Management Levels and Populations

Area

Public

Acres

Other Acres

AML

Average Rate of
Annual
Increase

Current

Estimated

Population1

HMAs

Adobe Town

420,000

28,000

700

16%

839

Rawlins RMP

3-139

Chapter 3 — Wild Horses

Final EIS

Area

Public

Acres

Other Acres

AML

Average Rate of
Annual
Increase

Current

Estimated

Population1

Lost Creek

235,000

15,000

70

18%

143

Stewart Creek

215,000

16,000

150

18%

129

HMA Totals

870,000

59,000

920

-

1,111

Other Areas Affected by Wild Horses

1-80 North

359,000

195,000

0

24%

19

1-80 South

333,000

356,000

0

23%

111

Bairoil Pasture

6,000

1,000

0

2

2

Other Areas Total

698,000

552,000

0

-

130

Total of All Areas

1,568,000

611,000

920

-

1,241

1 Population estimate as of December 31, 2003.

2 Wild horses in the Bairoil Pasture of the Stewart Creek allotment are managed with the excess wild horses in the 1-80 North

area.

Source: BLM, 2003.

Plant communities are very diverse in this large area. The most abundant plant community in the HMA is
sagebrush/bunchgrass. Other plant communities present are desert shrub, grassland, mountain shrub,
lentic riparian grass/sedge, juniper woodlands, and a very few aspen woodlands. Limited, sensitive desert
riparian areas are important features in the landscape, as they provide much needed water resources for
wild horses and wildlife.

The appropriate management level (AML) for wild horses in the Adobe Town HMA is 700 adult animals
(6 1 0-800 management range) plus the unweaned colts of the year. It is estimated that there are currently
around 839 wild horses in the HMA (Table 3-40). These horses have averaged a rate of annual increase of
16 percent per year. Genetically, wild horses in the Adobe Town HMA descend from domestic breeds
such as escaped domestic saddle stock from surrounding populated areas.

Stewart Creek HMA

The Stewart Creek HMA is located in the west-central portion of the RMPPA, along the northern border
(Map 2-21). It is traversed in a north-south direction by the Continental Divide, along Lost Soldier and
Bull Springs rims. Adjacent to these rims on either side are strongly rolling uplands. These areas
transition to the gently rolling uplands that comprise the majority of the HMA. Although annual
precipitation varies between just under 7 inches to more than 10, most of the precipitation occurs as snow.

The most abundant plant community in this HMA is sagebrush/bunchgrass. Other communities present
are desert shrub and grassland, with limited lentic riparian grass/sedge, juniper woodland, mountain
shrub, and desert willow riparian types. Wild horses in the area have proven to be very adaptable to
changes in their environment. During harsh winters they get by on coarse woody vegetation in place of
grass (USDI, BLM 1994). Limited, sensitive desert riparian areas are important features in the landscape,
as they provide much-needed water resources for wild horses and wildlife.

Total acreages for the HMA are shown in Table 3-40. It should be noted that 6.6 percent of the HMA is
deeded or Wyoming state lands. These privately controlled lands are generally unfenced and freely
available to the horses. A disproportionate share of the dependable water sources occurs on these lands.
Typically, these lands are controlled by the grazing permittee(s) in the area and used in conjunction with
their public grazing operations.

3-140

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wild Horses

The AML for wild horses in the Stewart Creek HMA is 150 adults (125-175 management range) plus the
unweaned colts of the year. It is estimated that there are 129 wild horses in the HMA (Table 3-40). The
horses in the HMA have averaged a rate of annual increase of 1 8 percent per year. The wild horses in the
HMA are assumed to have been influenced by the routine escape of domestic saddle stock from the
surrounding areas. Genetic testing on horses from the west side of the Lost Soldier Divide has shown
them to have some genetic characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Horse.

Lost Creek HMA

The Lost Creek HMA is located in the northwest comer of the RMPPA (Map 2-21). The HMA is joined
on the east by the Stewart Creek HMA, on the north by the Antelope Hills HMA, and on the west by the
Divide Basin HMA. The RMPPA does not manage the latter two HMAs. The Lost Creek HMA lies
within the Great Divide Basin, a closed basin out of which no water flows.

Some desert playa and vegetated dune areas are interspersed throughout the HMA. The most abundant
plant community in this HMA is sagebrush/bunchgrass. Other plant communities present include desert
shrub, grassland, and lentic riparian grass/sedge primarily associated with desert wetland areas. Several
sensitive desert wetland/riparian areas occur throughout the area, including both intermittent and
perennial lakes and streams.

Total acreages for the HMA are shown in Table 3-40. It should be noted that 6 percent of the HMA is
deeded or Wyoming state lands. These privately controlled lands are generally unfenced and freely
available to the horses. A disproportionate share of the dependable water sources occurs on these lands.
Typically, these lands are controlled by the grazing permittee(s) in the area and used in conjunction with
their public grazing operations.

Genetic testing on the wild horses in the Lost Creek HMA has shown the horses carry a high percentage
of genetic markers identified with the New World Iberian (Spanish Colonial) breeds. The Roger’s genetic
similarity index (a common index used to determine genetic similarity of various breeds) for the wild
horses from the Lost Creek HMA was quite high (.845) for the New World Iberian breeds. In other
words, the horses in the Lost Creek HMA are genetically more similar to the Spanish Mustang and other
New World Iberian breeds than they are to other breeds, such as the American Quarter Horse or the
Morgan. This characteristic makes the horses in the Lost Creek HMA unique among the wild horse herds
of Wyoming tested so far. The small size of the Lost Creek wild horses positions them rather
precariously, in genetics terms, for losing their unique marker through mixing with other wild horses.
Fortunately, the Stewart Creek horses on the west side of the Lost Soldier Divide are genetically similar,
with a Roger’s genetic similarity of .818 to the New World Iberian breeds, and therefore do not represent
a significant threat to this genetic resource.

The AML for wild horses in the Lost Creek HMA is 70 adults (60-82 management range) plus the
unweaned colts of the year. It is estimated that there are currently 143 wild horses present in the HMA.
The horses in the HMA have averaged a rate of annual increase of 1 8 percent per year.

3.18.2 Other Areas Affected by Wild Horses

In addition to the three HMAs identified above, areas adjacent to these HMAs are affected by wild horses.
As competition for resources within HMAs increases, some wild horses venture outside of HMA
boundaries in search of forage and water resources. These horses are considered excess and are removed.
There are areas to which wild horses commonly venture, including 1-80 North below the Stewart Creek
and Lost Creek HMAs, 1-80 South above the Adobe Town HMA, and the Bairoil pasture of the Stewart
Creek allotment northeast of the Stewart Creek HMA. Populations of horses in these areas are shown in
Table 3-40.

Rawlins RMP

3-141

Chapter 3 — Wild Horses

Final EIS

Wild horse population fluctuations are influenced not just by the reproductive increases of wild horse
populations, but also by their contact with other horse herds outside the RMPPA HMAs. These meta-
populations provide increased genetic material to maintain viable populations. Table 3-41 shows the
meta-populations of which the wild horses of the RMPPA are a part.

Table 3-41. Wild Horse Regional Meta-Populations Associated with the RMPPA

Meta-Populations

HMA(s) in the

Tvoe of

Points of

Name

AML

Meta-

Populations

Interaction

Contact

Adobe Town

700

Stateline

1,250

Adobe Town
Salt Wells Creek
Sand Wash (CO)2

Male migration,
female exchange

Haystacks,

Alkali,

Sand Creek,
Powder Wash

Stewart Creek

150

Red Desert1

790

Stewart Creek
Lost Creek
Antelope Hills
Divide Basin
Green Mountain
Crooks Mountain

Male migration,
female exchange

Hay Reservoir,
Bare ring,
Hadsell,
Osborne Draw

Lost Creek

70

Red Desert1

790

Stewart Creek
Green Mountain
Crooks Mountain
Lost Creek
Antelope Hills
Divide Basin

Male migration,
female exchange

Hay Reservoir
Bare Ring,
Hadsell,
Osborne Draw

Wild horses from the Sweetwater meta-populations (Green Mountain HMA and Crooks Mountain HMA) occasionally mix with
wild horses in the Red Desert meta-populations.

2

Sand Wash HMA is located entirely in Colorado, within BLM’s Craig Field Office. Although managed by Colorado BLM, horses
from the Sand Wash HMA provide biologically and genetically important interactions with horses from the other HMAs in the
meta-populations.

Management of wild horses in the RMPPA is guided by the RFO Wild Horse Management Handbook.
The handbook contains policy, practices, procedures, and technical support documentation that affect
wild horse management. Specifically, the handbook contains guidelines for wild horse management, such
as how AMLs are monitored and adjusted, in addition to other wild horse management practices.

3.18.3 Wild and Free-Roaming Nature (of Wild Horses)

In addition to population objectives and habitat conditions addressed by most of BLM’s wild horse
management efforts, another aspect of wild horses is important, especially when considering the
interactions of horses and other resource uses. This aspect is what makes a particular wild horse
population wild and separates it from domestic horses roaming in a fenced pasture — its wild, free-
roaming nature. Appendix 12 contains a detailed discussion of that important aspect of wild horses.

3-142

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

3.19 Wildlife and Fish

This section focuses on those wildlife and fish species in the RMPPA that are of particular interest or
importance to the public or the ecosystem because they are used in some way (hunted, observed,
photographed, etc.), have intrinsic value, or have populations that are at potential risk (threatened,
endangered, or of special concern). The millions of acres of varied BLM-managed lands within the
RMPPA provide important habitat for wildlife and fish species, especially where such lands and the
waters they contain occur in large unfragmented tracts and reaches.

3.19.1 General Wildlife

Terrestrial wildlife species, to the extent that they are managed, are overseen by state and federal wildlife
management agencies. The State of Wyoming has jurisdiction over all wildlife in the state, placing
species under management of either WGFD or the state Department of Agriculture. WGFD is responsible
for oversight of big game species, nongame species, and small game species that are non-migratory. The
USFWS has oversight of migratory bird species, whether they are hunted (e.g., waterfowl) or not (e.g.,
passerine species such as warblers and sparrows), and of all federal threatened, endangered, proposed, or
candidate plant and animal species. WGFD participates in these activities. However, BLM manages
millions of acres of habitat that support these wildlife species, and thus has an integral role in their
ecological health and viability. Many of the species groups under USFWS regulations also receive
management and protection under state statutes and regulations.

Wildlife habitat is best characterized by the vegetation types discussed in Section 3.15 and the water
resources discussed in Section 3.17, although air quality (Section 3.2), geology and topography (Section
3.8), and soils (Section 3.17) are also important contributors to habitat character. Such factors as fire
management; Forest Management; rights-of-way; livestock grazing; oil, gas, and other energy
developments (e.g., windpower and coal mining); OHV use and other recreation; and wild horses also
influence the quality of habitat, as do management actions applied throughout BLM-administered lands
and in SD/MAs. Wildlife species generally use vegetation on the basis of its physiognomy (e.g., structure
[height and spacing] and growth form [gross morphology and growth aspect] of the predominant species,
and leaf characteristics of the dominant or component plants). This means that a given species may use a
shrub of a particular height and growth form irrespective of its species. Therefore, the mapping of
vegetation zones (Map 3-10) characterizes wildlife habitat in general terms. Especially important habitats
are mountain shrub (mountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush); monotypic stands of bitterbrush
and true mountain mahogany; and coniferous, rockland, aspen, riparian, and lowland sagebrush (primarily
Wyoming big sagebrush on flatlands and basins below 7,000 feet) (Wichers 2002).

As is apparent from the vegetation map, the habitat diversity within the RMPPA is extreme, ranging from
alpine barren areas in the Sierra Madre and the Snowy Range in the south-central portion of the RMPPA
to desert barren areas in the Red Desert in the southwestern portion, with extensive grassland, shrub, and
forest/woodland communities in between. The most historically important of these habitat types, on the
basis of total species, number of breeders, number of sensitive species, and availability, are open aquatic,
riparian (grassland, willow-waterbirch, aspen, and cottonwood), mountain shrub, juniper, aspen,
aspen/conifer, ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, rockland in the Laramie Peak and North Platte Valley, and
wet forested meadow (USDI, BLM 1987). The vegetation zones and plant community classes currently
recognized in the RMPPA are discussed in Section 3.15. As noted above, the community classes that are
most important are those associated with climate or water availability, the less abundant and more diverse
shrub classes such as mountain shrub, deciduous woodland and forest classes, the less abundant
coniferous classes such as ponderosa pine and Douglas fir, and areas of interspersed deciduous and
coniferous trees. Within each vegetation zone, similar wildlife species will be found, although individual
species will tend to prefer vegetation of a particular height and density. Within this preferred area,

Rawlins RMP

3-143

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

Final EIS

individual plants of a particular age or life stage may also be preferred. Thus it is important to manage
each vegetation zone for maximum diversity in terms of age, height, and density so that the biodiversity
and ecological health and resilience of the plant communities and their wildlife inhabitants are
maintained. At the same time, excessive fragmentation of vegetation zones is to be avoided so that
wildlife species requiring large tracts of a similar physiognomic type can complete their life cycles.

More than 374 vertebrate species have been documented in the RMPPA (USDI, BLM 1987). The
vertebrate wildlife species that occur represent all major vertebrate classes: amphibians, reptiles, birds,
and mammals. Fish are discussed in this section. Data are available primarily for birds, mammals, and
fish because of particular interest in them by the hunting, fishing, and recreating public and by natural
resource specialists. However, there are some data available for amphibians and reptiles. The most
important of the previously mentioned species are discussed below.

Small mammals within the RMPPA include cottontails, jackrabbits, snowshoe hares, squirrels, ground
squirrels, mice, voles, and shrews. Other species within the area include badger, bobcat, marten, weasel,
coyote, raccoon, red fox, swift fox, gray fox, skunk, beaver, mink, and muskrat.

Nongame species include all species or groups not discussed above. Such species are numerous and
diverse, especially given the range of habitats present in the RMPPA. Because of limitations of
knowledge, space, time, and general interest, only a few of these species or groups are addressed below.
Each has an important and long-term association with the RMPPA. The hundreds of additional bird
species that inhabit the RMPPA for all or a part of their life cycles are important components of the
ecosystem and an important focus of the large segment of recreationists who enjoy bird watching. The
diversity of these species is supported by the wide range of habitats present within the RMPPA. BLM is a
participant in the Wyoming Partners In Flight, and specific biological objectives and recommendations
for land birds are presented in the Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan and incorporated into BLM
management of federal land.

Raptor Habitat

Raptors (birds of prey) found in the RMPPA include eagles, falcons, hawks, harriers, and owls. These
species occupy an ecological position at the top of the food chain and, therefore, act as biological
indicators of environmental quality because they are fewer in number, have longer reproductive cycles,
and are more prone to bioaccumulation. Most of these species are also sensitive to disturbance, especially
during their nesting cycles. Some species of raptors concentrate their nests on suitable strata along cliffs
or other formations and use such sites year after year unless disturbed.

Raptors within the RMPPA area include hawks, kites, eagles, and falcons; however, kites are incidental to
the region. These birds are medium-sized to very large diurnal with hooked beaks for tearing flesh and
strong legs and sharp talons for grasping, holding, and in some cases killing their prey. They are generally
colored to blend in with their environment. Members of this family have eyesight that is four to eight
times better than that of humans, enabling them to spot prey from great distances (Sibley 2001). Owls and
harriers are also considered raptors and nest within the RMPPA. Nesting sites for these species include
cliffs, trees and shrubs, cavities, rock outcrops and ground substrate, and man-made structures. Most
species build substantial stick nests, may re-use the same or alternate nests within their territory, and may
switch nests occasionally in years after brood failure.

In the RMPPA, concentrations of ferruginous hawks or golden eagles and prairie falcons (depending on
the nesting substrate) have been identified in the past at Shamrock Hills, Brown Canyon Rim, Seminoe,
Red Rim, Atlantic Rim, Cherokee, Muddy Creek, Doty Mountain, Delaney Rim, Bolten Rim, Hanna, and
Platte-Divide (USDI, BLM 1987). Identification of these nesting concentrations was based in part on a

3-144

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

raptor study that began in 1975- and that has continued through the present, resulting in extensive
documentation of raptor nesting in the RMPPA.

The intensity of this study has varied in response to proposals for development in the RMPPA. Extensive
data were collected in the Shamrock Hills area beginning in 1988 in response to potential development of
coalbed gasification. These efforts were renewed in 1997 through 2001 and are ongoing (Apple 2002a).
In addition, beginning in 1998, extensive data collection was initiated in an area about 25 miles west of
Rawlins and extending both north and south of 1-80 in the vicinity of Wamsutter (Apple 2002a), where
natural gas development occurs. An associated study focuses on the use of artificial nest sites (a project
begun in 1988), and there is also a ferruginous hawk banding program (begun in 1993) (Apple 2002b).

The long-term database on nest locations is very effective in characterizing the raptor species that nest in
the RMPPA and their nests. The data show not only the relative number of nests of each species, but the
height and type of substrate on which they are built. This study provides extremely well-documented
information on many of the species, especially the ferruginous hawk, which has been the primary focus of
this effort. Of the total nests, 54.3 percent were on BLM-managed public land and 37.4 percent were on
private land, with the remainder on USFS, state, other, or unrecorded land ownership types. The more
focused portions of this overall study provide extensive additional data. For example, between 1998 and
2001, active ferruginous hawk nests were more often successful on artificial nest sites (81 percent) than
on natural nest sites (65 percent). Overall nesting success for active nests of all species was 85.5 percent
based on 2001 data, while in the Shamrock Hills Study Area, Continental Divide/Wamsutter II North of I-
80, Continental Divide/Wamsutter II South of 1-80 (Northern Segment), Continental Divide/Wamsutter II
South of 1-80 (Southern Segment), and other incidental areas, success of active nests was 92 percent, 80
percent, 80 percent, 93.9 percent, and 78.3 percent, respectively (Apple 2002b). These areas were
undergoing varying degrees of development at the time these data were collected. The Jep Canyon ACEC
was established in part to maintain the productivity of nesting raptor pairs (USDI, BLM 1990a), as was
the Shamrock Hills ACEC.

Data have also been collected on prey items noted in ferruginous hawk nests between 1993 and 2001
(Apple 2002b). Wyoming ground squirrels are by far the predominant prey species. Other prey species
recorded at least once on the basis of prey remains were 13-lined ground squirrel, vole, sagebrush vole,
cottontail rabbit, least chipmunk, prairie dog, western harvest mouse, short-tailed weasel, white-tailed
prairie dog, northern pocket gopher, greater sage-grouse, homed lark, sparrow species, and other
songbirds. Voles, cottontails, and prairie dogs were regular if not frequent prey items. The remaining prey
species appear to be incidental food items.

Nest locations are not shown in the RMP maps in order to protect these sensitive areas.

Waterfowl and Other Shorebird Habitat

Ducks and geese occur in aquatic areas throughout the RMPPA. Some individuals or species breed,
winter, or remain year-long in the state, while larger numbers pass through the RMPPA on spring or fall
migration. The RMPPA includes the Central Flyway (east of the Continental Divide except for the Great
Divide Basin) and the Pacific Flyway (west of the Continental Divide and the Great Divide Basin). Most
of these species depend on wetlands or open water that is sufficiently shallow to support rooted
vegetation, and they feed on the biotic communities developed in such habitats. Many species feed on
insects and small fish or amphibians in addition to, or instead of, plant foods in these aquatic areas.
Species that primarily eat fish may feed in deeper water where there is insufficient light to support rooted
vegetation. In addition, some species feed frequently on upland grasses and forbs in grassy fields and
meadows that provide succulent vegetation, that are sufficiently open to enable rapid flight, and that do

Only three records in the database predate this year.

Rawlins RMP

3-145

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

Final EIS

not harbor predators. Such habitats support waterfowl and other shorebirds year-round. Nesting cover is
an important attribute for both upland and riparian nesting species.

The various natural lakes, constructed reservoirs, and streams within the RMPPA provide important
habitat for waterfowl and other shorebirds. The most important of the lakes and reservoirs are Seminoe
Reservoir, Pathfinder Reservoir, Bucklin Reservoir, Shirley Basin Reservoir, Teton Reservoir, Little Sage
Creek Reservoir, Flowing Well Reservoir, Wheatland Reservoir, Lake Hattie, Cooper Lake, James Lake,
and the Muddy Creek wetlands complex, but even small pits, reservoirs, and playa lakebeds provide
important habitat when adequate water is available. Development of water sources in normally dry desert
regions has created habitat and increased production of waterfowl and other bird species. Because of
unlimited nesting habitat in the rangelands around these waters (compared to farming around prairie
potholes), nesting success and brood sizes are often larger. In addition, pools in the numerous streams and
their tributaries provide important habitat. Only some of these aquatic resources are on BLM-managed
public land.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Habitat

The United States has ratified international conventions regarding the protection of migratory birds. The
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703-711) implements the protective measures of
these conventions. The MBTA prohibits “taking,” which is the killing, possession, or transport of any
migratory bird or its eggs, parts, or nests except as authorized by a valid permit. These actions may be
permitted only for educational, scientific, and recreational purposes, and harvest is limited to levels that
prevent overutilization. Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory
Birds, was issued in January 2001 and emphasizes that federal actions are subject to the MBTA. It directs
federal agencies (such as BLM) to evaluate the effects of agency actions in National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) documents like this final EIS.

Under the MBTA, permits can be issued by USFWS for the intentional take of specific birds and nests
that have been identified prior to application for the permit; however, no permits can be issued for take
that is incidental to the action being taken (i.e., incidental take). For example, if by constructing a
livestock water development an active migratory bird nest is destroyed, the action would constitute an
“incidental take” of the nest where the intent of the action was not to destroy the migratory bird nest but
to construct a livestock water development. Therefore, taking the nest is incidental to constructing the
development.

All migratory bird species likely to be found within the RMPPA are protected under the MBTA, with the
exception of the house sparrow, European starling, Eurasian collared dove, and rock dove. Any incidental
take of these protected species (except the house sparrow, European starling, Eurasian collared dove, and
rock dove) would constitute a violation of the MBTA.

Upland Game Bird Habitat

Upland game birds in Wyoming that are native to the state include blue grouse, ruffed grouse, greater
sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, and mourning doves. Upland game birds that are introduced include
pheasant, chukar, gray partridge, and turkey. Greater sage-grouse are an important indicator species,
especially on BLM-administered lands. Greater sage-grouse are discussed in the BLM Wyoming State
Director’s Sensitive Species List section of this document. BLM habitat management is directed toward
native species.

There are two species of grouse and one sub-species that are known to occur within the RMPPA. These
species include the plains sharp-tailed grouse and the blue grouse. The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is a
sub-species of the plains sharp-tailed grouse. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are discussed in the BLM
Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species List section of this document.

3-146

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

The range of the plains sharp-tailed grouse extends eastward from the divide. The current range of the
plains sharp-tailed grouse includes eastern Wyoming, northeastern Colorado, and portions of Nebraska.
This species has the potential to occur throughout the eastern portion of the RMPPA wherever remnants
of appropriate habitat occur. In Wyoming, the populations are highest in Goshen County and eastern
Platte and Laramie Counties. The optimum habitat includes an interspersion of plant communities with
extensive ecotones, including grassland, grassland-shrub mixtures, and mixed-grass prairie occasionally
broken by brushy draws. Dancing grounds are located in these mixed shrub-grassland habitats, and broods
are reared in habitats where shrubs are interspersed with dense herbaceous cover. Wintering habitat
includes aspen parklands and stands of chokecherry, aspen, cottonwood, green ash, and willow, especially
when the snow is deep.

Blue grouse are found primarily in the Ferris and Seminoe Mountains, the Laramie Peak area, and
throughout forest fringes associated with the Medicine Bow National Forest. Blue grouse tend to use
habitat that contains mountain shrubland, aspen/conifer woodland, aspen woodland, ponderosa
pine/Douglas fir forest, limber pine woodland, and lodgepole pine forest. These grouse prefer to occupy
the borders between these habitat types as well as small, interspersed riparian areas for breeding, nesting,
and brood rearing (USDI, BLM 1987).

Big Game Species Habitat

Big game species in the RMPPA include pronghorn, deer (mule deer and small numbers of white-tailed
deer), elk, moose, black bear, mountain lion (black bear and mountain lion are classified as trophy game
animals in Wyoming statutes), and bighorn sheep. These species are either herbivores (pronghorn, deer,
elk, moose, bighorn sheep) competing to some degree with other herbivorous wildlife, livestock, and wild
horses; carnivores (mountain lion), competing with other wildlife predators; or omnivores (black bear),
which have characteristics of both preceding groups.

The populations of the big game species that live in habitat managed by BLM are managed by the WGFD
using a complex process that considers both quantitative and qualitative data. Three WGFD regions
(Laramie, Green River, and Lander) cover much of the RMPPA. The big game populations evaluated
most extensively in all three regions are pronghorn, mule deer, and elk. In the Laramie Region, white-
tailed deer, moose, and bighorn sheep populations are also evaluated. Of these, pronghorn, mule deer, and
elk are the primary species present on BLM-managed lands within the RMPPA.

Information considered in the WGFD evaluation process includes population indices and harvest statistics
for individual herd units. Population indices are such indicators as the number of bucks per 100 does and
the number of fawns per 100 does — information that provides perspective on population balance and
health. Depending on species, a variety of methods are used to determine herd unit ratio data and data on
population trends. Population estimates, considered together with population trend, range condition,
weather, management objectives, and the socioeconomic factors of hunter demand and license revenues,
are used to develop population objectives for each herd unit. Using WGFD information that was averaged
from 1997-2001, comparisons can be made about the species richness and productivity across Wyoming.
When numbers for antelope, mule deer, and elk are combined for similar-sized geographic units, the
harvest data for the Sierra Madre/Snowy Range area within the RMPPA are similar to those for the
Sublette region around Pinedale, which is considered to be the most productive big game region in the
state. In addition, recreational days and the economic benefits associated with hunting were 50 percent
higher for the Sierra Madre/Snowy Range area when compared with those for the Sublette region.

Pronghorn Habitat

Pronghorn are a unique animal of the western plains and are the only living species in their taxonomic
family ( Antilocapridae ). Herds of up to 1,000 individuals once inhabited the plains; now, herds
commonly exceed 100 individuals, especially during winter. During winter, herds undertake local

Rawlins RMP

3-147

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

Final EIS

migrations to areas that are more protected from the natural elements or that have more available forage.
Pronghorn in the Great Divide Basin are, for the most part, territorial. Pronghorn show strong fidelity to
territories and ranges. Any disturbance on summer and transitional ranges influences pronghorn
populations through disruption of reproduction (Deblinger and Alldredge 1989). Wyoming is the center
of the pronghorn range, and the RMPPA has one of the highest densities of pronghorn in the world
(Kotter 2002; Lanka 2002). Pronghorn inhabit a wide variety of open rangeland habitat types throughout
the RMPPA and forage primarily on Wyoming big sagebrush and other shrubs.

In most herd units, pronghorn populations are being raised through conservative harvests. Habitat
conditions are generally good in terms of supporting pronghorn, and the long-term trend of decreasing
domestic sheep numbers has probably benefited pronghorn by reducing competition for forage,
particularly on winter ranges. Current management issues affecting pronghorn are varied, but the most
important one is livestock fencing that restricts animal movement. Many historic fences were constructed
to control domestic sheep and do not meet current fence standards needed to control cattle grazing.
During the severe winter of 1983-84, many pronghorn were caught in the comers of these fences and
eventually died. Converting these types of fences to current fence standards whenever and wherever
possible is a high priority of both BLM and WGFD. Another management issue is maintaining crucial
winter range in terms of both health and acreage. During severe winters, animals concentrate on these
habitats, and browse use of key species often reaches 100 percent. During more mild winters, pronghorn
spend more time on adjacent transition habitat that allows the crucial winter range areas to recover.
Development in or loss of this transition habitat is a concern in terms of maintaining pronghorn cmcial
winter range.

Map 2-53 also shows the 3,860,667 acres of cmcial winter range for pronghorn within the RMPPA. This
acreage includes federal, private, and state lands. BLM-administered lands include 544,300 acres. These
areas are found especially in the open flatlands, in locations like the eastern side of the Great Divide
Basin, close along the Wyoming-Colorado state line west of Baggs, the Shirley Basin south to Medicine
Bow, and north of Saratoga in the rolling topography east of the North Platte River.

Deer Habitat

Both mule deer and white-tailed deer occur in the RMPPA, although mule deer are by far the more
abundant. Mule deer are distributed throughout the seasonal ranges in the RMPPA and generally prefer
habitat types in the early stages of plant succession, with numerous shrubs. They use the woody riparian,
shrublands, juniper woodland, and aspen woodland habitat types extensively during spring, summer, and
fall. These habitat types provide adequate forage areas, with succulent vegetation for lactating females
and adequate cover for security and fawning. During winter, mule deer move to lower elevations to avoid
deep snow that covers their forage. They are often found in juniper and limber pine woodlands, big
sagebmsh/rabbitbmsh, bitterbmsh/sagebmsh steppe, and riparian habitat types (USDI, BLM 1987).
White-tailed deer use woody riparian habitats (willow, waterbirch, and cottonwood) along the major
creeks and rivers for both forage and cover.

Mule deer populations across the RMPPA are being maintained or increased through reduced harvest.
Although recent events like the winter conditions of 1992-93 have kept mule deer numbers at lower
levels than desired, it is unlikely that the high population of mule deer observed in the 1960s and 1970s
will be repeated. Loss of crucial winter range along valley bottoms and movement being restricted by
transportation corridors and other fences are limiting factors to growth in mule deer herds. In some
locations, such as the Little Snake and North Platte River valleys, conditions of crucial winter range are
generally fair to poor. Plant communities are heavily used and shrublands are being taken over by juniper
woodlands. Although summer habitats are in better condition, shrublands in many locations are becoming
more mature and decadent, with mountain shrubs and aspen converting to predominantly sagebrush.
Prescribed bums and other vegetative treatments, both short- and long-term, help to rejuvenate these plant
communities, but not enough is occurring. In addition to their habitat, other mule deer management issues

3-148

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

include restrictive fencing (described under “Pronghorn”), increased disturbance and stress due to
industrial development and recreational off-road vehicle use, expansion of chronic wasting disease, and
housing encroachment into historic habitat, particularly in the Laramie Range and the upper Platte River
Valley.

Map 2-54 also shows the 1,468,885 acres of crucial winter range for mule deer within the RMPPA. This
acreage includes federal, private, and state lands. BLM-administered lands include 368,700 acres. These
areas are generally found in three types of places: on the flanks of mountains (e.g., the Sierra Madre and
the Snowy, Laramie, Seminoe, Shirley, and Ferris Mountains), along the drainages (e.g.. North Platte and
Medicine Bow Rivers), and in the badlands along the Wyoming-Colorado border, centered on Baggs.

Elk Habitat

Elk are distributed throughout the RMPPA, especially adjacent to and in areas of higher elevation that
have woody cover. In summer, elk use aspen and conifer woodlands for security and thermal cover,
ranging out into upland meadows, sagebrush/mixed-grass, and mountain shrub habitat types to forage. In
winter, elk move to lower elevations, foraging especially in sagebrush/mixed-grass, big sagebrush/
rabbitbrush, and mountain shrub habitat types, especially in windswept areas where snow depth is less.
During severe weather, elk concentrate in crucial winter range — areas within their normal winter range
that are most likely to provide thermal cover and forage. For parturition, elk move into areas that provide
particularly good security cover and succulent forage. Elk occur in herds to a greater extent than do the
other big game mammals. Areas of particular importance to specific elk herds are in the vicinity of Baggs,
the Ferris Mountains and Seminoe Reservoir, Shirley Mountain, Encampment, the Saratoga Valley,
Laramie Peak, Jelm Mountain, Wick-Beumee, and Pennock Mountain (USDI, BLM 1987). Particularly
important characteristics of these areas are as follows:

• Baggs. Provides summer, winter/year-long calving and crucial winter range habitat for elk that
migrate from summer range in Miller Hill, the Sierra Madre, and the Medicine Bow National
Forest on the east and from Colorado on the south to crucial winter range in the vicinity of Baggs.
Most of the calving area for this herd is in Medicine Bow National Forest (USDI, BLM 1987).
Part of this area is within the Jep Canyon ACEC (USDI, BLM 1990a).

• Ferris Mountains/Seminoe Reservoir. Provides summer, winter/year-long, and crucial winter
range for elk that migrate from summer range in the Ferris Mountains to crucial winter range on
the north side of the mountains, as well as from summer range in the vicinity of Bradley Peak and
Seminoe Mountains/Bear Mountain (south of the Ferris Mountains) to crucial winter range
southwest of the lower portions of Pathfinder Reservoir. Calving areas have not been identified.

• Shirley Mountain. Provides summer, winter/year-long, and crucial winter range for elk that
migrate from summer ranges on Shirley Mountain and the Freezeout Mountains to crucial winter
range around Chalk Mountain on the south side of the Freezeout Mountains and southeast of the
Miracle Mile.

• Encampment. Provides winter/year-long and crucial winter range for elk.

• Saratoga Valley. Provides calving areas, summer, year-long, and crucial winter range for elk.

• Laramie Peak. Provides summer, winter/year-long, and crucial winter range for elk.

• Jelm Mountain. Provides primary crucial winter range for elk that summer in Medicine Bow
National Forest.

• Wick-Beumee. Provides winter/year-long and crucial winter range and parturition habitat for elk
on BLM-managed public lands.

Rawlins RMP

3-149

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

Final EIS

• Pennock Mountain. Provides winter, winter/year-long, and crucial winter range and parturition
habitat for elk on BLM-managed public lands.

In contrast to antelope and mule deer, elk populations have been above desired levels, leading to more
liberal harvests to reduce animal numbers. Despite high numbers of elk, habitat conditions are generally
good to support existing populations. Since elk spend more of their time at higher elevations where they
are not disturbed by human activity, a smaller amount of their habitat has been converted to other uses
when compared with that of mule deer or antelope. In addition, because elk diets are similar to cattle
diets, efforts to improve range conditions for cattle would also benefit elk. Management issues concerning
elk include restrictive fencing, disturbance, and stress from off-road vehicle use; expansion of chronic
wasting disease; and housing encroachment into historic habitat, particularly the Laramie Range. Elk
populations are also more influenced by movement across the state line with Colorado, making
management and population assessments much more difficult than with antelope or mule deer.

The 604,758 acres of crucial winter range and the 200,912 acres of parturition areas shown in Map 2-56
reflect the areas of importance discussed above. This acreage includes federal, private, and state lands.
BLM-administered lands include 206,500 acres of elk crucial winter range. North of 1-80, winter range is
identified on the northeast flanks of the Ferris and Seminoe Mountains; south of 1-80, winter range is
identified on the west slopes of the Sierra Madre in the North Platte River Valley, between and north of
the Sierra Madre and the Snowy Range, on the northeast flanks of the Snowy Range, and east of Laramie
on the east side of the Laramie Mountains. Crucial winter range is often an area within the general winter
range that has the best thermal cover and most available forage even in the most extreme weather
conditions. Areas identified on Map 2-56 are in the Ferris Mountains, the Seminoe Mountains, the Shirley
Mountains, and the Snowy Range, in each case on the lower slopes where microclimates provide
conditions needed for survival. Parturition areas are similarly in microclimates, where hiding cover and
moist, succulent forage provide shelter and adequate moisture for nursing mothers and young elk calves.
Such areas are identified in Map 2-56 around the flanks of the Snowy Range and on the east side of the
Sierra Madre.

Bighorn Sheep Habitat

Map 2-55 shows crucial winter range and lambing areas for bighorn sheep within the RMPPA. BLM-
administered lands include 25,000 acres of crucial winter range.

Because of public interest in them, bighorn sheep are particularly well characterized in the RMPPA. They
prefer open grassy ridgetops, slopes, or benches within 100 meters of rocky outcrops, precipitous cliffs, or
steep rocky slopes. They most commonly use rockland, upland meadow, sagebrush/mixed-grass, big
sagebrush/rabbitbrush, and mountain shrub habitat types, foraging on forbs and grasses from early
summer to late fall when they begin browsing on sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and bitterbrush as snows cover
their other forage. Management issues concerning bighorn sheep include disturbance, stress from off-road
vehicle use, housing encroachment into habitat, and alteration of natural fire cycles. Bighorn sheep have
been reintroduced into/augmented in the Ferris Mountains/Seminoe Reservoir area, near Encampment, in
the Saratoga Valley, and at Laramie Peak (USDI, BLM 1987). Bighorn sheep are managed cooperatively
by BLM for habitat and by WGFD for population.

Other Big Game Species and Trophy Game Animal Habitat

Within the RMPPA there are WGFD management areas for moose (Snowy Range) and trophy game
animals including black bear (Laramie Peak, Snowy Range, and Sierra Madre) and mountain lion (Iron
Mountain, Laramie Peak, Snowy Range, Seminoe, Sierra Madre, and Haystacks). These represent areas
where populations of these species are sufficient to support hunting and to warrant hunting management
by WGFD. Data are not readily available to characterize the individual management areas for these

3-150

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

species. These populations are a concern for both agencies: BLM manages habitat and WGFD manages
the populations.

Amphibians Habitat

Amphibians are tetrapod, moist-skinned vertebrates, usually without scales. They include frogs, toads,
and salamanders. Amphibians live both in water and on land and play important roles in many
ecosystems. The larvae of Wyoming species are aquatic. The adults are normally terrestrial, feeding on
land, breeding in water, and often escaping into water from their predators. Toads are credited with
controlling insect populations. In arid regions, amphibians remain buried in moist soil during daylight
hours and emerge to feed at night.

Amphibians represent a food source for many mammals, birds, snakes, and fish. Their principal defense
against predators is their ability to move and hide quickly and to produce toxic substances with their skin
glands. Breeding calls of male frogs and toads attract mature adults of the same species to suitable
breeding sites. Twelve species of amphibians are found in Wyoming: 1 species of salamander and 1 1
species of frogs and toads.

The tiger salamander is found within the RMPPA and is easily recognized by its conspicuous mottled,
barred, or vermiculated color pattern, its moist skin, and the presence of a tail. Tiger salamanders require
a fairly moist environment and are found throughout the RMPPA in rodent burrows and lentic habitats
during the breeding season and in moist, aquatic, or underground habitats throughout the remainder of the
year. Tiger salamanders prey on insects, earthworms, and occasionally small vertebrates.

Toad species located within the RMPPA include the plains spadefoot, Great Basin spadefoot, boreal toad,
Wyoming toad, and Woodhouse’s toad. Spadefoots are adapted to arid habitats and burrow into soil to
prevent desiccation, forage at night, and breed irregularly through the summer in response to periods of
heavy rain. The loud call of the breeding male serves to attract other breeding adults, both male and
female, to breeding congregations over long distances. Spadefoots spend the winter buried deep within
the soil to avoid desiccation and to spend dormancy below the frost line.

Frog species located within the RMPPA include the bullfrog, northern leopard frog, wood frog, and
boreal chorus frog. Frogs are slim-waisted, long-legged, smooth-skinned amphibians. True frogs usually
have distinctive breeding calls; some also have warning calls and release calls. Eggs are usually laid in
large masses that rest on the pond bottom rather than being attached to submerged vegetation (Baxter et
al. 1980).

Reptiles Habitat

Reptiles have become adapted to living and reproducing entirely on land. They include turtles, lizards,
and snakes. Their skin is dry and normally covered with either homy scales or bony plates to reduce loss
of water from the skin and to serve as a protective armor. Their digits are armed with homy claws. The
eggs of reptiles are covered by a leathery shell and are normally deposited in soil or sand.

Turtle species located within the RMPPA include the Western painted turtle and common snapping turtle.
Turtles are the most primitive of the reptiles, having evolved nearly 200 million years ago. Most turtles
are aquatic, although a few live entirely on land. Turtles have unique methods of breathing and a reduced
metabolism, which allows certain turtles to pass the period of winter dormancy in pond bottoms.

Lizard species located within the RMPPA include the many-lined skink, northern sagebmsh lizard, red-
lipped prairie lizard, northern prairie lizard, eastern short-homed lizard, and northern earless lizard.
Lizards are small, active reptiles. They are able to regulate their body temperature to permit activity over
a broad range of air temperatures. Behavior, agility, and insectivorous habits make the lizard one of the
more successful groups of cold-blooded vertebrates. Lizards are found in grasslands and shmb deserts,
boulders, cliffs, trees, and loose sand.

Rawlins RMP

3-151

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

Final EIS

Snake species located within the RMPPA include the plains hognose snake, western smooth green snake,
pale milk snake, Great Basin gopher snake, bullsnake, wandering garter snake, western plains garter
snake, and prairie rattlesnake. Snakes are legless reptiles with a body covering of scales. They are adapted
to preying on small rodents and lizards. Snakes are mostly diurnal, terrestrial predators. Some are aquatic,
some live in trees, and some live in burrows (Baxter et al. 1980).

Fish Habitat

Fish habitats include perennial and intermittent streams, springs, and flatwater (lakes and reservoirs) that
support fish through at least a portion of the year. Condition of the fish habitats is related to hydrologic
conditions of the upland and riparian areas associated with or contributing to a specific stream or water
body, and to stream channel characteristics. Aquatic habitat quality varies by location and orientation to
geographic landforms and vegetation.

Riparian vegetation moderates water temperatures, adds structure to the banks to reduce erosion, provides
instream habitat for fish, and provides organic material for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Vegetated flood
plains dissipate stream energy, store water for later release, provide areas of infiltration for ground water,
support the hyporheic zone of the river, and provide rearing areas for juvenile fish. The quality of the
physical aquatic habitat is refined further by water quality. Specifically, water temperature, turbidity, and
dissolved oxygen determine the amount of habitat that is usable by different fish species.

Public lands within the RMPPA provide habitat for eight fish families. Wyoming BLM has classified five
species as sensitive: the Colorado River cutthroat trout, bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker, roundtail
chub, and homyhead chub. In addition, four endangered fish species can be found downstream of the
RMPPA within the Colorado River basin (razorback sucker, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and
Colorado pikeminnow), and one endangered fish species, pallid sturgeon, can be found downstream of the
RMPPA in the Platte River basin.

Three drainages occur within the RMPPA: the Colorado River watershed in the western portion, the
North Platte River watershed in the eastern portion, and the Great Divide Basin in the northwest.

Several introduced trout species are widely distributed in the RMPPA, occupying the vast majority of
suitable coldwater habitats. For example, brook trout can be found in most mid-high elevation coldwater
streams within the RMPPA.

3.19.2 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Wildlife

Species

The species listed below are likely to occur within the RMPPA (Appendix 10). They (1) are federally
protected; (2) have associated critical habitat; (3) have been determined to be eligible for listing but are
precluded (candidate); (4) are part of a nonessential, experimental population; and/or (5) occur in either
the North Platte River or Colorado River system. These species are discussed in further detail in this
section.

Section 7 of the ESA requires that federal agencies (such as BLM) address impacts on species listed
under the ESA through consultations with USFWS (USDI, BLM 2004b). Consultations begin informally
when a federal agency requests a list of species listed under the ESA. If a listed species exists in the area
being assessed, informal consultation will continue and/or BLM may prepare a Biological Assessment
(BA). The initial determination of effect is made by the lead agency, in this case BLM (50 CFR Part 420).
If the BA indicates that the Proposed Action may adversely affect a listed species or its habitat, then BLM
must enter formal consultation with USFWS. USFWS then prepares a Biological Opinion (BO) that
determines whether the Proposed Plan would adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. The BO is
based on information provided in the BA, but the BO may concur with or dispute the determination of

3-152

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

impact. The process of formal and informal consultation with USFWS ensures that BLM actions conserve
listed species and their critical habitat.

Bald Eagle (Threatened) Habitat

Bald eagles appear to be recovering rangewide in the lower 48 states; however, they are still listed in the
ESA and require special consideration in evaluation of project impacts. In the RMPPA, the bald eagle is
generally a winter migrant, but some eagles nest in the RMPPA. Usable nesting habitats do exist in the
RMPPA, and, because prey is available, there is the potential for additional nesting bald eagles.

Bald eagles are believed to live for more than 30 years in the wild and even longer in captivity. They mate
for life and often reuse old nests from previous years. The eagles’ preferred nesting locations are close to
rivers, lakes, marshes, and wetland areas. Primary concerns for bald eagles include disease, lack of food,
bad weather, and human interference (USDI, BLM 2004b).

Black-Footed Ferret (Endangered) Habitat

Black-footed ferrets are associated with prairie dog communities, which provide potential habitat within
the RMPPA. Prairie dog burrows provide potential retreats for ferrets, and the prairie dogs themselves
provide a supply of food. Black-footed ferret numbers have been shown to be directly linked to
fluctuations in the prairie dog population. In the RMPPA, both the black-tailed prairie dog ( Cynomys
ludovicianus ) and the white-tailed prairie dog ( Cynomys leucurus ) are present. Any disturbance to prairie
dog towns may affect the black-footed ferret populations. A primary concern, aside from direct loss of the
food base, is the potential for distemper transmission from domestic canines to the prairie dogs. A
nonessential experimental population of black-footed ferrets has been reintroduced within the RMPPA in
the vicinity of the Shirley Basin. Although naturally occurring populations of black-footed ferrets are no
longer known within the RMPPA, suitable habitat does exist; therefore, there is always the potential for
ferrets to occur (USDI, BLM 2004b).

Canada Lynx (Threatened) Habitat

The Canada lynx is a secretive, forest-dwelling cat that inhabits northern latitudes and high mountains.
The lynx feeds primarily on small mammals and birds, particularly snowshoe hares. Habitats utilized by
the Canada lynx include old-growth forests. Their home range can be extensive as they forage for food.
BLM-administered public lands have limited direct habitat for the lynx; however, they may provide
corridors for movement and habitat for forage. There are no identified Lynx Analysis Units (LAU)
located on BLM-administered public lands within the RMPPA, but there are LAUs identified on USFS
lands adjacent to BLM-administered lands within the RMPPA.

The primary limits to Canada lynx recovery are inadequate habitat areas, fragmentation of habitats, lack
of forage, and human intervention (USDI, BLM 2004b).

Platte River System Species (Endangered and Threatened)

The Platte River system species include the least tern, the piping plover, the whooping crane, the Western
prairie fringed orchid, and the pallid sturgeon, all of which occur in the Platte River system in association
with riverine habitat. The Western prairie fringed orchid is discussed within the vegetation section. Least
tern populations are listed as endangered in Nebraska, Colorado, and Montana, but not in Wyoming. The
piping plover is listed as threatened, with critical habitat designated in Nebraska and Montana. The pallid
sturgeon is listed as an endangered species and is found almost exclusively in the headwaters of the
Missouri River (in the vicinity of Fort Benton/Great Falls, Montana) downstream to the Mississippi River
near New Orleans, Louisiana. In addition, the pallid sturgeon is found in the Platte River near its
confluence with the Missouri River. Although individuals of the four animal species listed above are not
likely to be present in any abundance in Wyoming or in the RMPPA, their populations may be susceptible

Rawlins RMP

3-153

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

Final EIS

to actions upstream in the Platte River system. Therefore, any RMPPA actions that may cause water
depletion in the Platte River system are carefully considered (USDI, BLM 2004b) (Appendix 1 1).

Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Threatened) Habitat and Critical Habitat

The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (PMJM) is a small rodent with big feet that are adapted to jumping.
It is closely related to other subspecies of meadow mice. The diet of these rodents consists of seeds, fruits,
fungi, and insects. Hibernation occurs from October through May in small underground burrows that the
mouse excavates. Nests are made of grass, leaves, or woody material excavated several centimeters below
ground level. The PMJM is primarily nocturnal or crepuscular but is occasionally observed during the
day. Its preferred habitat is low undergrowth consisting of grasses, forbs, or a mixture of both in wet
meadows and riparian corridors, or where tall shrubs and low trees provide adequate cover. The PMJM
exhibits a preference for lush vegetation along streams and herbaceous understories in wooded areas in
close proximity to water. Threats to the PMJM are the loss of riparian habitat, fragmentation of habitat,
and reduction in preferred forage.

Although no designated critical habitat for the PMJM is located on BLM-administered lands, the
Cottonwood Creek, Chugwater Creek, and Lodgepole Creek and Upper Middle Lodgepole Creek
designated critical habitat units do cross the Rawlins RMPPA. The Cottonwood Creek, Chugwater Creek,
and Lodgepole Creek and Middle Lodgepole Creek units are collectively composed of 10,542 acres of
PMJM habitat extending for a total of 125.1 stream miles on private, state, municipal, or USFS-
administered lands.

On February 2, 2005, USFWS proposed to remove the PMJM from the list of threatened species
protected by the ESA. The delisting proposal was based on recent genetic research indicating genetic
similarities between the PMJM and other subspecies of meadow jumping mouse. In search of the best
science available, the USFWS commissioned another scientist to perform genetic analysis of a number of
subspecies of meadow jumping mice, and the results of that study seemed to indicate that the PMJM is
indeed a distinct subspecies of jumping mouse and should continue to be protected by the ESA. Until a
final rule is made, the PMJM will continue to be protected and managed as a “threatened” species under
the ESA.

Wyoming Toad (Endangered) Habitat

The Wyoming toad is a federal endangered species whose known natural populations since 1987 have
been restricted to a 2-square-mile area around Mortenson Lake, near Laramie and within the RMPPA. An
ongoing captive breeding program and reintroductions at selected sites within the toad’s historic range in
the Laramie Basin are enabling population increases by this species (USDI, BLM 2004b).

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Candidate) Habitat

The yellow-billed cuckoo was designated as a candidate for listing by USFWS on July 25, 2001. It
utilizes riparian and woodland habitats along rivers and streams in the western United States. The primary
forage for the yellow-billed cuckoo is large insects and occasionally small frogs and lizards. The
predominant impact on the yellow-billed cuckoo is the loss of large blocks of riparian habitat due to
fragmentation, overgrazing, exotic plant community changes, river management, and agricultural
conversion of native vegetation. The yellow-billed cuckoo west of the Continental Divide is considered a
distinct population segment (USDI, BLM 2004b).

Colorado River System Species

The humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail chub, and razorback sucker are endemic species to
the Colorado River drainage. Although these species do not occur within the RMPPA boundary,
management actions within the boundary could affect the downstream habitats of these species. These

3-154

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

four Colorado River fish are federally listed as endangered and are directly affected by activities that may
deplete water in the Colorado River watershed. USFWS has determined that federal actions resulting in
water depletion in the Colorado River system might affect these fish species (USDI, BLM 2004b)
(Appendix 1 1) and would require consultation.

Depletions include evaporative losses and consumptive use of surface or ground water within the affected
basin, often characterized as diversions less return flows. Project elements that could be associated with
depletions include but are not limited to ponds (detention, recreation, irrigation storage, and stock
watering), lakes (recreation, irrigation storage, municipal storage, and power generation), pipelines, wells,
diversion structures, and water treatment facilities.

A recovery plan and the resulting Recovery Implementation Program for the four Colorado River fish
have been approved. The recovery plan includes life history descriptions, distribution, reason for decline,
current conservation efforts, and recovery strategy for the species. The Recovery Implementation
Program includes the actions that must be taken to remove the species from federal listing (USDI, BLM
2004b).

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Plant Species

Threatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed plants that are located within the RMPPA are discussed
in further detail in 3.15.6.

3.19.3 BLM Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species List Habitat
Management

BLM and WGFD are responsible for managing a wide array of wildlife and associated habitat in the
RMPPA. In general, WGFD is responsible for managing the wildlife populations and BLM manages the
habitats on public lands. Wildlife species listed on the BLM Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species
List and their associated habitats are discussed in this section. These animals are recognized as being of
particular interest to the public and are a focus for management. BLM Sensitive Plant Species are
discussed in further detail in 3.15.7.

• Currently, 18 mammal, bird, amphibian, fish, and plant species in the RMPPA are federally listed
or are candidates and must be taken into consideration for management activities (Appendix 10).
BLM has also identified an additional 9 state sensitive mammal species, 15 bird species, 3
amphibian species, 5 fish species, and 8 plants.

Information is provided below on the habitats, regulatory and consultation requirements, and species of
concern relevant to the RMPPA planning process.

Habitats Supporting Species of Special Concern

The RMPPA includes a diversity of habitats on which BLM generally focuses most management efforts.
These habitats are the major plant communities or terrestrial features within the review area that are
important to wildlife. Wildlife habitats include streamside riparian, springs, seeps, wet meadows, seasonal
wetlands, playas and lakebeds, cliffs, caves, talus slopes, dry meadows, dryland shrubs, juniper
woodlands, ponderosa pine forests, mixed conifer forests, and quaking aspen groves.

In these important vegetation communities, ongoing changes, many of them caused by humans, have
altered the animal habitat within the RMPPA. Examples of management practices that have modified
these habitats include the conversion of wet meadows to dry meadows due to lowering of water tables,
conversion of shrublands to juniper woodlands primarily due to changes in fire regimes, and the
conversion of aspen groves to shrubland due to fire suppression and grazing. These practices have
reduced the size and number of these limited habitats important to species of special concern. BLM

Rawlins RMP

3-155

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

Final EIS

manages these habits for species that are threatened or endangered, or are candidates for or proposed for
listing under federal and state mandates. BLM also manages habitat for species on the Wyoming BLM
Sensitive Species List under BLM mandate to avoid further decline of these species.

Mountain Plover Habitat

The mountain plover breeds and nests in the RMPPA, typically utilizing habitats characterized as mixed-
grass and shortgrass prairie, cushion plant communities, shrub-steppe, plains, alkali flats, agricultural
lands, and prairie dog towns. Approximately 50 percent of the RMPPA is potential mountain plover
habitat: mountain plover surveys have identified large areas of occupied habitat where mountain plovers
breed and nest. Plovers may nest on sites where vegetation is sparse or absent, or near closely cropped
areas. Mountain plovers are rarely found near water and show a preference for previously disturbed or
modified habitats. The primary forage for the mountain plover is insects, grass seeds, and berries. Within
the RMPPA, the nesting period appears to be the most critical time for the mountain plover. Predation,
disturbance, abandonment of the nest, and direct destruction of the nest are potential impacts.

White-Tailed Prairie Dog Habitat

White-tailed prairie dogs inhabit open or slightly brushy country, including habitat with scattered junipers
and pines, and are located throughout the RMPPA. These species are similar to the black-tailed prairie
dog but are less colonial. These species do hibernate from October or November to March. The white-
tailed prairie dog has a yellowish body, but the tip of the tail is white (Burt et al. 1980).

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Habitat

Black-tailed prairie dogs inhabit dry upland prairies and are located in the northeast comer of the
RMPPA. These animals are diurnal and live in towns. Within towns, small groups of black-tailed prairie
dogs will display territorial behavior toward adjacent groups. They feed mostly on forbs and grasses but
may eat grasshoppers and other insects. They live in burrows with mounds that are usually 1 to 2 feet
high and 25 to 75 feet apart from each other. Black-tailed prairie dogs may be dormant for short periods
of time in cold weather but are not tme hibemators. They do compete with livestock for food; however,
the amount is negligible. Although once numerous on the prairies, they are now reduced to a few towns
through poisoning operations. The black-tailed prairie dog has a yellowish body, but the tip of the tail is
black (Burt et al. 1 980) (USDI, BLM 2004b).

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Map 3-13 shows the general locations of greater sage-grouse {Centrocercus spp .) leks, or strutting
grounds, and adjacent nesting areas within the RMPPA. During spring, grouse concentrate for courtship
and breeding in these areas, which are typically in openings surrounded by sagebrush, with an average
canopy density of 10 to 30 percent. Greater sage-grouse nest under sagebmsh, with 60 percent of hens
nesting within a 2-mile radius of the lek, and 70 percent of hens nesting within a 4-mile radius of the lek.
Young birds rely initially on insects. During warm, dry summer periods, grouse tend to stay within 1.5
miles of intermittent and perennial streams, where they feed on succulent forbs. Greater sage-grouse diets
shift to a majority of sagebmsh later in the year. Wintering areas for greater sage-grouse typically contain
tall sagebmsh that is available above the snow for cover and food (USDI, BLM 1987). Total shrub
canopy cover, residual grass cover, nonfood forb cover, and litter cover are the best predictors of greater
sage-grouse nesting habitat (Holloran 1999; Lyon 2000). Typically, greater sage-grouse nests are located
within sagebmsh communities that have 10 to 30 percent canopy cover (Holloran 1999; Lyon 2000). The
chance of a sage-grouse nest successfully hatching will increase 30 percent if it is in combination with
herbaceous vegetation exhibiting 20 percent cover and equal to or greater than 1 5 centimeters in height
(Holloran 1999). Nest success ranges from 12 to 86 percent, which is relatively low compared with other

3-156

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

prairie grouse species (Connelly et al. 2000). Maintaining continuous tracts of suitable habitat and a
suitable distance from disturbance are critical to the success of greater sage-grouse.

Greater sage-grouse have been extirpated from five states and one Canadian province, and populations
over the remainder of its range have declined an average of 33 percent from 1985 to 1995. Conservative
estimates suggest that 50 percent of the original area occupied by sage-grouse is no longer capable of
supporting the species on an annual basis (Connelly and Braun 1997). Wyoming historically supports
more greater sage-grouse than any other state because of the prevalence of sagebrush habitats (Patterson
1952). The areas in central and western Wyoming where sagebrush dominates landscapes and grouse
populations remain relatively contiguous and intact cumulatively represent one of the species’ last
strongholds. The number of male sage-grouse counted per lek in Wyoming decreased 17 percent between
1985 and 1995 (Connelly and Braun 1997), and regional declines as high as 73 percent between 1988 and
1999 have been recorded. No causative factors have been identified that explain population reductions
throughout Wyoming, although changes in the sagebrush-dominated areas where the birds typically reside
are thought to be among the principal factors.

Existing RMPPA-wide and statewide guidance prohibits exploration and development activity within 1/4
mile of a lek. There is also a timing stipulation within 2 miles of the lek center that protects breeding and
nesting greater sage-grouse, as well as a timing stipulation on winter habitat that protects wintering
greater sage-grouse. It should be noted that approximately 40 percent of the nesting birds would not be
protected by current timing stipulations (Holloran and Anderson 2005). Efforts are being made to map
suitable nesting habitat, which may extend beyond the current 2-mile buffer. This effort will provide
protection for a greater percentage of the suitable nesting habitat and nesting sage-grouse while allowing
development to occur. When sagebrush habitats are degraded by such things as wildland fires, clearing, or
herbicide treatments, vegetation reestablishment may take several years. Mountain big sagebrush on
productive sites may recover in 15 to 25 years or, in some cases, 30 years. Wyoming big sagebrush may
require 30 to 40 years to recover. Basin big sagebrush has intermediate recovery rates between these two
species (Slater 2003).

If 40 percent of nesting, early brood-rearing, or winter habitat has been lost or severely degraded within
the range of a population, the management emphasis is to protect remaining sagebrush that is at least
somewhat suitable for these functions (Connelly et al. 2000). Within comparatively intact sagebrush
ecosystems, treating up to 20 percent of degraded nesting and early brood-rearing habitats and 30 percent
of the winter habitat may be acceptable to improve habitat conditions (e.g., restoring herbaceous
understory; creating open patches of herbaceous vegetation; creating thin dense sagebrush canopies
exceeding 30 percent cover; creating openings within dense sagebrush; regenerating the shrub component
by setting back succession; enhancing herbaceous understory by reducing herbivory). At some point it
becomes difficult to mitigate habitat loss by treating vegetation, because the interim loss of habitat to the
treatment, combined with the habitat loss that is being mitigated, creates an unacceptable level of impact
to greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2000). These impacts are related not only to loss of nesting and
roosting habitat but also decreased food availability. Brood movement decreases with optimal food
availability, resulting in lower predator exposure and energetic costs of foraging (Lyon 2000). When
availability of forbs and grass is lowered, broods move longer distances and expend more energy to find
forage. The increase of movement, in addition to decreased grass for screening, may cause chicks to be
more exposed to predation (Lyon 2000).

In addition to habitat loss, development adjacent to sage-grouse lek sites may attribute to declines in
yearling male recruitment. Braun (1986) hypothesized that adult male greater sage-grouse return to leks
where they have established a territory until they die. Mining activity and large-scale habitat loss adjacent
to these leks reduce the number of yearling males recruited to replace the adults. Increased road
construction associated with such development may also impact greater sage-grouse populations.
Construction of these roads results in permanent travel routes; improved public access; increased long-
term, traffic-related disturbance to previously inaccessible regions; indirect noise impacts to leks from the

Rawlins RMP

3-157

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

Final EIS

road; and direct mortality (Braun 1998). Roads also provide a clear pathway for predator movement
unimpeded by vegetation or other obstructions (Lyon 2000). The road effect-distance, or the distance
from a road at which a population density decrease is detected, is positively correlated with increased
traffic density and speed and is more critical in years when wildlife populations are low (Forman and
Alexander 1998). Studies conducted in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado suggest that some recovery of
sage-grouse populations may occur after a site has been initially developed (with subsequent reclamation
of energy development, roads, etc.) (Braun 1997). However, there has been no evidence that population
levels attain their size before the disturbance.

Female sage-grouse also demonstrate site fidelity in relation to nesting areas surrounding the lek (Lyon
2000; Schroeder et al. 1999). In addition, female yearlings nest in the same areas as their mothers (Lyon
2000). Even in areas of high disturbance, females continue to maintain their site fidelity; however, this is
not without some behavioral modification. The results from a study conducted by Lyon (2000) indicated
that hens captured on disturbed leks demonstrated lower nest initiation rates, traveled twice as far to nest
sites, and selected higher total shrub canopy cover and live sagebrush canopy cover than hens captured
off of undisturbed leks.

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat

Historically in Wyoming, the range of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse extended westward from the
Continental Divide. Currently, the only Wyoming population of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is found
within the RMPPA, located from the Colorado state line north to the Sand Hills ACEC. These grouse
typically are found in mountain and basin big sagebrush habitat. In spring this species concentrates on
traditional dancing grounds for courtship and breeding. These dancing grounds are typically found in
mixed-shrub habitat of antelope bitterbrush, snowberry, serviceberry, chokecherry, and big sagebrush,
evenly mixed with grasses and forbs. Broods in Wyoming are found most often in mountain shrub and
sagebrush, with a high density of snowberry. Birds move to ridges and knolls in mountain shrub habitat
during the fall, and then move to riparian habitat with exposed mixed-shrub communities at all elevations
in the winter, where they feed on buds, berries, and catkins (USOI, BLM 1987). There is currently no
hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, but there are some accidental takings where the
populations overlap with greater sage-grouse. The bird was proposed for listing, but this was found not
warranted by USFWS.

Western Boreal Toad Habitat

The Southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad ( Bufo boreas) has suffered drastic
population reductions since the early 1980s in the Southern Rockies and declines in the Sierra Madre. The
western boreal toad is currently a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended. Causes for decline are being investigated and include impacts from the occurrence of the
chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). Habitats used by this species include wet meadows and
marshes, encompassing riparian areas and pond margins. A Conservation Plan and Agreement for the
management and recovery of the Southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad was completed
in February 2001 (USDI, BLM 2004b).

Other BLM Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species Habitat

In addition to the BLM Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species discussed in detail above, there are
eight mammals, four raptors, eight neotropical migratory birds, two amphibians, and four fish species that
are also included on this list and are identified below. The BLM Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive
Plant Species that are located within the RMPPA are discussed in further detail in 3.15.7.

3-158

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

Mammals

The sensitive mammals include three bat species, one shrew species, one gopher species, and one fox
species, which are listed below. The habitats required to support the life functions of the species are also
listed below:

• Wyoming Pocket Gopher. Meadows with loose soil

• Swift Fox. Grasslands and greasewood-dominated flats

• Long-Eared Myotis. Caves, rocky outcrops, and abandoned mines

• Fringed Myotis. Caves and abandoned mines

• Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat. Caves, rocky outcrops, and abandoned mines

• Spotted Bat. Cliffs over perennial water and basin-prairie shrub

• Pygmy Rabbit. Basin-prairie and riparian shrub.

Birds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 protects waterfowl, eagles, raptors, and other avian species that
migrate through the RMPPA. Specific concerns include harassment, collection, molestation, disturbance,
and killing. Impacts to nesting migratory birds, including collection of eggs, nests, or birds, and
harassment of nesting birds are considered activities that violate the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

There is a diversity of neotropical migratory bird species located throughout the RMPPA area that require
specific habitat types for their life cycles. These species can be either generalists or specialists and occupy
one or more of the following habitat types: forest and woodland communities, grasslands, shrub
communities, and wetland/riparian communities including desert riparian, foothills, and mountain riparian
communities (Section 3.15, Vegetation). These species occupy diverse niches and may require additional
management.

Raptors

BLM Sensitive raptors include species that feed on rodents and avifauna found in the RMPPA. These are
as follows:

• Ferruginous Hawk. Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands, and outcroppings

• Peregrine Falcon. Tall cliffs

• Burrowing Owl. Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub, and prairie dog towns

• Northern Goshawk. Conifers and deciduous forests.

Neotropical Migratory Birds

BLM Sensitive neotropical migratory birds found in the RMPPA include the following:

• Loggerhead Shrike. Basin-prairie and mountain foothill shrub

• White-Faced Ibis. Marshes and wet meadows (shorebird)

• Trumpeter Swan. Lakes, ponds, and rivers (migratory)

• Long-Billed Curlew. Grasslands, plains, and wet meadows

• Brewer’s Sparrow. Basin-prairie shrub

• Sage Thrasher. Basin-prairie and mountain foothill shrub

• Sage Sparrow. Basin-prairie and mountain foothill shrub

• Baird’s Sparrow. Grasslands and weedy fields.

Rawlins RMP

3-159

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

Final EIS

Amphibians

The northern leopard frog and the Great Basin spadefoot toad have been identified as sensitive species by
BLM. They occur in marshes and wetlands in the project area. There is a regionwide decline in these
species, resulting in initiation of several amphibian recovery efforts by federal and state entities.

Reptiles

At this time there are no sensitive species reptiles identified on the BLM Wyoming State Director’s
Sensitive Species List for the RMPPA.

Fish

Of the native fishes found within the RMPPA, five species have been identified as Sensitive Species by
Wyoming BLM. These include the Colorado River cutthroat trout, roundtail chub, bluehead sucker,
flannelmouth sucker, and homyhead chub. In response to observed declines in the distribution of these
species, conservation strategies have been developed or initiated in cooperation with state natural resource
management agencies and federal agencies for all species with the exception of the homyhead chub.
Currently, a conservation plan and management strategy has not been implemented for the homyhead
chub. However, federal authorized actions would consider homyhead chub habitat as part of the BLM
Manual 6840 — Special Status Species Policy.

Factors that have been identified as contributing to the observed reduction in the range of Colorado River
cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) include the effects of introduced fish and land
management practices that alter the suitability of coldwater stream habitat. Management of Colorado
River cutthroat trout populations within the RMPPA is guided by two efforts: the Conservation
Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout in the states of Colorado, Utah, and
Wyoming provides rangewide guidance, and the Conservation Plan for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout —
Little Snake River, Southeastern Wyoming, details actions to be taken locally to ensure the persistence of
this species in the Little Snake River enclave. This local plan identifies areas where the management of
this species will be emphasized. Within the RMPPA, the area of emphasis is the upper Muddy Creek
watershed. Within the upper Muddy Creek watershed, the plan identifies actions that will need to be taken
to restore the native fish community to the stream (now occupied by introduced fish). These actions
include the removal of introduced fish, reintroduction of native fish, and management of fish habitats.
These actions will result in the temporary loss of angling opportunities while the introduced fish are
removed and subsequently replaced with native fishes.

As a signatory to the local management plan for Colorado River cutthroat trout, the RMPPA has
significant responsibilities for the management of habitats within the upper Muddy Creek drainage to
increase the suitability of the systems for reintroduction of Colorado River cutthroat trout and to increase
the stability of riparian systems. As actions are taken to reach this goal, the number of stream miles
available to coldwater fish such as trout will increase. It is anticipated that the number of stream miles
available to trout species will roughly double as a result of implementing these conservation strategies,
providing increased angling opportunities and helping to ensure the persistence of this native fish.
Increased riparian functionality and stability would further increase the suitability of riparian habitats for
a number of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species, such as big game species and amphibians.

Additional conservation planning efforts have been initiated for roundtail chub, bluehead sucker, and
flannelmouth sucker throughout their range as a result of observed declines in the distribution of these
species. These declines have been attributed to a combination of factors, including the effects of
introduced fish, water development activities, and land management activities. Current conservation
planning efforts emphasize the need to better understand populations of these native fish and factors
affecting their viability in order to identify biologically meaningful conservation actions. As a result of
these needs, the RFO, in cooperation with the University of Wyoming and WGFD, has actively

3-160

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 3 — Wildlife and Fish

conducted research on the habitat associations, movements, and fish community associations of these
three species within the Muddy Creek watershed. The fish community of the Muddy Creek watershed is
unique to Wyoming, harboring populations of each of these three native fishes. The presence of these
species presents a unique opportunity for BLM as well as its cooperators to proactively contribute to the
understanding of the habitat requirements and the life history characteristics of these species. These
efforts will be used to help develop effective and biologically meaningful conservation strategies that
preclude the need to list these species as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

Rawlins RMP

3-161

Final EIS

Chapter 4

CHAPTER 4— ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter objectively evaluates the environmental impacts of implementing each alternative described
in Chapter 2. This chapter forms the analytic basis for the comparative summary of impacts presented in
Section 2.6. Chapter 3 describes the existing conditions of the resource topics that would be affected by
the alternatives. The organization of this chapter parallels that of Chapter 3; the same resource topics are
presented in alphabetical order. Because resource topics are often interrelated, one section may refer to
another.

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to determine the potential for significant impact of the ‘‘federal action” on
the “human environment.” The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) state that the “human environment” shall be interpreted
comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that
environment (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §1508.14). The “federal action” is the Bureau of
Land Management’s (BLM) selection of an alternative plan on which future land use actions would be
based.

There are many BLM management actions that are common to all alternatives. Impacts that are common
to all are discussed under the Impacts Common to All Alternatives section under each heading. Impacts of
management actions that are the same for two or more alternatives or that vary by alternative are
discussed under each resource heading. Some BLM management actions may affect only certain
resources and alternatives. If an activity or action is not addressed in a given section, it is because no
impacts are anticipated.

Compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies is a part of day-to-day business. A description
of the authorities that apply to the selection and implementation of the management actions for the
Resource Management Plan (RMP) is presented in Section 1.4. Such regulations deal with air quality,
cultural resources, natural history resources, accessibility, hazardous materials, threatened and endangered
(T&E) species, and water quality, for example. The effects discussed in the analysis are those that would
result from implementation of management actions, not those that would result from compliance with
laws, regulations, and policies.

Types of Impacts

Analysis of the alternatives focuses on identifying types of impacts and estimating their potential
significance. Throughout this chapter, the terms “impact” and “effect” are synonymous. An overview of
the types of impacts is presented below. Cumulative impacts are defined and discussed separately in
Section 4.20.

Direct Impacts

These are effects caused by the action and occur at the time and place of the action. Examples include the
elimination of original land use as a result of the erection of a structure.

Rawlins RMP

4-1

Chapter 4

Final EIS

Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts are effects that are caused by the action but occur later in time or are farther removed in
distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable and related to the action by a chain of cause and effect.
Indirect impacts may reach beyond the natural and physical environment (e.g., environmental impact) to
include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes to resource users (e.g., non-
environmental impact).

Determination of Significance

Both direct and indirect impacts may be significant. “Significant” requires consideration of the context
and intensity of the impact. This means that an action must be analyzed in several contexts — such as the
immediate vicinity, affected interests, and locality. Both short-term and long-term effects are relevant.
Intensity refers to the severity of the impact. Thus, significant impacts have intensity that must be
considered negligible, minor, greater, or substantial.

Determining significance is complex. The significance of an impact is dynamic and thus may change
during the planning period. Significance can be “real” and supportable by fact, or “perceived” and
perhaps not fully supportable even with rigorous study. For this analysis, the approach for establishing
significance criteria was based on, but not limited to, legal requirements, public perception, monitoring
data, and professional judgment.

Specific significance criteria are presented for each resource topic. The criteria provide thresholds beyond
which impacts would be considered significant. Each resource topic ends with a summary statement
regarding significant effects.

Regions of Influence

Regions of influence (ROI) are the potential areas that an alternative may reasonably affect. ROIs can
vary by resource topic. Limits of ROI may be natural features (such as a watershed), political boundaries
(such as a county), or industry-accepted norms of the resource (such as used in one aspect of air quality).

The ROI for all resource topics includes all public lands and minerals administered by BLM within the
Resource Management Plan Planning Area (RMPPA), as well as the following:

• The ROI for impacts concerning socioeconomics includes four counties in southern Wyoming:
Albany, Carbon, Laramie, and a portion of Sweetwater.

• The ROI for impacts concerning air quality includes the nearby air quality sensitive areas, such as
national parks and wilderness areas. In addition, a multi-state regional area was considered for
haze issues. More details on the regional areas and the specific locations of areas outside of the
RMPPA are found in the Air Quality Technical Support Document (AQTSD).

• The ROI for the cumulative impact assessment is presented in Section 4.20.

Methods and Assumptions

Impact analysis is a cause-and-effect process. In evaluating the context of an impact, an affected resource
is compared to the available area or quantity of that resource. The analysis identified resources that would
be altered based on management actions and then predicted changes to these resources. The magnitude or
scale of the resource change was defined, and a judgment as to the significance of that change was made

4-2

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4

based on the significance criteria. Additional information regarding specific methods of analysis is
presented for each resource topic.

Environmental impacts associated with the alternatives are caused by land use activities. Certain
assumptions are made regarding level of land use activity, resource condition, and resource response on
which to determine potential impacts.

The analysis is based on the following assumptions:

• Short-term impacts are defined as those impacts that are anticipated to begin and end within the
first 5 years after the action is implemented. Long-term impacts are defined as lasting beyond 5
years to the end of or beyond the 20-year planning time frame addressed in the RMP.

• This planning effort will recognize valid existing rights.

• Actions must comply with laws, executive orders, and regulations.

• Lands covered in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the planning effort include
any/all lands that may affect or be affected by the management occurring on BLM-administered
public lands in the RMPPA. However, the planning decisions in the RMP will apply only to
BLM-administered public lands and federal mineral estate in the RMPPA.

• Planning decisions in the RMPPA also apply to BLM-administered federal minerals that underlie
nonfederal lands (split estate).

• Within the RMPPA, there will be no RMP decisions made on nonfederal land surface or mineral
estate, on federal lands administered by other federal agencies, or on the federal mineral estate
underlying federal lands administered by other federal agencies.

• A collaborative and multi-jurisdictional approach will be used, where possible, to jointly
determine the desired plant communities and management direction for the public lands.

• To the extent possible and within legal and regulatory parameters, BLM management and
planning decisions will be consistent with the planning and management decisions of other
agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes with jurisdictions intermingled with the
RMPPA.

• Planning and management direction will focus on the relative values of resources and not
exclusively on the greatest economic return or economic output.

• For the planning effort, current scientific information, research, and new technologies will be
used.

• Reasonably foreseeable action or activity (RFA) scenarios for all land and resource uses
(including minerals) will be developed and portrayed based on historical, existing, and projected
levels for all programs.

• Existing endangered species recovery plans, including plans for reintroduction of endangered
species and other species, will be considered. Consultation, coordination, and cooperation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be in accordance with the 2000 BLM/USFWS
Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding Section 7 Consultation. All
existing biological assessments and biological opinions regarding areas within the RMPPA wiil
be reviewed for applicability.

Rawlins RMP

4-3

Chapter 4

Final EIS

• Restrictions or prohibitions will be placed on activities in specific areas to protect sensitive
resources.

• Mitigation requirements exist that prevent or limit direct impacts associated with land use
activities or that reclaim the land after the activity has been completed.

• Standards and guidelines assess rangeland health and provide strategies to achieve resource
conditions and management objectives.

• Projections of the level of activity for land uses are based on historical trends, existing land use

agreements such as leases or permits, and statements of interest in land use by individuals and

industry organizations.

• Analysis will consider impacts of land use activities that occur regardless of location of the land
use, and impacts dependent on the location of the activity and potentially affected resources.

• Funding would be available to implement the alternatives described in Chapter 2.

• The Flazard Management and Resource Restoration Program (HMRRP) will manage the

hazardous materials associated with all alternatives in the same general manner in accordance
with laws, policies, and regulations. The objectives of the HMRRP are to protect public health,
safety, and the environment on public lands; emphasize waste reduction for BLM-authorized and
BLM-initiated actions; comply with applicable federal and state laws; prevent waste
contamination from BLM-authorized actions; minimize federal exposure to the liabilities
associated with hazardous materials management and waste management on public lands; and
integrate pollution prevention, hazardous materials, waste management, and waste reduction
policies and controls into all BLM programs. Details of the HMRRP program can be found in
Appendix 32.

• The introduction of invasive invertebrates, vertebrates, microorganisms, and pathogens can
threaten the stability of ecosystems, create serious human health consequences, and cause
substantial economic burdens. Large majorities of native and non-native species do not pose a
threat to natural or human systems. However, if any of these species becomes a concern, the
Rawlins Field Office (RFO) would cooperate and coordinate with appropriate government
agencies, private industry, and other interested parties involved in public education efforts and
control, management, and research of invasive species.

Additional assumptions are presented in the Methods section under each resource topic.

BLM manages public lands for multiple uses in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Land use decisions are made that protect the resources while
allowing for multiple-use of those resources, such as livestock grazing, energy development, and
recreation. Where there are conflicts between resource uses, or a land use activity may result in
irreversible or irretrievable impacts to the environment, BLM may restrict or prohibit some land uses in
specific areas. To ensure that BLM meets its mandate of multiple-use in land management actions, the
impacts of the alternatives on resource users are identified and assessed as part of the planning process.
The projected impacts on land use activities and the associated environmental impacts of land uses are
characterized and evaluated for each of the alternatives. It is important to note that all management
prescriptions for each resource and resource use directly or indirectly relate to each other; therefore,
impacts of other prescriptions and guidance may apply to each resource management activity.

4-4

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4- Air Quality

4.2 Air Quality

This section presents the impacts on air quality from management actions of other resource programs.
Existing conditions concerning air quality are described in Section 3.2.

Significance Criteria

If and when specific activities are proposed at the implementation stage requiring quantitative analysis,
however, impacts to air quality would be compared to the following significance criteria:

• The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or Wyoming Ambient Air Quality
Standards (WAAQS)

• The applicable Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments

• Federal guidelines for visibility impairment and atmospheric deposition.

More detailed information on the significance criteria is included in the AQTSD, Appendix 4.

Methods of Analysis

A qualitative emission comparison approach was selected for analysis of impacts on air quality.
Quantitative analysis will be required for specific proposals as development projects are defined in the
future. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD) will
require demonstration of compliance with federal and state air quality regulations and standards for any
future development projects. Given the uncertainties concerning the number, nature, and specific location
of future emission sources and activities, the emission comparison approach provides a sound basis to
compare the potential impacts under the various alternatives. A detailed list of all assumptions used in this
impact assessment is presented in the AQTSD.

The emissions inventory was developed for the RMPPA using best available information concerning
activities on BLM land provided by the RFO and summarized in the AQTSD. The calculations used
emissions factors accepted and recognized by state and federal regulatory agencies. This analysis selected
three different time frames to evaluated future emissions. The time frames reflect the current base year
conditions, short-term impacts, and long-term impacts. It is assumed that all, if any, emission growth will
be constant and linear in time.

The inventory time frames are as follows:

• Current emissions (using the year 2003 as a basis)

• Five-year potential emissions for the short term (2008)

• Twenty-year potential emissions for the long tenn (2023).

The base emissions reflect the year 2003, because the base year well data are for oil and gas wells on the
ground ending October 31, 2003.

The analysis is based on the following assumptions:

• Emission factors recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (EPA 1995)
are appropriate for all activities, except for those emission factors that have been lowered through
WDEQ-AQD best available control technology (BACT) requirements.

Rawlins RMP

4-5

Chapter 4~Air Quality

Final EIS

• Activity factors (the quantification of activity for each resource provided by the RFO) are
appropriate for the base year and future time frames.

• Any anticipated recreational growth would follow growth trends for Wyoming over the past 10
years.

• For the qualitative analysis, only emissions from RFO BLM-administered activities are included.
For the cumulative analysis, emissions calculations are included for other federal and nonfederal
permitted actions throughout the state.

• Criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) are included in the calculations.

• Coal mining activity would be 1 .2 million tons per year production, with the coal mining activity
ceasing in 2004, and with coal mine lands reclamation continuing for the next 8 years, thereafter.

• No trona mining activity would occur on RFO BLM land.

• Prescribed and wildland fire emissions are estimated by Simple Approach Smoke Estimation
Model (SASEM) (Sestak and Riebau 1988).

Emissions were calculated for the following activities: coalbed natural gas (CBNG) development, coal
mining, lands and realty actions, livestock management activities, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use,
resource roads, disposable mineral development, vegetation management (including prescribed fire), and
conventional natural gas development. Activities related to cultural resources, paleontology, recreation,
transportation and access, noxious and invasive weed control, wild horses, and wildlife and fish are
assumed to produce minimal air pollutant emissions.

Figures 4- 1-4-4 provide a summary of potential oil and gas wells for all the alternatives. These are the
total numbers of wells that are projected to be operational at any given time. The calculations take into
account new wells added minus old wells abandoned. All alternatives indicate projected growth in oil and
gas development.

The emissions estimates found in Figures 4-5^4-20 present emission calculations for all alternatives. The
base year calculations are also used to compare air quality impacts under other alternatives. As project-
specific developments are proposed, quantitative air quality analysis would be conducted for project-
specific assessments performed pursuant to NEPA.

Potential air emissions were identified for all resource programs. Additional detailed data concerning
emissions are appended in the AQTSD, Appendix 4. The emissions from each of the individual resources
are outlined below.

Figure 4-5 presents a summary of base year estimated emissions for actions occurring on lands
administered by BLM within RMPPA. More detailed information on the emissions factors and
calculations is appended in Appendix 4.

The AQTSD also includes the calculation methodology and specific reference sources used to develop
emissions data. The total emissions were broken down for CBNG, conventional oil and gas, and other
BLM activities for each alternative and for the 5- and 20-year time frames (Figures 4-9-4-20). As shown
in Figures 4-9-4-16, growth in air emission is anticipated in the short and long term from oil and gas
activities.

The increase in potential annual emissions over time for all ambient air constituents was calculated from
the information presented in Figures 4-5— 4-8 and is shown in Table 4-1 and Figures 4-21—4-24 for each

4-6

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Air Quality

alternative. For Alternative 2, growth in particulate emissions from mineral material disposal is
anticipated. For Alternative 3, increased prescribed fire activities would increase particulate matter.
Again, calculation details are found in the AQTSD and in the emission tables.

Table 4-1. Increase in Annual Air Emissions from 2003 Conditions
on BLM-Administered Lands Within the RMPPAa

Time

Frame

PM10

PM2.5

NOx

so2

CO

voc

HAP

Alternative 1

2008

519

(28%)

135

(22%)

2,228

(69%)

29

(48%)

2,074

(101%)

4,831

(35%)

537

(38%)

2023

1,047

(57%)

397

(64%)

6,932

(214%)

64

(105%)

7,433

(361%)

7,109

(52%)

921

(64%)

Alternative 2

2008

576

(31%)

151

(24%)

2,440

(76%)

33

(54%)

2,206

(107%)

5,369

(39%)

594

(42%)

2023

1,132

(61%)

429

(69%)

7,433

(230%)

69

(113%)

7,856

(381%)

8,848

(64%)

1,109

(78%)

Alternative 3

2008

289

(16%)

73

(12%)

1,414

(44%)

13

(21%)

1,575

(76%)

1,953

(14%)

236

(17%)

2023

699

(38%)

275

(44%)

5,046

(156%)

40

(66%)

5,806

(282%)

2,775

(20%)

434

(30%)

Alternative 4

2008

411

(22%)

109

(17%)

1,823

(56%)

19

(31%)

1,949

(95%)

4,596

(33%)

512

(36%)

2023

934

(50%)

368

(59%)

6,500

(201%)

53

(87%)

7,273

(353%)

6,585

(48%)

867

(61%)

a Constituents increase in tons per year and in percentage from base year emissions.

The State of Wyoming has the regulatory authority to require BACT. Impacts on visibility and
atmospheric deposition could be mitigated by reducing emission of fine particulate matter, sulfur dioxides
(S02), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and hydrocarbons (Malm 1999). Possible methods that could mitigate air
quality impacts are shown in Table A4-15 in Appendix 4. This table applies only to traditional oil and gas
development.

4.2.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Several of the resources areas listed below (air resource management; cultural, forest management;
paleontology; socioeconomics; special designations/management areas [SD/MAs]; visual resource
management [VRM]; water quality, watershed, and soils management; wild horses; and wildlife and fish
management) will have only negligible impacts on air quality.

Rawlins RMP

4-7

Chapter 4-Air Quality

Final EIS

Air Resources

The air quality monitoring activities, which include construction of monitoring stations and vehicular
travel to service the monitoring stations, would have minimal impact on air resources. Information
obtained from monitoring would add to the knowledge base on which future air-related decisions would
be made.

Cultural

Short-term, localized increases in fugitive dust and vehicle exhaust emissions would occur during
excavations for data recovery at cultural resource sites.

Wildland Fire and Fuels Management

Wildland and prescribed fires would cause short-term emissions of particulate matter (PM) and carbon
monoxide (CO) that could be spread over large portions of the RMPPA depending on the size of the fire
and meteorological conditions. In addition, particulate emissions, CO, NOx, and hydrocarbons (volatile
organic compounds [VOC] and HAPs) would result from use of heavy equipment during fire suppression
activities. Emissions would be generated from internal combustion engines from vehicular exhausts
(referred to as tailpipe emissions) and directly from non-road engines (chainsaws, etc.).

Forest Management

The use of heavy equipment during timber hauling operations, such as logging trucks, on paved and
unpaved roads would cause emissions of PM, CO, NOx, SO2, and VOCs. The burning of slash piles after
timber harvesting would cause short-term emissions of PM and CO. The use of skidders or tractors for
skidding timber materials from the harvesting area to the loading or decking area during timber harvest
would produce some of the same emissions, but to a lesser degree.

Lands and Realty

The various construction activities authorized under lands and realty management (such as wind power,
communication sites, transmission lines, and pipeline projects) would produce emissions of PM. Soil
disturbance and travel on unpaved roads are the main causes of the emissions. Tailpipe emissions from
vehicular travel and emissions from equipment use would result from construction activities.

Livestock Grazing

Vehicle travel associated with trucking livestock and constructing and maintaining range improvements
would generate tailpipe emissions and dust.

Minerals

Air emissions from combustion processes and construction activities would be produced from all the
activities associated with oil and gas development and minerals mining.

Air emissions would be produced during all phases of oil and gas development, including exploration,
well development, production, and well abandonment and road closures. During exploration and
development, traffic on unpaved and paved roads would cause emissions of PM, CO, NOx, S02, and
VOCs. During well development and completion, well flaring and associated emissions would cause PM,
CO, NOx, S02, and VOC emissions (which includes HAPs). Also, during well development, drilling
activities and construction activities would cause particulate emissions and tailpipe emissions because of

4-8

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Air Quality

heavy equipment usage. Emissions associated with each well development and completion are not
continuous emissions but are rather temporary emissions. Typical well drilling and completion for each
well will be performed for a limited number of days, but for a specific proposed project, drilling may
occur in the RMPPA for several years.

Air emissions are produced during oil and gas production. Emissions of N(\ CO, and formaldehyde from
compression activities (burning of natural gas) would occur. PM, CO, NOx, and VOCs would be
produced from any glycol operations and flashing. Any flaring would cause PM, CO, NOx, S02, and
VOC emissions (which includes HAPs).

During well abandonment and road closure, PM from travel over unpaved roads and demolition activities
would result.

Air emissions would be produced during mining operations and reclamation activities. During mining
activities, PM emissions would be produced from overburden removal, blasting, truck loading,
bulldozing, grading, storage piles, railroad loading, and travel of heavy equipment over unpaved roads.
Gaseous emissions from tailpipes (CO, NOx, S02, and VOCs) would occur from heavy equipment, trains,
and vehicular travel.

OHV Management

The use of OHVs would cause fugitive dust emissions of PM from traffic on unpaved trails, and
emissions of PM, CO, NOx, and VOCs directly from the tailpipe. In the winter, tailpipe emissions
primarily occur from snowmobiles.

Paleontology

Short-term, localized increases in vehicular fugitive dust emissions would occur during excavations at and
during travel to paleontological sites.

Recreation

PM emissions from travel on unpaved roads and gaseous tailpipe emissions from vehicles would occur.

Socioeconomics

Upward trends in populations within the RMPPA create the potential for long-term additional increases in
emissions from all other resource management programs.

Special Designations/Management Areas

Impacts to air quality would result from activities in SD/MAs from exhaust emissions and fugitive dust.
Those activities associated with the management of SD/MAs (e.g., fire management and project
construction) are covered under the other resource topics.

Transportation

The maintenance of unpaved roads and shoulders of paved resource roads would cause PM emissions and
tailpipe emissions. Of particular concern are the emissions of PM from road graders.

Rawlins RMP

4-9

Chapter 4-Air Quality

Final EIS

Vegetation Management

Trucks and heavy equipment (chain saws, fire engines, bulldozers) used in vegetation management and
control would cause dust from unpaved roads. In addition, prescribed fires used for vegetation treatment
would cause particulate and gaseous emissions. Trucks and equipment to conduct and control prescribed
fire would cause tailpipe emissions. Areas receiving vegetation treatment would add short-term increases
in PM until vegetations recover sufficiently to stabilize exposed soil.

Visual Resources

No direct impacts to air resources would occur from VRM. Management practices, such as mitigation
measures designed to retain visual quality of VRM Class I and II areas, would reduce or eliminate
emissions from development and OHV use. VRM in Class III and IV areas creates the potential for long-
term emission increases.

Wild Horses

Trucks, heavy equipment, and helicopters used to gather wild horses would cause a short-term increase in
tailpipe and fugitive dust emissions.

Wildlife

Construction activity to manage wildlife and fish habitat would contribute to air emissions of PM. To a
lesser degree, CO, NOx, S02, and VOCs would be generated from tailpipes. These impacts would be short
term.

4.2.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing
Management

Figure 4-25 summarizes total and specific pollutant emissions for all alternatives. Alternative 1 emissions
have been estimated for the base year (2003), 2008, and 2023. The total emissions increase over time for
this alternative from the base year of 20,960 tons per year of pollutants to 43,545 tons per year by 2023.

4.2.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of
Resources

Figure 4-25 summarizes total and specific pollutant emissions for all of the alternatives. Alternative 2
emissions have been estimated for the base year (2003), 2008, and 2023. The total emissions increase
over time for this alternative from the base year of 20,960 tons per year of pollutants to 46,298 tons per
year by 2023, the highest of any alternative.

4.2.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of
Resources

Figure 4-25 summarizes total and specific pollutant emissions for all of the alternatives. Alternative 3
emissions have been estimated for the base year (2003), 2008, and 2023. The total emissions increase
over time for this alternative from the base year of 20,960 tons per year of pollutants to 35,282 tons per
year by 2023, the lowest of any alternative.

4-10

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Air Quality

4.2.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan

Figure 4-25 summarizes total and specific pollutant emissions for all of the alternatives. Alternative 4
emissions have been estimated for the base year (2003), 2008, and 2023. The total emissions increase
over time for this alternative from the base year of 20,960 tons per year of pollutants to 42,305 tons per
year by 2023.

Rawlins RMP

4-11

Chapter 4- Cultural Resources

Final EIS

4.3 Cultural Resources

This section presents the impacts to cultural resources from management actions for other resource
programs. Existing conditions concerning cultural resource management are described in Section 3.3.

Significance Criteria

Impacts to cultural resources would be considered significant if the following were to occur:

• Management actions that result in adverse effects to properties listed or determined eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or considered important to Native
American groups.

Methods of Analysis

The analysis of environmental impacts is based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources and the
project area, review of existing literature, and infonnation provided by other agencies and institutions.
Effects are quantified where possible. In cases where quantitative data are not readily available, best
professional judgment or qualitative assessments are used to describe impacts.

The criteria for assessing impacts are those stipulated by the federal regulations for Protection of Historic
Properties, which state that an undertaking may have an adverse effect when it —

“May alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that
qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would
diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, or association (36 CFR Part 800.5(a)(1)). Adverse effects may include reasonably
foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther in
distance or be cumulative.”

The analysis is based on the following assumptions:

• The overall density of cultural properties in the RMPPA is estimated to be approximately 22 sites
per section (640 acres), or approximately 1 site per every 29 acres; however, the density varies by
cultural subregion (Table 3-3). These densities are based upon the number of sites identified
during cultural resource inventories within each region. The overall density of cultural properties
in those areas of high and moderate oil and gas potential is estimated to be approximately 1 8 sites
per section (640 acres), or approximately 1 site per every 35 acres.

• Cultural resources would continue to be found throughout the RMPPA in proportion to the
assumptions of site density for each subregion.

• The number of sites that would be impacted by various actions is directly correlated with the
degree, nature, and quantity of surface disturbing and other disruptive activities within the
identified subregions within the RMPPA.

• When avoidance would be detrimental to other resource values and management direction,
mitigation of impacts to cultural resources would be performed in proportion to their significance.

• Cultural resource protection would occur in accordance with State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) coordination requirements and other federal regulations.

4-12

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4- Cultural Resources

• A cultural resource inventory, evaluation of site NRHP eligibility, and assessment of potential
effects from federal actions are required by law before the initiation of all surface disturbing and
other disruptive activities. This generally requires a Class III (100 percent) survey of the affected
area. This allows for prescriptive mitigation of impacts through avoidance or other measures
where necessary, and effectively minimizes or eliminates the potential for unmitigated impacts to
identified cultural resources.

• All authorizations for land and resource use must comply with all relevant laws, regulations, and
policies. See Appendix 5 for a discussion regarding the implementation of the cultural resource
management laws, regulations, and policies.

4.3.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Maintaining proper air quality would help protect and preserve environmentally sensitive cultural
resources, such as rock art, aspen art, and historic and prehistoric wooden structures. Air quality
management actions, such as development of air quality monitoring stations, would require standard
identification and mitigation measures to minimize impacts on cultural resources.

Management actions associated with cultural resources would provide direct protection to cultural
properties from restrictions placed on surface disturbing and other disruptive activities. These protective
measures are required by law prior to any surface disturbing and other disruptive activity (Appendix 5)
and include measures such as cultural resource inventory, evaluation of NRHP eligibility, and mitigation
of potential effects, generally through avoidance. In those areas where inventory, evaluation, and
avoidance are not considered adequate to preserve cultural resources, mitigation measures would be
prescribed on a case-by-case basis, depending upon the nature of the action and the type of cultural
resource involved. Mitigation measures would ensure that any potential impact from the proposed action
would not result in significant effects to known historic properties. These management actions would
apply to any proposed actions that have the potential to impact cultural resources.

Cultural resource inventory, recordation, evaluation, and data recovery excavation would increase the site
database and further the understanding of history and prehistory. This increased knowledge would allow
for the implementation of revised and more appropriate practices to manage future undertakings. Data
recovery excavations would remove all or a portion of in situ cultural materials at sites, but would require
an approved research design to minimize future data loss should new data recovery and analysis
techniques be developed.

Managing cultural resources in accordance with the Cultural Resource Use Allocations would ensure that
cultural resources are appropriately managed and preserved (Appendix 5). Cultural resources identified
for scientific use would be preserved until their research potential is realized. Those conserved for future
use would be preserved until specific conditions for their use are met. Cultural resources identified for
traditional use would be managed for long-term preservation. Those identified for public use would be
managed for long-term preservation and would be interpreted for public education. Those identified for
experimental use would be protected until the experimental use is realized. Cultural resources that have
been determined not eligible for the NRHP would be discharged from management and therefore would
no longer be protected from future management actions.

Where the integrity of setting contributes to NRHP eligibility, management actions resulting in visual
elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s setting would be managed in accordance with the
Wyoming State Protocol and best management practices (BMPs) (Appendix 5). Potential effects would be
determined by comparing the existing environment without the proposed action against the projected
environment with the addition of the proposal. Potential effects would be minimized through the use of

Rawlins RMP

4-13

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

Final EIS

BMPs as discussed in Appendix 5. Additional mitigation measures would be developed on a case-by-case
basis as necessary in consultation with the SHPO and other affected parties. This would ensure the
protection of cultural resources such as Native American sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, and
other sites where the setting contributes to the NRHP eligibility.

Protective measures would be developed for threatened or sensitive sites determined as a result of Section
110 inventory (National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA]) and monitoring, effectively minimizing any
potentially significant impacts. These types of threats would generally involve activities or processes that
are not permitted such as natural erosion or dispersed recreational activities. Protective measures would
be site-specific based on the nature of the threat or impact and would be developed in consultation with
the SHPO and other affected parties as appropriate.

Sacred or sensitive sites would be identified through consultation and cooperation with Native American
tribes at both the planning and project-specific levels. Protection measures such as appropriate avoidances
or other mitigation measures would be developed and implemented in consultation with the affected
Native American tribes. The location and nature of these types of resources are held in strict confidence
generally at the request of the affected tribe(s). No adverse effects are anticipated to Native American
sacred or sensitive sites.

Displacement and loss of cultural resources would occur as a result of wildland fires, surface disturbances
caused by suppression activities (e.g., construction of fire lines, bulldozing of access roads, and general
movement of heavy equipment), and post-fire rehabilitation activities. Displacement of cultural resources
adversely affects the potential to understand the context of the site and limits the ability to extrapolate
data regarding prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns. Because of the unplanned nature of
wildland fires, impacts to cultural resources from wildland fires and suppression activities may be
assessed subsequent to the fire. Some high-priority cultural resources such as rock art and historic
structures have been identified for special protections and included in the specific fire management plans.

Rock art, either Native American or Euro- American, would be damaged by smoke and soot as well as by
rock exfoliation or spalling caused by the extreme heat associated with wildland fires. Loss of vegetation
from wildland fires and suppression activities would increase the potential for soil erosion, resulting in
displacement and/or loss of cultural resources. However, wildland fires would generally enhance surface
visibility (at least in the short term), allowing otherwise undetected and nonflammable cultural materials
to be identified and recorded. During large fires, cultural resource specialists would be present to ensure
that suppression activities do not adversely affect known historic properties. In addition, cultural resource
specialists would inventory fire lines and access roads where surface disturbance would be anticipated
prior to suppression activities to ensure protection of cultural properties. Suppression activities would also
minimize the potential for devastating wildland fires, which would help preserve flammable cultural
resources such as historic and prehistoric wooden structures and aspen carvings.

Surface disturbing and other disruptive activities resulting from forest management, lands and realty
management, livestock grazing management, minerals management, OHV management, recreation
resources management, vegetation management, wild horse management, and wildlife and fisheries
management actions would have the potential to directly impact cultural resources not identified prior to
the activity. Unanticipated subsurface discoveries (cultural resources discovered during ground disturbing
activities) would occur from surface disturbing and other disruptive activities. Unanticipated discoveries
would result in displacement or loss (either complete or partial) of the cultural resource involved.
Displacement of cultural resources adversely affects the potential to understand the context of the site and
limits the ability to extrapolate data regarding prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns. However,
mitigation of impacts from discoveries is often accomplished through data recovery excavations that
increase the understanding of prehistory. The number of unanticipated discoveries would be minor but

4-14

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

potentially concentrated in areas with active soil deposition. Potential impacts to cultural resources
identified in a discovery situation would be greater than impacts to resources that were previously
identified (and thereby avoided or subjected to mitigation measures) because damage to discovered sites
occurs prior to their recordation and evaluation, thereby complicating mitigation procedures.

Lands and realty management, livestock grazing management, minerals management, recreation
resources management, and wildlife and fisheries management actions resulting in development of
projects within the setting that contribute to NRHP eligibility would be mitigated to minimize significant
effects. Assessment of potential impacts would be conducted through viewshed analyses, onsite
inspection, and photo analysis. Mitigation measures would include, but not be limited to, decreasing the
height of structures, using paint and topography to blend structures into the background, mowing and
reseeding right-of-way (ROW) corridors, and using materials that match the existing environment to
construct access roads (Appendix 5). Significant impacts would occur if developments could not be
mitigated to eliminate adverse effects to the setting.

Lands and realty management actions not associated with minerals development would disturb
approximately 5,794 acres over the life of the plan under all alternatives. These actions would potentially
affect an estimated 200 cultural properties. Required cultural resource inventory and mitigation measures
conducted in conjunction with ROW actions would serve to protect most cultural resources from
significant damage and increase the database of known cultural properties. A small but proportional
number of these sites would be adversely impacted as a result of unanticipated discoveries, potentially
resulting in significant impacts. Cultural resources would be protected from surface disturbing activities
because of locatable mineral withdrawals on 935,530 acres.

Implementing actions to achieve the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (USDI, BLM 1997)
would maintain or improve soil stability and vegetation cover, thereby protecting cultural resources.
Overuse of an area by livestock, wildlife, and wild horses would potentially accelerate soil erosion, which
would potentially lead to exposure and destruction of cultural resources. Animal trampling and wallowing
directly impacts cultural artifacts and features on or just below the surface through breakage and
scattering. Animal scratching and rubbing affects certain types of cultural properties, including historic
and prehistoric structures and rock art sites. In most instances, impacts from these types of animal
behaviors on cultural resources would be minimal. However, long-term impacts from grazing would
potentially occur from repeated trampling on cultural sites over time, especially along fence lines, near
water sources, and in sheltered or shaded areas. Proper construction of water developments and range
improvements as well as proper placement of salt and mineral supplements would help minimize adverse
impacts to cultural resources. Areas would be inventoried and evaluated for cultural resources prior to the
construction of fences, water developments, and other range improvements, and appropriate mitigation
measures would be implemented if needed.

Activities associated with minerals management have the greatest potential to directly and indirectly
impact cultural resources because of the amount of disturbance proposed for the life of the plan. Unlike
many of the other resource management actions, the proposed disturbance from minerals management
would be concentrated in specific areas within the RMPPA (Map 4-7, Oil and Gas Project Areas and High
and Moderate Potential Areas). These areas of high and moderate oil and gas potential fall within portions
of the Great Divide Basin (61 percent), Hanna Basin (34 percent), Middle Medicine Bow (3 percent),
Separation Flats/Rawlins Peak (2 percent), Sierra Madre Uplands (45 percent), and Washakie Basin (84
percent) cultural sub-regions (as discussed in Section 3.3, Cultural Resources). No impacts are anticipated
to cultural resources from oil and gas management activities in the Upper North Platte, Shirley Basin,
Laramie Basin, Sweetwater Arch, Medicine Bow Mountains, Laramie Mountains, Eastern Plains, or
Bates Hole cultural subregion areas. Most of the high and moderate oil and gas potential areas have been
previously leased, and BLM must honor these existing rights. Significant impacts would occur in areas

Rawlins RMP

4-15

Chapter 4- Cultural Resources

Final EIS

where BLM must allow the lease holder to develop the lease and adverse effects to cultural resources
cannot be avoided. In most cases, impacts would be mitigated through the use of BMPs, but special
mitigation measures may be necessary on a case-by-case basis for specific projects. Impacts to the
cultural resources from geophysical exploration would be minimal with implementation of BMPs.

Locatable mineral exploration and mineral material disposals would have the potential to impact cultural
resources. Standard inventory and mitigation measures would protect cultural resources from
displacement or loss resulting from surface disturbing activities. Reasonably foreseeable development
activities for locatable minerals would not affect significant acreage; therefore, there would be little or no
effect to cultural resources. Mineral material permits are discretionary. If impacts to cultural resources are
identified, the impacts would either be mitigated or the permit denied.

OHV use on improved roads would have little or no impact on cultural resources. However, the majority
of unimproved two-track roads and vehicle routes within the RMPPA have not been inventoried for
cultural resources, increasing the potential for unmitigated impacts. OHV use of these roads and vehicle
routes would disturb or displace cultural resources located within the roadways. Inappropriate use of
unimproved roads and vehicle routes by OHVs would accelerate erosion and thus disturb soils that
contain cultural resources. OHV use of historic roads, especially in areas with poor ground conditions,
would potentially have an adverse effect on the physical integrity of the road. Where impacts to cultural
resources from OHV use are identified, closures to motorized vehicle use may occur to protect sensitive
cultural resources. Little or no impact to cultural resources is anticipated from off-road OHV use for
“necessary tasks”.

Impacts to cultural resources from paleontology management would be minimal. Standard inventory and
mitigation measures conducted in conjunction with paleontology management actions would protect
cultural resources.

Management of special recreation management areas (SRMAs) would encourage recreation and the
potential development of facilities, which could result in damage to cultural resources through ground
disturbing activities and indirectly through the larger presence of human activity. Cultural inventories
would be completed before any new facilities were constructed, and appropriate mitigation measures
would be applied.

Protections afforded to SD/MAs (i.e., intensive management of surface disturbing and other disruptive
activities) would indirectly protect cultural resources located in these areas by reducing the potential for
unanticipated discoveries and subsequent loss of cultural infonnation. ROW exclusion requirements and
no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulations would provide the greatest level of protection by prohibiting
surface disturbing activities.

Transportation and access management would impact cultural resources by pursuing new access areas
(Table 2-8) and consolidating public lands to increase recreational opportunities in these new areas, which
would increase the potential for incidental or purposeful disturbance of cultural resources. Facilitating use
of these areas would result in increased surface disturbing and disruptive recreational activity and loss of
vegetative cover, which would increase the potential for exposure and destruction of cultural resources.

Actions designed to maintain vegetation resources would protect cultural resources by managing surface
disturbance and minimizing soil erosion, which would help prevent the degradation of soils that may
contain cultural resources. Achieving the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (USDI, BLM
1997) would maintain or improve environmental conditions, soil stability, and vegetation cover, thereby
protecting cultural resources from exposure, deterioration, and loss. Vegetation treatments would reduce
cover in the short term, allowing otherwise undetected cultural materials to be identified and recorded.

4-16

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4- Cultural Resources

However, vegetation treatments would also likely increase soil erosion in the short term and potentially
result in displacement and/or loss of cultural resources. Displacement of cultural resources adversely
affects the potential to understand the context of the site and limits the ability to extrapolate data
regarding prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns. BMPs and conservation measures designed to
protect vegetation communities through avoidance or by limiting surface disturbance would indirectly
protect cultural resources in these areas.

In all VRM classes, activities would be mitigated so as not to compromise the objectives of the VRM
class (Appendix 25). Cultural properties located in VRM Class I areas would be protected because surface
disturbing and other disruptive activities would be prohibited in these areas. The integrity of the setting of
cultural resources located in VRM Class II areas would also receive protection from management actions
that would require structures to blend into the landscape when possible, thus minimizing the potential for
adverse effects (Appendix 5). Cultural properties located in VRM Class III and IV areas would be subject
to a higher level of surface disturbing and other disruptive activity, as these areas allow for moderate and
high levels of landscape alteration, respectively.

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions that control surface disturbing and other
disruptive activities near water resources, such as wetland/riparian areas, would protect cultural resources
by reducing the potential for unanticipated discoveries. Soils management would provide long-term
indirect benefits to cultural resources by minimizing soil erosion, thereby preserving cultural properties.
Surface disturbing activities associated with water quality, watershed, and soils management, such as
stream restoration and headcut remediation projects, would require standard inventory and mitigation
measures to minimize impacts on cultural resources.

Restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities as a result of wildlife and fisheries
management actions and compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) would provide indirect
protections for cultural resources. Intensive management of surface disturbing and disruptive activities in
all raptor concentration areas (RCA) would potentially restrict the amount and size of surface disturbance,
decreasing the potential to adversely affect buried cultural deposits located within these areas. In addition,
minimizing construction disturbance would indirectly protect cultural resources by limiting the area of
disturbance. Timing restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities within mountain plover
habitat would have little or no impact to cultural resources as surface disturbing activities would still be
allowed in these areas during other times of the year.

4.3.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing
Management

Management actions associated with air quality management, paleontology management, and wild horse
management would have little or no impact to cultural resources.

Management actions associated with cultural resources would provide direct protection to cultural
properties from restrictions placed on surface disturbing and other disruptive activities. These protective
measures are required by law prior to any surface disturbing and other disruptive activity (Appendix 5)
and include measures such as cultural resource inventory, evaluation of NRHP eligibility, application of
BMPs, and mitigation of potential effects, generally through avoidance. Specifically, areas within 1/4
mile of cultural properties where the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility would be avoidance areas for
all surface disturbing and other disruptive activities. Where possible, this would protect the physical
integrity of cultural properties from surface disturbing and other disruptive activities that may
compromise the values making them eligible for NRHP. In those areas where inventory, evaluation, and
avoidance are not considered adequate to preserve cultural resources, mitigation measures would be

Rawlins RMP

4-17

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

Final EIS

prescribed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the action and the type of cultural resource
involved. Mitigation measures would ensure that any potential impact from the proposed action would not
result in significant effects to cultural resources.

Pursuing land acquisitions to preserve cultural resources would increase protection of cultural properties
that would otherwise fall outside of federal jurisdiction. Cultural resources located within land
acquisitions would benefit from protection measures afforded by cultural resource laws and regulations.
Cultural resources located outside of federal jurisdiction are not afforded the same protection measures;
thus, irreplaceable data would have a greater likelihood of being lost.

In sensitive areas, such as those with active soil deposition, BLM-permitted archaeologists would be
required to monitor surface disturbing activities based on site-specific needs. The presence of a monitor is
to ensure that buried cultural materials are immediately identified and that construction activities in that
area are halted to avoid further impacts to the site. Because the site is identified as soon as any part is
exposed, a monitor can often minimize the adverse effect to the site, reducing the impact.

Wildland suppression activities (Appropriate Management Response [AMR]) would be considered in the
protection of natural and cultural resources. This would help reduce damage to cultural resources caused
by suppression activities by considering these resources when determining the degree and location of
suppression activities.

Forest management actions would result in the treatment of up to 7,000 acres of forestlands over the life
of the plan for commercial and pre-commercial thinning and to fulfill Stewardship and Service Contracts
associated with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. The surface disturbance associated with these
activities would potentially affect an estimated 241 cultural properties. Moreover, allowing
noncommercial firewood gathering without considering potential cultural resource impacts could result in
a limited loss of cultural resources, such as tree carvings and historic and prehistoric wooden structures.
Standard inventory and mitigation procedures conducted in conjunction with forest management actions
would protect cultural resources from significant damage and would increase the database of known
cultural properties (Appendix 5).

The lands and realty management program has identified 6 1 ,0 1 0 acres of lands for disposal under this
alternative, which would potentially affect an estimated 2,104 cultural properties. Land disposal would
place these cultural properties outside of federal jurisdiction and thereby eliminate protection under
federal management policies. Cultural resource inventories and evaluations required prior to transferring
lands from federal jurisdiction would ensure that cultural properties are adequately documented,
evaluated, and mitigated prior to ownership changes. BLM may retain or obtain lands containing
important cultural and historic resources, providing protection under federal management policies.

Approximately 63,670 acres would be closed to locatable mineral entry and future land disposal actions.
This would provide additional protection to cultural resources located in these areas by reducing surface
disturbing and other disruptive activities and would eliminate the possibility of placing undiscovered
cultural resources outside of federal jurisdiction.

Development activities associated with lands and realty actions would include wind energy development,
utility/transportation systems development, and communication site development. Because of the large-
scale nature of these types of developments, there would be the potential to adversely affect those sites
where the setting contributes to the properties’ NRHP eligibility. Areas with important resource values
such as significant cultural resources would be avoided where possible to reduce the impacts from these
types of developments (Map 2-30). Where it becomes necessary to place the developments within the
avoidance areas, the effects would be intensively managed to reduce the impacts. Some adverse impacts

4-18

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

from these types of developments could be anticipated to cultural resources where the setting is an aspect
of integrity. Many of these developments are visually obtrusive at distances greater than those identified
for avoidance. In addition, oil and gas development, locatable mineral entry, and mineral material
disposal within 1/4 mile of the incorporated boundaries of cities and towns (1,500 total acres) would be
intensively managed. Intensive management would potentially restrict the amount and size of surface
disturbance, decreasing the potential to adversely affect buried cultural deposits within these areas.

Approximately 900 acres would be disturbed by the construction of livestock range improvements,
including fences, spring developments, other water developments, and livestock exclosures’ over the life
of the plan. This would potentially affect an estimated 31 cultural properties. Standard inventory and
mitigation measures conducted in conjunction with range improvement actions would protect most
cultural resources from significant damage and would increase the database of known cultural properties
(Appendix 5). A small but proportional number of these sites would be adversely impacted as a result of
unanticipated discoveries, but would be mitigated through standard treatment measures (Appendix 5).

Under Alternative 1, it is anticipated that 8,945 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the life of the plan,
disturbing approximately 62,000 acres of land (including all related facilities and pipelines on federal and
nonfederal lands). This would potentially affect an estimated 1,771 cultural properties located within
those areas of high and moderate oil and gas potential (Map 4-7). Standard identification and mitigation
measures conducted in conjunction with mineral development would protect most cultural resources that
are located on federally administered lands or that are involved in federal actions from significant damage
and would increase the database of known cultural properties. A small percentage of these sites would be
adversely impacted as a result of unanticipated discoveries and trespass violations but would be mitigated
through standard treatment measures (Appendix 5). In addition, special stipulations would be added to
new oil and gas leases where specific cultural resource values have been identified.

Impacts to cultural resources from OHV management would be minor. With the exception of the Dune
Ponds Cooperative Management Area (CMA) and 23,020 acres of closed areas, OHV travel would be
limited to designated or existing roads and vehicle routes. The unvegetated portions of the Dune Ponds
CMA would be open to OHV use. This 3,730-acre CMA has not been inventoried for cultural resources.
Continued unrestricted use of these areas would potentially disturb or displace cultural resources.
However, because of the limited area and the active nature of the sand dunes, this impact would be
minimal. Cultural resources located in areas closed to OHV use (23,020 acres) would be protected from
disturbance or displacement resulting from OHV-related activities. Allowing OHV use off of existing
roads for the purposes of retrieving big game kills or accessing camping sites would potentially disturb or
displace cultural resources in poor soil conditions (i.e., saturated or loosely compacted soils).

Recreation areas would be managed to limit surface disturbance. Implementing an NSO stipulation for oil
and gas development activities in developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres) and
intensively managing such activity within 1/4 mile of these sites (7,930 acres) would limit surface
disturbance and thereby help prevent damage to cultural resources located in these areas. Closing
developed recreation sites (5,560 acres) to locatable mineral entry and mineral material disposals would
provide further protection from surface disturbing and other disruptive activities.

Little or no impacts would be anticipated to cultural resources from management actions associated with
the Shamrock Hills area, Laramie Peak area, Red Rim-Daley area, Pennock Mountain area, Shirley
Mountain area, Blowout Penstemon area, White-Tailed Prairie Dog area. High Savery Dam and Reservoir
area, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail area, OHV areas, Jelm Mountain area, Pedro Mountains
area, Laramie Plains Lakes area, and Rawlins Fishing area SD/MAs.

Rawlins RMP

4-19**

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

Final EIS

Surface use restrictions associated with management of SD/MAs would indirectly protect cultural
resources located in these areas by reducing the potential for unanticipated discoveries and subsequent
loss of cultural information. The Como Bluff area (1,690 acres), Sand Hills area (7,960 acres), Jep
Canyon area (13,810 acres), Chain Lakes area (30,560 acres), Wick-Beumee area (280 acres), Laramie
Plains Lakes area (1,600 acres). Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly area (16,340 acres), and North
Platte River area (5,060 acres) would require intensive management of surface disturbing and other
disruptive activities. Intensive management would potentially restrict the amount and size of surface
disturbance, decreasing the potential to disturb buried cultural deposits located within the SD/MAs.

The area within 1/4 mile, or the visual horizon, whichever is closer, of the Historic Trails would be an
avoidance area for surface disturbing and other disruptive activities. In most cases, proposed facilities
would be relocated outside of the avoidance area, protecting cultural resources located within. If the
location cannot be avoided, mitigation measures would be required to reduce the potential for impacts to
cultural resources.

All surface disturbing and other disruptive activities within wilderness study areas (WSA) (68,120 acres)
and within 1/4 mile of the eligible segments of the Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) (Map 2-20) as well as
surface disturbance associated with new leases within the Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area
(5,530 acres) would be prohibited, thereby providing the greatest level of protection to cultural resources.

Vegetation and weed treatments would minimize the potential for devastating wildfires, increasing the
long-term protection of perishable cultural resources, such as historic and prehistoric wooden structures
and aspen carvings that could be lost in such events. Vegetation and weed treatments would impact
approximately 106,000 acres in the RMPPA over the life of the plan. Although as many as 3,655 cultural
properties would potentially be involved, only a small portion of these sites would be sensitive to
vegetation treatment measures. Identification and mitigation measures conducted in conjunction with
vegetation treatments would serve to protect sensitive cultural resources from significant damage
(Appendix 5).

Protections afforded Special Status Plant Species and habitat would indirectly protect cultural resources
by restricting the amount and size of disturbances that would potentially adversely affect cultural
resources through displacement or loss. Activities associated with oil and gas leasing would be
intensively managed in areas of occupied habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate
plant species. All surface disturbing activities would be intensively managed in blowout penstemon
habitat. Recreational sites would not be authorized in Colorado butterfly plant habitat or in Ute ladies’-
tresses plant habitat. These actions would indirectly protect cultural resources that are located within these
areas.

Cultural properties located in VRM Class I areas (68,160 acres) would receive the greatest protection
because surface disturbing and other disruptive activities would be prohibited in these areas.
Approximately 359,610 acres would be designated as VRM Class II under this alternative. The integrity
of the setting of cultural resources located in VRM Class II areas would receive protection from
management actions that would require structures to blend into the landscape when possible, thus
minimizing the potential for developments that would degrade the setting of these sites. This would
provide indirect protections to the setting of Native American sacred sites, traditional cultural properties,
and other cultural properties where the setting contributes to their NRHP eligibility.

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions requiring that surface disturbing and other
disruptive activities avoid identified 100-year floodplains; areas within 500 feet of perennial waters,
springs, and wetland/riparian areas; and areas within 100 feet of the inner gorge of ephemeral channels
would provide additional protection to cultural resources located in these areas by reducing the potential

4-20

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

for such activities to adversely affect cultural resources through displacement or loss. Erosion caused by
surface discharge of produced water in the Colorado River Basin, the North Platte River Basin, and the
Great Divide Basin would potentially cause adverse affects to cultural resources located near the stream
channel or in new reservoir sites through displacement or loss.

Surface use restrictions associated with management of wildlife and fisheries would indirectly protect
cultural resources located in specific areas by reducing the potential for unanticipated discoveries and
subsequent loss of cultural information. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be intensively
managed in RCAs (18,400 acres), neotropical and other migratory bird habitats, upland game bird
habitats, amphibian habitats, reptile habitats, and crucial habitat for other sensitive species. Intensive
management would potentially restrict the amount and size of surface disturbance, decreasing the
potential to adversely affect buried cultural deposits located within these areas. In addition, well locations,
roads, ancillary facilities, and other surface structures requiring a repeated human presence would not be
allowed within 825 feet of active raptor nests (1,200 feet for ferruginous hawks), and surface disturbing
and disruptive activities would be avoided within white-tailed and black-tailed prairie dog towns. Cultural
resources located within these areas would be protected from displacement or loss. Timing restrictions on
surface disturbing and disruptive activities within raptor, big game, Western yellow-billed cuckoo, greater
sage-grouse, and sharp-tailed grouse habitat would have little or no impact to cultural resources as surface
disturbing activities would still be allowed in these areas during other times of the year.

Summary

It is anticipated that 13,694 acres would be disturbed as a result of activities related to forest management,
lands and realty management, and livestock management. This disturbance would potentially impact an
estimated 472 cultural properties through displacement or loss.

Most of the high and moderate oil and gas areas have been previously leased, and BLM must honor these
existing rights. Significant impacts would occur in areas where BLM must allow the lease holder to
develop the lease and adverse effects to cultural properties cannot be avoided. It is anticipated that 8,945
oil and gas wells would be drilled, disturbing approximately 62,000 acres of land. This disturbance would
potentially impact an estimated 1,771 cultural properties in those areas of high and moderate oil and gas
potential. Wells proposed on nonfederal lands where there is no federal involvement would adversely
affect both the physical remains of the cultural properties and the integrity of the setting where it
contributes to the NRHP eligibility, thus causing a significant impact.

Approximately 319,410 acres would be protected from surface disturbing and other disruptive activities
as a result of VRM Class I areas, SD/MAs, and NSO stipulations. These management actions would
provide the greatest indirect protection to cultural resources by eliminating the potential for surface
disturbing and other disruptive activities in these areas. In addition, 359,610 acres would be designated as
VRM Class II. This would provide indirect protection to the setting of Native American sacred sites,
traditional cultural properties, and other cultural properties where the setting contributes to their NRHP
eligibility through the intensive management of visual impacts. Actions associated with other SD/MAs;
water quality, watershed, and soils management; and wildlife and fisheries management would also
provide indirect protection to cultural resources through avoidance and intensive management of surface
disturbing and other disruptive activities.

It is anticipated that significant impacts to cultural resources would occur. As discussed above, any
surface disturbance has the potential to damage and/or destroy cultural properties potentially eligible for
the NRHP through unanticipated discoveries (i.e., cultural resources discovered during ground disturbing
activities). Unanticipated discoveries would result in the loss of some or occasionally all of the cultural
resource involved. Standard inventory and mitigation procedures conducted in conjunction with surface

Rawlins RMP

4-21

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

Final EIS

disturbing and other disruptive activities would protect most cultural resources from significant damage.
Cultural monitoring in sensitive areas would reduce the potential for significant impacts resulting from
discovery situations. The potential for significant impacts would be directly proportional to the amount of
surface disturbance.

4.3.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of

Resources

The impacts to cultural resources from air quality management; forest management; OHV management;
paleontology management; recreation management; wild horse management; and water quality,
watershed, and soils management would be the same as those identified in Alternative 1 .

Impacts to cultural resources from cultural resource management actions would be similar to those
identified in Alternative 1. However, land acquisitions to preserve and protect select cultural properties
would not be as actively pursued, allowing a greater number of significant properties to be impacted that
would have been protected under Alternative 1 .

Impacts to cultural resources from fire and fuels management would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that more wildland fires would be suppressed. This would reduce the damage to
flammable cultural resources, such as historic and prehistoric wooden structures and aspen carvings.
Increased suppression and associated surface disturbance would potentially result in impacts to a greater
number of buried cultural deposits. Furthermore, through the buildup of flammable materials, increased
suppression would increase the long-term potential for catastrophic fires that would damage a wider range
of cultural resource types.

Impacts to cultural resources from lands and realty management would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that 57,270 fewer acres would be closed to locatable mineral entry and future land
disposal actions. This would reduce the level of protection to cultural resources in these areas by
increasing surface disturbing and other disruptive activities. An additional 14,780 acres would be
precluded from disposal actions. This would further reduce the amount of land that could be removed
from federal jurisdiction and the number of cultural resources that could be exempted from federal
management policies.

Impacts of livestock grazing management on cultural resources would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that approximately 1,140 acres would be disturbed by the construction of livestock
range improvements over the life of the plan. This would potentially affect an estimated 39 cultural
resources.

Impacts of oil and gas management actions on cultural resources would be similar to those impacts
identified in Alternative 1, except that more acreage would be open to oil and gas leasing with fewer
restrictions from other programs. Areas closed to leasing or otherwise restricted from development,
surface disturbing and other disruptive activities, or surface occupancy would be reduced. Overall, 9,198
wells would be drilled over the life of the plan, disturbing approximately 64,000 acres (including all
related facilities and pipelines on federal and nonfederal lands). This would potentially affect an estimated
1 ,829 cultural properties located within those areas of high and moderate oil and gas potential (Map 4-7).
Impacts to cultural resources from the additional wells located on federally administered lands or that are
associated with federal actions would be mitigated through standard identification and mitigation
practices. The increase in development would increase the potential for adverse impacts from
unanticipated subsurface discoveries and trespass violations. However, a greater number of cultural
resource inventories and site mitigations (e.g., excavations) would be required, which would expand the
cultural resource database.

4-22

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

Impacts to cultural resources from SD/MAs would be similar to those impacts identified in Alternative 1 ,
except that the NSO stipulation on new leases within the Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area ACEC
(5,530 acres) would not be required. Instead, operators would be required to submit a management plan to
describe how activities would affect research objectives, which would lead to the implementation of
BMPs and necessary mitigation measures. As a result, surface disturbance associated with new leases
would likely occur within the ACEC, thereby increasing the potential for unanticipated discoveries of
cultural resources. In addition, no river segments would be suitable for the national WSR systems.
Cultural resources would be managed the same in these areas as in the rest of the RMPPA.

Cultural resources would be protected from surface disturbing and disruptive activities associated with
locatable mineral entry and mineral material disposals resulting from the closures within the Cave Creek
Cave SD/MA (240 acres). Intensive management of timber harvesting within % mile of the Cave Creek
Cave complex would indirectly protect cultural resources in that area by restricting or prohibiting surface
disturbing and disruptive activities.

As needs are identified, OHV areas would be developed to allow use and promote education. Unrestricted
use would potentially promote soil erosion, thereby disturbing or displacing cultural resources.
Identification and mitigation measures would ensure that any potential impact associated with OHV
SRMAs would not result in significant effects to cultural resources.

Impacts from vegetation management actions on cultural resources would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that vegetation and weed treatments would be increased to approximately 1,003,720
acres over the life of the plan. An estimated 34,61 1 cultural properties would be involved in these areas;
however, only a small portion of these sites would be sensitive to vegetation treatment measures.
Identification and mitigation measures conducted in conjunction with vegetation treatments would protect
sensitive cultural resources from significant damage. No additional protections would be afforded Special
Status Plant Species under this alternative; therefore, there would be no indirect protections for cultural
resources in these areas.

Under this alternative, 2,040 fewer acres would be designated as VRM Class I than under Alternative 1,
for a total of 66,120 acres. Cultural resources in those areas not managed as WSR segments would not
receive the additional protections afforded VRM Class I areas. In addition, 126,780 fewer acres would be
designated as VRM Class II than under Alternative 1, for a total of 232,830 acres. As a result, fewer
Native American sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, and other cultural properties where the
setting contributes to their NRHP eligibility would be protected.

Impacts to cultural resources from wildlife and fisheries management would be similar to those identified
in Alternative 1 , except that intensive mitigation of surface disturbing and disruptive activities would not
be required in sensitive wildlife habitat areas. As a result, surface disturbing and disruptive activities
would be allowed over a larger area. Standard cultural resource identification and mitigation measures
(Appendix 5) would ensure protection of cultural resources in these areas.

Summary

Under Alternative 2, impacts to cultural resources would be similar to those impacts identified under
Alternative 1 . However, a slightly greater number of acres would be disturbed, potentially impacting an
increased number of cultural properties. It is anticipated that 13,934 acres would be disturbed over the life
of the plan as a result of lands and realty management and livestock management activities. This
disturbance would potentially impact an estimated 480 cultural properties through displacement or loss.
These numbers do not include disturbance acreage or sites potentially impacted from forest management
actions.

Rawlins RMP

4-23

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

Final EIS

In addition, 9,198 oil and gas wells would be drilled, disturbing approximately 64,000 acres of land.
Wells proposed on nonfederal lands where there is no federal involvement would adversely affect both
the physical remains of cultural properties and the integrity of the setting where it contributes to the
NRHP eligibility, thus causing a significant impact. This disturbance would potentially impact an
estimated 1,829 cultural properties in those areas of high and moderate oil and gas potential. It is likely
that more sites would be impacted by surface disturbance and disruptive activities than anticipated in
Alternative 1.

Approximately 224,420 acres would be protected from surface disturbing and disruptive activities as a
result of VRM Class I areas, SD/MAs, and NSO stipulations. These management actions would provide
the greatest indirect protection to cultural resources by eliminating the potential for surface disturbing and
other disruptive activities in these areas. The VRM Class II areas would be reduced to include 232,830
acres, resulting in the protection of fewer Native American sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, and
other cultural properties where the setting contributes to their NRHP eligibility. In addition, there would
be less indirect protection to cultural resources because of the decrease in surface restrictions included in
management actions for other resource programs.

It is anticipated that significant impacts to cultural resources would occur. As discussed in the above
analysis, any surface disturbance has the potential to damage and/or destroy cultural properties potentially
eligible for the NRHP through unanticipated discoveries (i.e., cultural resources discovered during ground
disturbing activities). Unanticipated discoveries result in the loss of some or occasionally all of the
cultural resource involved. Standard inventory and mitigation procedures conducted in conjunction with
surface disturbing and other disruptive activities would protect most cultural resources from significant
damage. Cultural monitoring in sensitive areas would also reduce the potential for significant impacts
resulting from discovery situations. Because disturbance of more surface acres is anticipated, the potential
for significant impacts would increase as compared to Alternative 1 .

4.3.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of

Resources

The impacts to cultural resources from air quality management, forestry management, paleontology
management, and wild horse management would be the same as those identified in Alternative 1 .

Impacts from cultural resource management on cultural resources would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1 . However, prohibiting surface disturbing and other disruptive activities within % mile or the
visual horizon, whichever is closer, of historic properties where the setting contributes to NRHP
eligibility would indirectly protect all cultural resources in that zone. This would ensure the protection of
those sites from activities that compromise the values making them eligible for NRHP. In addition, all
surface disturbance would be monitored in culturally sensitive areas, which would ensure that adverse
effects to cultural resources from discovery or trespass situations would be minimized.

Fewer wildland fires would be suppressed under this alternative than under Alternative 1, which would
increase the potential for damage to flammable cultural resources such as historic and prehistoric wooden
structures and aspen carvings. Damage to rock art from the extreme heat and smoke associated with
wildland fires would also increase. Wildland fires would likely increase in size, which would result in
increased soil erosion, greater loss of vegetation, and consequential deterioration of cultural properties.
However, the potential for damage to buried cultural resources from fire suppression activities would be
decreased from Alternative 1, because there would be fewer ground disturbing suppression activities.

Impacts to cultural resources from lands and realty management would decrease, as compared to
Alternative 1. Under Alternative 3, no lands would be available for disposal. Retaining all lands under

4-24

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

federal jurisdiction would maintain protections associated with federal management policies.
Approximately 271,1 10 acres would be closed to locatable mineral development and future land disposal
actions. This would provide additional protection to cultural resources located in these areas by reducing
surface disturbing and other disruptive activities and eliminating the possibility of placing undiscovered
cultural resources outside of federal jurisdiction.

Adverse impacts to cultural resources from development activities associated with lands and realty
actions would be greatly reduced under Alternative 3. Areas with important cultural resource values
would be closed to new wind energy development, utility/transportation systems, and communication
sites (66,720 acres; Map 2-32). Closure of these areas would offer the greatest protection to cultural
resources from these types of surface disturbing activities. There would still be the potential to adversely
affect those cultural resources where the setting contributes to the properties’ NRHP eligibility because of
the large-scale nature of these types of developments. The area within 1/2 mile of the incorporated
boundaries of cities/towns (4,500 total acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO
stipulation and closed to locatable mineral entry and mineral material disposals. These stipulations would
preclude surface disturbing and disruptive activities associated with minerals development and would
indirectly protect cultural resources in these areas.

Impacts to cultural resources from livestock grazing management would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1 . However, the emphasis on fence modification as opposed to new fence construction and the
emphasis on small-scale as opposed to large-scale water developments would result in the disturbance of
480 fewer acres over the life of the plan. Under this alternative, only 420 acres would be disturbed,
potentially affecting an estimated 14 cultural properties. However, as a result, there would be fewer
cultural resource inventories, reducing the potential to increase the site database and further the
understanding of history and prehistory.

Impacts to cultural resources from oil and gas development would be similar to those impacts identified in
Alternative 1, except that less acreage would be open to oil and gas leasing, with greater constraints from
other programs. Areas closed to leasing or otherwise restricted from development, surface disturbing and
other disruptive activities, or surface occupancy would be increased. Overall, 8,632 wells would be drilled
over the life of the plan, disturbing approximately 56,000 acres (including all related facilities and
pipelines on federal and nonfederal lands). This would potentially affect an estimated 1,600 cultural
properties located within those areas of high and moderate oil and gas potential (Map 4-7). Impacts to
cultural resources from development located on federally administered lands or that are associated with
federal actions would be mitigated through standard cultural resource identification and mitigation
practices (Appendix 5). The decrease in development would decrease the potential for adverse impacts
from unanticipated subsurface discoveries and trespass violations. However, fewer cultural resource
inventories and site mitigations (e.g., excavations) that serve to expand the cultural resource database
would be required.

Impacts from OHV management actions on cultural resources would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that the 3,730-acre Dune Ponds CMA would be closed to OHV use, thereby
eliminating OHV-related impacts to the cultural resources in this area. An additional 48,960 acres would
be closed to OHV use, thus protecting cultural resources from disturbance or loss resulting from OHV
use. Offroad travel to retrieve big game kills or access camping sites would not be allowed; therefore,
there would be no potential for impacts to cultural resources from these activities.

Impacts to cultural resources from recreation management would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres) and the surrounding
1/2-mile area (12,750 acres), Shirley Mountain area (37,820 acres), Historic Trails area (66,370 acres),
North Platte River area (12,740 acres), Jelm Mountain area (18,100 acres), Pedro Mountains area (18,650

Rawlins RMP

4-25

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

Final EIS

acres), Laramie Plains Lakes area (1,600 acres), and Rawlins Fishing area (330 acres) would be open to
oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation and closed to locatable mineral entry and mineral material
sales. These actions would serve to reduce the potential for damage to cultural resources in these areas by
limiting the level of surface disturbing and other disruptive activities.

Impacts to cultural resources from SD/MAs would be similar to those impacts identified in Alternative 1 ,
except that management of surface disturbing and disruptive activities within the SD/MAs would be more
restrictive. Those areas closed to new oil and gas leasing and closed to locatable mineral entry and
mineral material sales would offer the greatest protection for cultural resources because surface disturbing
and disruptive activities associated with mineral development would not be allowed. These restrictions
would be included in the Sand Hills ACEC and JO Ranch Expansion area (12,680 acres), Jep Canyon
area (13,810 acres), Chain Lakes area (30,560 acres), Wick-Beumee area (280 acres), Cave Creek Cave
area (520 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes area (1,600 acres), Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly area
(59,720 acres), and Cow Butte/Wild Cow area (49,570 acres) SD/MAs and all of the suitable WSR
segments. Surface disturbing activities within the unique alkaline desert wetland communities would be
intensively managed to sustain the sensitive vegetation within the Chain Lakes area, thus providing
additional protection to cultural resources from disturbance in these areas. In addition, cultural resources
would be protected from surface disturbing activities associated with timber harvesting, locatable mineral
entry, and mineral material sales within the 520-acre Cave Creek Cave area.

Those areas open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation and closed to locatable mineral entry and
mineral material sales would also preclude surface disturbing and disruptive activities that could
potentially adversely affect cultural resources. These restrictions would be included in the Como Bluff
area (1,690 acres).

Those areas open to oil and gas leasing with intensive management of surface disturbing and disruptive
activities would potentially restrict the amount and size of surface disturbance, decreasing the potential to
adversely affect buried cultural deposits located in the SD/MAs. This restriction would be included in the
Shamrock Hills area (18,400 acres), Laramie Peak area (18,940 acres), Red Rim-Daley area (11,100
acres), Pennock Mountain area (7,770 acres), Blowout Penstemon area (17,050 acres), White-Tailed
Prairie Dog areas (109,650 acres), High Savery Dam area (530 acres), and Continental Divide National
Scenic Trail (600 acres) SD/MAs. These areas would also be closed to locatable mineral entry and
mineral material sales, which would preclude surface disturbing and disruptive activities that could
potentially adversely affect cultural resources. This would apply only to non-metalliferous locatable
mineral entry for the Red Rim-Daley area. Uranium exploration could still potentially adversely affect
cultural resources in this area. Cultural resources would be protected from all surface disturbing activities
in the Sand Hills and JO Ranch Expansion area (12,680 acres). There would be no adverse impacts from
new fence construction or subsequent animal trailing and concentration in this area. The JO Ranch
buildings (18 acres) would be stabilized and used as an interpretive center, providing the cultural resource
program with a venue for public education on 19th-century ranching in the area and on the roles of
historic roads and vehicle routes throughout the area. Requirements for the VRM Class II area around the
JO Ranch buildings would indirectly protect other cultural resources where setting is an important aspect
of the integrity of the site.

Other restrictions associated with the SD/MAs would provide additional protections to cultural resources
from surface disturbing activities not associated with minerals development. Surface disturbing activities
would not be allowed within 1/4 mile of the Historic Trails. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities
would be restricted or prohibited in aspen communities in the Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly
and Jep Canyon areas, in aspen and mountain shrub communities within the Cow Butte/Wild Cow area,
and within 50 meters (164 feet) of prairie dog towns within the White-Tailed Prairie Dog SD/MA. In
addition, no new fences would be allowed within the Cow Butte/Wild Cow area.

4-26

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

The area within 1/4 mile from the Overland Trail, Cherokee Trail, Rawlins-to-Baggs Road, and Rawlins-
to-Fort Washakie Road (66,370 acres) would be designated an ACEC (Map 2-8). Surface disturbing
activities would be prohibited within the ACEC, which would potentially protect an estimated 2,289
cultural properties within this area. Historic properties where the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility
would also benefit because management actions would require structures to blend into the landscape, thus
minimizing the occurrence of adverse effects (Appendix 5).

Where impacts from transportation and access to cultural resources are identified, BLM, county, and/or
state road densities would not be allowed to exceed levels that diminish or adversely impact these
resources. This would reduce the disturbance to cultural resources from road proliferation and limit illicit
activities in areas that are difficult to access.

Impacts from vegetation management actions on cultural resources would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that vegetation and weed treatments would be increased to 806,840 acres over the
life of the plan. An estimated 27,822 cultural properties would be involved in these areas; however, only a
small portion of these cultural properties would be sensitive to vegetation treatment measures. Inventory
and mitigation measures conducted in conjunction with vegetation treatments would protect sensitive
cultural resources from significant damage. Managing for desired plant community (DPC) would reduce
the potential for impacts to cultural resources by enhancing specific plant communities that improve soil
stability. However, management for DPC would potentially result in increased herbaceous cover, which
would reduce the potential to locate previously unidentified cultural resources and further the
understanding of history and prehistory. In addition, occupied habitat for threatened, endangered,
proposed, and candidate species would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation. This
would provide additional protection to cultural resources in these areas by restricting surface disturbing
activities that would potentially adversely affect cultural resources.

Impacts to cultural resources from VRM management would be similar to those identified under
Alternative 1, except that 8,560 fewer acres would be designated as VRM Class II, for a total of 351,050
acres. As a result, a significantly greater number of Native American sacred sites, traditional cultural
properties, and other cultural properties where the setting contributes to their NRHP eligibility would be
protected from developments that would adversely affect the integrity of the setting for these types of
sites (Appendix 5).

Impacts to cultural resources from water quality, watershed, and soils management would be similar to
those identified in Alternative 1 . However, prohibiting the surface discharge of produced water from oil
and gas activities in the Colorado River Basin would eliminate the potential for such discharges to expose
and damage cultural resources located in stream channels. Under this alternative, water development
projects that result in an annual water loss and/or storage of greater than 1 acre-foot per project in Muddy
Creek would be prohibited. This would provide additional protection to cultural resources located in these
areas by limiting surface disturbance and associated damage from impoundment construction to
undocumented resources.

Impacts to cultural resources from wildlife and fisheries management would be similar to those impacts
identified in Alternative 1, except that restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities would
increase in sensitive wildlife habitat areas. Well locations, roads, ancillary facilities, and other surface
structures requiring a repeated human presence would not be allowed within 1/4 mile of active raptor
nests; and surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be prohibited in identified crucial habitat for
sensitive species, within 50 meters of identified white-tailed and black-tailed prairie dog towns, and
within 1/4 mile of the perimeter of occupied greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse leks. In addition,
high-profile structures would be prohibited within 1 mile of active greater sage-grouse and shaip-tailed
grouse leks. These restrictions would offer the greatest protection for cultural resources because surface

Rawlins RMP

4-27

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

Final EIS

disturbing and disruptive activities with the potential to disturb or displace cultural resources would not
be allowed.

No new fences would be allowed in big game migration corridors, and water developments for livestock
and wild horse use would not be allowed in crucial winter range. Cultural resources would be protected
from disturbance and displacement caused by animal concentration and trailing in these areas. In addition,
RCAs would be closed to new oil and gas leasing (18,400 acres), which would also provide indirect
protections to cultural resources from disturbance associated with mineral developments.

Summary

Under Alternative 3, impacts to cultural resources would be similar to those impacts identified in
Alternative 1 . However, fewer acres would be disturbed, potentially impacting fewer cultural properties.
It is anticipated that 13,214 acres would be disturbed over the life of the plan as a result of forest
management, lands and realty management, and livestock management activities. This disturbance would
potentially impact an estimated 456 cultural properties through displacement or loss.

In addition, 8,632 oil and gas wells would be drilled, disturbing approximately 56,000 acres. This
disturbance would potentially impact an estimated 1,600 cultural properties in areas of high and moderate
oil and gas potential. Those wells proposed on nonfederal lands where there is no federal involvement
would adversely affect both the physical remains of cultural properties and the integrity of the setting
where it contributes to NRHP eligibility, thus causing a significant impact. It is likely that fewer sites
would be impacted by surface disturbance and disruptive activities than anticipated in Alternative 1 .

Approximately 8,560 fewer acres would be protected from surface disturbing and other disruptive
activities as a result of VRM Class I areas, SD/MAs, and NSO stipulations. These management actions
would provide the greatest indirect protection to cultural resources by eliminating the potential for surface
disturbing and other disruptive activities in these areas. The VRM Class II areas would be increased to
include 351,050 acres, resulting in the protection of a greater number of Native American sacred sites,
traditional cultural properties, and other cultural properties where the setting contributes to their NRHP
eligibility. In addition, there would be more indirect protection to cultural resources because of the
increase in surface restrictions included in management actions for other resource programs.

It is anticipated that significant impacts to cultural resources would occur. As discussed above, any
surface disturbance has the potential to damage and/or destroy cultural properties potentially eligible for
NRHP through unanticipated discoveries (i.e., cultural resources discovered during ground disturbing
activities). Unanticipated discoveries result in the loss of some or occasionally all of the cultural resource
involved. Standard inventory and mitigation procedures conducted in conjunction with surface disturbing
activities would protect most cultural resources from significant damage. Cultural monitoring in all
sensitive areas would reduce the potential for significant impacts resulting from discovery situations.
Because disturbance of fewer surface acres is anticipated, the potential for significant impacts would
decrease as compared with Alternative 1 .

4.3.5 impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan

Impacts on cultural resources from air quality management; fire and fuels management; livestock grazing
management; paleontology management; water quality, watershed, and soils; and wild horse management
would be the same as those identified in Alternative 1 .

Impacts resulting from cultural resource management would be the same as those identified in
Alternative 1, except that surface disturbing activities would not be allowed within 1/4 mile or the visual

4-28

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4- Cultural Resources

horizon, whichever is closer, of cultural properties where the setting contributes to the properties’ NRHP
eligibility. This would ensure the protection of those sites from activities that may compromise the values
making them eligible.

Impacts to cultural resources from forest management would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that 6,700 fewer acres would be available for commercial timber harvest. However,
7,000 acres would still be available for commercial and pre-commercial thinning and to fulfill
Stewardship and Service Contracts associated with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. The
surface disturbance associated with these activities would potentially affect an estimated 241 cultural
properties.

Impacts to cultural resources from lands and realty management would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that 16,980 acres would be closed to locatable mineral entry and future disposal
actions. This would result in closure of these areas to locatable mineral entry and future land disposal
actions, which would provide additional protection to cultural resources located in these areas (an
estimated 586 properties) by reducing surface disturbing and other disruptive activities and eliminating
the possibility of placing undiscovered cultural resources outside of federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, an
additional 14,780 acres would be precluded from disposal actions, reducing the number of cultural
resources (an estimated 510 properties) that would be removed from federal jurisdiction. The area within
1/4 mile of the incorporated boundaries of cities/towns (1,500 total acres) would be open to oil and gas
leasing with an NSO stipulation and closed to locatable mineral entry and mineral material disposals.
These stipulations would preclude surface disturbing and disruptive activities associated with minerals
development and would indirectly protect cultural resources in these areas.

Impacts to cultural resources from oil and gas development would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1 , except that less acreage would be open to oil and gas leasing, with greater constraints from
other programs. Areas closed to leasing or otherwise restricted from development, surface disturbing and
other disruptive activities, or surface occupancy would be increased. Overall, 8,822 wells would be drilled
over the life of the plan, disturbing approximately 58,000 acres (including all related facilities and
pipelines on federal and nonfederal lands). This would potentially affect an estimated 1,657 cultural
properties located within those areas of high and moderate oil and gas potential (Map 4-7). Impacts to the
trails from development located on federally administered lands or that are associated with federal actions
would be mitigated through standard cultural resource identification and mitigation practices (Appendix
5). The decrease in development would decrease the potential for adverse impacts from unanticipated
subsurface discoveries and trespass violations. However, fewer cultural resource inventories and site
mitigations (e.g., excavations) would be required, which serve to expand the cultural resource database.

Impacts to cultural resources from OHV management would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that an additional 23,350 acres would be closed to OHV use. This would eliminate
the potential for damage to cultural resources associated with OHV use in these areas. In addition, offroad
travel to retrieve big game kills or to access camping sites would be allowed only within 300 feet of
existing roads.

Impacts to cultural resources from recreation management would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres) and the surrounding
1/4-mile area (7,930 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation. This would
reduce the potential for damage to cultural resources in these areas by limiting the level of surface
disturbing and other disruptive activities.

Impacts to cultural resources from management actions associated with the Shirley Mountain SRMA
(37,820 acres), Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA (600 acres), North Platte River SRMA

Rawlins RMP

4-29

Chapter 4- Cultural Resources

Final EIS

(5,060 acres), Jelm Mountain SRMA (18,100 acres), Pedro Mountains SRMA (18,650 acres), Laramie
Plains Lakes SRMA (1,600 acres), and Rawlins Fishing SRMA (330 acres) would be similar to those
identified in Alternative 3, except the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA, North Platte River
SRMA, Jelm Mountain SRMA, and Pedro Mountains SRMA would not be closed to locatable mineral
entry, which would increase the potential for damage to cultural resources in these areas by allowing for
surface disturbing activities associated with locatable mineral development.

Impacts to cultural resources from management actions associated with the Como Bluff NNL (1,690
acres), Jep Canyon WHMA (13,810 acres), Shamrock Hills RCA (18,400 acres), Chain Lakes WHMA
(30,560 acres), Laramie Peak WHMA (18,940 acres), Red Rim-Daley WHMA (11,100 acres), Pennock
Mountain WHMA (7,770 acres), Wick-Beumee WHMA (280 acres), and White-Tailed Prairie Dog area
would be similar to those in Alternative 1, except that surface disturbing and disruptive activities would
be avoided in aspen communities within the Jep Canyon WHMA and intensively managed in the Chain
Lakes area. This would provide additional protection from adverse effects to cultural resources in these
areas by limiting the potential for discovery situations. In addition, impacts to cultural resources from
intensive management of the unique desert wetland communities in Chain Lakes would be similar to
those in Alternative 3.

Impacts to cultural resources from management of the WSR would be similar to those in Alternative 1,
except that only the Encampment River segment would be suitable for inclusion. This would result in a
smaller area where cultural resources would be indirectly protected from management actions associated
with the WSR.

Impacts to cultural resources from management actions associated with the Sand Hills and JO Ranch
Expansion ACEC (12,680 acres), Blowout Penstemon ACEC (17,050 acres), Upper Muddy Creek
Watershed/Grizzly WHMA (59,720 acres), and Cow Butte/Wild Cow WHMA (49,570 acres) would be
similar to those identified in Alternative 3, except the Blowout Penstemon ACEC, Upper Muddy Creek
Watershed/Grizzly WHMA, and Cow Butte/Wild Cow WHMA would not be closed to locatable mineral
entry, which would increase the potential for damage to cultural resources in these areas by allowing for
surface disturbing activities associated with locatable mineral development. Furthermore, surface
disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided in aspen communities and near riparian and wetland
areas within the Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly WHMA and avoided in aspen and mountain
shrub communities within the Cow Butte/Wild Cow WHMA. This would provide additional protection
from adverse effects to cultural resources in these areas by limiting the potential for discovery situations.
However, surface discharge of produced water would be allowed in the Upper Muddy Creek
Watershed/Grizzly area. Erosion caused by surface discharge of produced water would potentially cause
adverse affects to cultural resources located near the stream channel through displacement or loss.

The JO Ranch buildings (18 acres) within the Sand Hills and JO Ranch Expansion ACEC would be
stabilized, and an interpretive program would be developed that would provide the cultural resource
program with a venue for public education on the importance of cultural resources on the public lands.
The VRM Class II area around the JO Ranch buildings would indirectly protect other cultural resources
where setting is an important aspect of the integrity of the site.

Cultural resources would be protected from surface disturbing activities associated with timber
harvesting, locatable mineral entry, and mineral material sales within the 240-acre Cave Creek Cave
ACEC. Intensive management of oil and gas activities would potentially restrict the amount and size of
surface disturbance, decreasing the potential to adversely effect buried cultural deposits located within the
SD/MA. The Historic Trails area (66,370 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO
stipulation and the Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA (1,600 acres) would also be open to oil and gas leasing
with an NSO stipulation and closed to locatable mineral entry and mineral material sales, which would

4-30

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

preclude surface disturbing and disruptive activities that could potentially adversely affect cultural
resources. Cultural resources would also be protected from other surface disturbing activities not
associated with minerals development within the Historic Trails area.

Impacts to cultural resources from vegetation management would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 3, except that vegetation and weed treatments (mechanical, biological, chemical, and
prescribed fire) would be increased to include 828,460 acres over the life of the plan. An estimated 28,568
cultural properties would be involved in this area; however, only a small portion of these sites would be
sensitive to vegetation treatment measures. Inventory and mitigation measures conducted in conjunction
with vegetation treatments would protect sensitive cultural resources from significant damage.

Impacts on cultural resources from VRM management would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that 2,040 fewer acres would be designated as VRM Class I, for a total of 66,120
acres. Cultural resources in those areas not managed as WSR segments would not receive the additional
protections afforded VRM Class I areas. In addition, 8,560 fewer acres would be designated as VRM
Class II for a total of 346,670 acres. As a result, a greater number Native American sacred sites,
traditional cultural properties, and other cultural properties whose setting contributes to their NRHP
eligibility would be protected from developments that would adversely affect the integrity of the setting
for these types of sites (Appendix 5).

Impacts to cultural resources from wildlife and fisheries management would be similar to those in
Alternative 1, except that surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be prohibited within 1/4 mile
of the perimeter of occupied greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse leks. Cultural resources in these
areas would be protected from activities with the potential to disturb or displace cultural resources.

Summary

Under Alternative 4, impacts to cultural resources would be similar to those impacts identified under
Alternative 1. It is anticipated that 13,694 acres would be disturbed as a result of activities related to
forest management, lands and realty management, and livestock management. This disturbance would
potentially impact an estimated 472 cultural properties through displacement or loss.

In addition, 8,822 oil and gas wells would be drilled, disturbing approximately 58,000 acres. This
disturbance would potentially impact an estimated 1,657 cultural properties in areas of high and moderate
oil and gas potential — 1 14 fewer than in Alternative 1. Wells proposed on nonfederal lands where there is
no federal involvement would adversely affect both the physical remains of cultural properties and the
integrity of the setting where it contributes to the NRHP eligibility, thus causing a significant impact.

Approximately 336,700 acres would be protected from surface disturbing and other disruptive activities
as a result of VRM Class I areas, SD/MAs, and NSO stipulations. These management actions would
provide the greatest indirect protection to cultural resources by eliminating the potential for surface
disturbing and other disruptive activities in these areas. The VRM Class II areas would be decreased to
include 346,670 acres, resulting in the protection of a greater number of Native American sacred sites,
traditional cultural properties, and other cultural properties where the setting contributes to their NRHP
eligibility. In addition, there would be more indirect protection to cultural resources from the increase in
restrictions included in management actions for other resource programs.

It is anticipated that significant impacts to cultural resources would occur. As discussed above, any
surface disturbance has the potential to damage and/or destroy cultural properties potentially eligible for
the NRHP through unanticipated discoveries (i.e., cultural resources discovered during ground disturbing
activities). Unanticipated discoveries result in the loss of some or occasionally all of the cultural resource

Rawlins RMP

4-31

Chapter 4-Cultural Resources

Final EIS

involved. Standard inventory and mitigation procedures conducted in conjunction with surface disturbing
and other disruptive activities would protect most cultural resources from significant damage. Cultural
monitoring in sensitive areas would reduce the potential for significant impacts resulting from discovery
situations. Because disturbance of fewer surface acres is anticipated, the potential for significant impacts
would decrease as compared with Alternative 1 .

4-32

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Fire and Fuels

4.4 Wildland Fire and Fuels

This section presents potential impacts on wildland fire and fuels management from management actions
for other resource programs. Discussion of wildland fire and fuel management in this section relates only
to wildland fire suppression and fuel reduction. Vegetative treatments (including prescribed bums and
mechanical, chemical, or biological treatments) for nonfuel reduction objectives are discussed in Section
4.15. Existing conditions for fire and fuels management are described in Section 3.4.

Significance Criteria

Impacts to fire and fuels management would be considered significant if the following were to occur:

• Actions result in a substantial increased risk from wildland fire to public health and safety, other
resource values, or destruction of property.

• Changes in vegetation communities result in increased size, complexity, and frequency of
wildland fires.

• Management actions fail to reintroduce wildland fire into its natural role in the ecosystem.

Methods of Analysis

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources and the
project area as well as on a review of existing literature. Effects are quantified where possible. In the
absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes described using
ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate.

The analysis was based on the following assumptions:

• A direct relationship exists between level of human use within the RMPPA and the frequency of
human-caused fires.

• A direct relationship exists between fuel loads (standing and nonstanding vegetation) and
potential fire size and intensity.

• BLM-administered land would be treated annually with prescribed fire, mechanical treatments,
and chemical treatments. Additional acres would be treated annually with mechanical methods to
reduce fire potential in wildland and urban interface areas.

• The chance of wildland fire within the RMPPA that could seriously damage sensitive resource
values is considered to be moderate.

• Information on reasonably foreseeable developments (RFD) and RFAs can be found in Appendix
33.

4.4.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Air quality regulations may preclude the use of wildland fire for resource benefit and hazard fuel
reduction treatments on certain days when emission levels would be exceeded.

Protections afforded to cultural resources and surrounding areas (e.g., identified historical trails,
buildings, and cultural sites) include limitations and restrictions related to fire management, which would

Rawlins RMP

4-33

Chapter 4~Fire and Fuels

Final EIS

affect the methods of fire suppression. Altering containment lines and eliminating or reducing surface
disturbance when removing burnable fuels would lead to an increase in the complexity of wildland fires
and hazard fuel reduction treatments.

In the checkerboard and intermixed public and private lands, where AMR would most often result in
suppression (Map 2-1), wildland fires would typically be kept to the smallest possible size. This would
allow the buildup of fuels over time, which could lead to potential catastrophic wildland fires in the
future. Vegetative mosaics of varying age classes, which occur as a result of wildland fire and which
influence fire behavior, would be reduced. Wildland fire for resource benefit would be limited to areas
where agreements with adjacent private landowners, the State of Wyoming, and other land management
agencies could be reached. In these areas, wildland fire would be returned to its natural role in the
ecosystem. Vegetative mosaics would be created that would limit future fire size and intensity. Individual
fire size would increase, resulting in larger areas impacted by wildland fire. Fire frequency would
decrease over time as the fuels necessary for combustion are removed. The emphasis on hazard fuel
reduction treatments in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) would benefit suppression actions in those
areas. Reductions in flame length and in the rate of spread of wildland fires in treated areas would
increase firefighter and public safety. An increase in residential and industrial development in areas
adjacent to public lands (WUI) would increase the need for hazardous fuel reduction and increase the
frequency of fires from human causes. Opportunities to reintroduce fire into fire-dependent ecosystems
would be reduced.

The harvest of minor wood products would reduce fuel loading in those areas. The reduction in fuel
loading would decrease the complexity of suppression operations and increase firefighter and public
safety but would increase ignition sources (e.g., chainsaws). Managing forests and woodlands to meet
forest and rangeland health standards would reduce hazardous fuel accumulations. This would reduce the
potential for catastrophic wildfires to occur.

The isolated public land parcels found within or near private lands would increase the amount and
complexity of BLM’s involvement in the suppression of fires, particularly in urban interface fires.
However, BLM’s involvement would be reduced as land tenure adjustments occur. Land tenure
adjustments that create larger blocks of public land would benefit fire suppression and hazard fuel
treatments by reducing the complexity of fire management actions. The establishment of transportation
and utility ROWs would increase the potential for human-caused wildfires but allow for quicker response
times along ROW access routes. In addition, ROWs generally contain less fuel because they are cleared
of brush and trees when constructed, which potentially allows them to be used as containment lines.

Livestock grazing would decrease fine fuel loading (grass), which would reduce the rate of spread and
therefore the size and complexity of wildland fires. In addition, livestock establish trails that could be
improved for use as control lines. Range projects such as spring or well developments provide additional
water sources that would be used during suppression operations. The management of livestock grazing to
meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would maintain enough fine fuels to allow for the use
of wildland fire for resource benefit, where appropriate. In addition, adherence to the Wyoming Standards
for Healthy Rangelands would reduce the potential for conversion of healthy rangelands into those
dominated by invasive species (e.g., cheatgrass, bromus tectorum), which greatly increases the frequency
and complexity of fire management actions.

Mineral exploration and development would increase the complexity of fire management actions. The
potential for human-caused wildland fires would increase as would the need to protect industrial interface
areas. Road construction would provide improved access, and roads would be used as control lines during
wildland fire suppression actions. The proliferation of roads in remote areas would increase fire

4-34

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Fire and Fuels

occurrence by introducing additional human-caused ignition sources. However, an improved road
network would improve emergency vehicle access and enable an earlier response to fire ignitions.

OHV use would increase the potential for wildland fire ignition by OHV catalytic converters. However,
proliferation of OHV trails would also increase the opportunity to use trails and vehicle routes as control
lines during wildland fire suppression actions.

The impact from the management of paleontological resources would be similar to those associated with
the management of cultural resources described above.

Increased recreation, such as camping and backpacking, would indirectly result in increased wildland fire
ignition because of an associated increase in the number of ignition sources (e.g., campfires and catalytic
converters). However, recreationists would assist the fire program by spotting and reporting wildland
fires, which would improve response time and result in smaller fires. Increase in public land use would
increase the frequency of human-caused fires and the need for fuel treatments in and adjacent to
developed recreation sites.

The impact of SD/MAs on fire and fuels management would be similar to those impacts described for fire
in the fire and fuels management discussion above. WSAs would be managed according to the Interim
Management Policy (IMP). AMR would emphasize the use of wildland fire for resource benefit.
Returning wildland fire as much as possible to its natural role in the ecosystem would increase the size of
individual wildland fires and over time reduce the intensity of wildland fire. All other SD/MAs would be
managed in conjunction with adjoining public, private, State of Wyoming, and other federally
administered lands.

Transportation and access management would provide improved access and opportunities for roads to be
used as control lines during wildland fire suppression actions. The proliferation of roads in remote areas
would increase fire occurrence by introducing additional human-caused ignition sources. However, an
improved road network would improve emergency vehicle access and enable an earlier response to fire
ignitions.

Vegetation management actions to meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would result in a
diversity of age class, cover, and fuel loads in all plant communities. This would reduce the size and
intensity of wildland fires in the long term. In addition, adherence to the Wyoming Standards for Healthy
Rangelands would reduce the potential for conversion of healthy rangelands into those dominated by
invasive species (e.g., cheatgrass, bromus tectorum), which greatly increases the frequency and
complexity of fire management actions. The location of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate
species would potentially restrict hazardous fuels reduction and require additional actions to protect
sensitive habitat. The presence of invasive and noxious species would potentially alter hazardous fuel
treatments and increase the complexity of suppression activities.

Designated VRM classes I and II (Map 2-51) would potentially restrict hazardous fuels reduction, such as
straight-line fire breaks, which would lead to an increase in fire size. VRM Class III and IV areas that
allow for the use of a wider range of hazardous fuel reduction treatments could experience a reduction in
the size and spread of wildland fires.

The rehabilitation of existing reservoirs and creation of additional water sources would improve
suppression activities and aid in limiting fire size. The management of water and soil resources to meet
the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Class 1 waters and waters with threats or
impairments would reduce wildland fire size by providing a natural fire break of vegetation and water
resistant to fire spread.

Rawlins RMP

4-35

Chapter 4-Fire and Fuels

Final EIS

Impacts from wild horses would be similar to those described above for livestock management.

The management of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species would restrict hazardous
fuels reduction and require additional suppression actions to protect sensitive habitat in certain situations.
For example, only 25 percent of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse suitable habitat would be treated in
each linear mile of habitat (Appendices 1, 10, and 15 and Biological Opinion). This would lead to
unnatural fuel accumulations that would result in an increase in fire size and intensity and limit
opportunities to reintroduce wildland fire into fire-dependent ecosystems.

4.4.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing
Management

Air quality; minerals; paleontology; recreation; OHVs; socioeconomics; visual resources; water quality,
watershed, and soils; and wild horses would result in impacts similar to those under Impacts Common to
All Alternatives above.

Cultural resource impacts would be similar to impacts described under Impacts Common to All
Alternatives with the following additions. Restricting surface disturbing and disruptive activities within a
1/4 mile or the visual horizon, whichever is closer, of NRHP-eligible sites would restrict the use of
hazardous fuels treatments. This would limit the construction of fire breaks, which would lead to an
increase in fire size and intensity.

Fire and fuels impacts would be similar to those impacts under Impacts Common to All Alternatives with
the following additions. AMR would occur on every acre, giving managers the flexibility to place
wildland firefighting resources where they are most needed and to allow wildland fire to benefit other
resources, when appropriate. Any fire suppression activities that result in a reduction in the size and
intensity of wildland fire would increase the opportunity for larger, more intense fires. Areas designated
as Use of Wildland Fire (Map 2-1) would benefit from having wildland fire function in its natural
ecological role. Impacts would be similar to those described for Wildland Fire for Resource Benefit under
Impacts Common to All Alternatives above. An estimated 4,000 acres of wildland fire occurring annually
would not achieve the goal of reintroducing fire into fire-dependent ecosystems. Vegetation communities
that continue to age without the benefit of wildland fire reintroduced into fire-dependent ecosystems
would increase amounts of decadent brush and forest, thereby increasing wildland fire size and intensity.

The harvest of minor wood products would reduce fuel loading in those areas. The reduction in fuel
loading would decrease the complexity of suppression operations and increase firefighter and public
safety but would increase ignition sources (e.g., chainsaws). Managing forests and woodlands to meet
forest and rangeland health standards would reduce hazardous fuel accumulations. This would reduce the
potential for catastrophic wildfires to occur. A reduction in the amount of dead and downed forest fuels
resulting from insect damage, disease, and blow down would achieve forest health objectives and reduce
the frequency, size, and intensity of wildland fire. Forest management actions that reduce conifer
encroachment in aspen communities also would reduce the frequency and intensity of wildland fire.
Commercial timber harvest methods that create fuel breaks would reduce the size of wildland fires but
also would increase ignition sources. In the long term, achievement of forest health and a diverse mosaic
of vegetation age classes within forest communities would reduce the size and intensity of wildland fires.

Lands and realty-related impacts would be similar to those described under Impacts Common to All
Alternatives above. Disposal of any of the approximately 61,010 acres available for sale or exchange
would reduce suppression responsibilities in portions of the RFO containing only isolated public lands.
Reducing the fragmented public land ownership pattern in some areas would allow for an increase in fire

4-36

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Fire and Fuels

size and use of wildland fire for resource benefit. The need to suppress wildland fires to their smallest
possible size to protect adjacent private property would be reduced.

Livestock grazing impacts would be similar to those described under Impacts Common to All
Alternatives above. In addition, livestock grazing systems and range improvements that use pasture rest
and deferment to improve herbaceous plant vigor, health, and production would lead to increases in
herbaceous plant material that would influence the size and spread of wildland fires. However, when
pastures are grazed under various grazing strategies, the use would reduce those same herbaceous fuels
that would carry a wildland fire.

Impacts from SD/MAs would be similar to those described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives
with the following additions. SD/MAs with objectives that would limit fire size by emphasizing
suppression to protect or enhance their unique values and sensitive resources would result in smaller fires.
This includes the following SD/MAs: Sand Hills ACEC and JO Ranch, Jep Canyon ACEC and Wildlife
Habitat Management Area (WHMA), Shamrock Hills ACEC, Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area
ACEC, Chain Lakes Potential ACEC, Laramie Peak Potential ACEC, Red Rim-Daley Potential ACEC,
Cave Creek Cave Potential ACEC, Laramie Plains Lakes Potential ACEC, Blowout Penstemon Potential
ACEC, and Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly Potential ACEC. In addition, all eligible river
segments for WSR designation would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-
flowing nature, and tentative classification. Management of these segments with measures such as
designated VRM Class I (Map 2-51) would potentially restrict hazardous fuels reduction, such as straight-
line fire breaks, which would lead to an increase in fire size.

Impacts from transportation and access would be similar to those described for lands and realty above
with the following additions. The lack of restrictions on road densities would create additional
opportunities for suppression while restricting opportunities to reintroduce wildland fire into fire-
dependent ecosystems by creating barriers that reduce fire size.

Impacts from vegetation management would be similar to those described under Impacts Common to All
Alternatives with the following additions. Over the long term, however, the amount of acres designated
for treatment under this alternative (2,500 acres, not including invasive weed treatments) would not be
adequate to create the diversity of serai stages necessary for long-term vegetation health. This would
result in the majority of plant communities being in late serai stages, with large areas of overmature and
decadent vegetation, thereby increasing the potential for wildland fires to occur. The emphasis on control
of noxious species would allow the natural wildland fire return interval to be reestablished in areas where
the AMR would emphasize the use of wildland fire for resource benefit. However, the limited number of
acres treated for noxious and invasive species would not reduce the frequency and size of wildland fires.
In addition, the continued proliferation of invasive species such as cheatgrass would greatly increase the
size, frequency, and complexity of fire and fuels management. The location of species listed on the BLM
State Director’s Sensitive Species List would potentially restrict hazardous fuels reduction and require
additional suppression actions to protect sensitive habitat.

Impacts from wildlife and fish decisions would be similar to those described under Impacts Common to
All Alternatives but with additional timing restrictions for activities disruptive to wildlife species. These
restrictions would potentially impact hazardous fuels reduction and the use of wildland fire for resource
benefit by limiting when those activities would occur. For example, habitat management of greater sage-
grouse and sharp-tailed grouse would influence the time, size, and location of hazardous fuels reduction
projects and the use of wildland fire for resource benefit, thus limiting the opportunity to reintroduce
wildland fire into fire-dependent ecosystems. Specific vegetation goals for wildlife species habitat would
be considered during decisions for allowing wildland fire to be used for resource benefit, or when
considering whether suppression is the appropriate response. The species listed on the BLM State

Rawlins RMP

4-37

Chapter 4-Fire and Fuels

Final EIS

Director’s Sensitive Species List would potentially restrict hazardous fuels reduction and require
additional suppression actions to protect sensitive habitat.

Summary

Increases in public land use and development under minerals and transportation and access management
would increase the potential for large, human-caused wildland fires to occur. However, a greater
emphasis on fire prevention, suppression, and fuels management, especially in WUIs, would moderate
this increase. Also, roads and pipelines associated with increased development would improve access for
fire crews, create fuel breaks, and provide fire control lines when backfired in suppression situations.

Using wildland fire for resource benefit would allow for the reintroduction of fire into fire-dependent
ecosystems, which would reduce large fire suppression efforts over the long term. However, an estimated
4,000 acres of wildland fire occurring annually would not achieve the goal of reintroducing fire into all
fire-dependent ecosystems.

Vegetation treatments applied under this alternative would not be adequate to create the diversity of serai
stages necessary to decrease the potential for wildland fires. The limited number of acres treated for
noxious and invasive species would not reduce the frequency and size of wildland fires. In addition, the
continued proliferation of invasive species such as cheatgrass would greatly increase the size, frequency,
and complexity of fire and fuels management.

4.4.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of
Resources

Air quality; minerals; OHV; paleontology; recreation; socioeconomics; water quality, watershed, and
soils; and wild horse management would result in impacts similar to those described under Impacts
Common to All Alternatives.

Cultural and livestock grazing management actions would result in impacts similar to those described
under Alternative 1 .

Emphasis on suppression of all wildland fires would reduce the amount of acreage burned each year (an
estimated 2,000 acres per year). However, minimizing the use of wildland fire for resource benefit would
increase large fire suppression efforts. Also, the emphasis on fire suppression would increase the need for,
and complexity of, rehabilitation and restoration efforts of fire suppression-related disturbance.
Additional impacts are described under the Impacts Common to All Alternatives section above.

Forest management impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 but without offering
the benefit of using natural processes to achieve forest health objectives. The inability to use wildland fire
for resource benefit would exacerbate unnatural fuel loading in forests, which would lead to an increase in
wildland fire size and intensity.

Impacts from lands and realty-related consolidation or disposal of isolated public land would be similar to
Alternative 1. The benefits to fire suppression and fire use would be realized only in response to the
exchange or disposal of 46,230 acres.

Impacts from SD/MAs would be similar to those in Alternative 1, but all eligible river segments for WSR
designation (140 miles) would not be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-
flowing nature, and tentative classification.

4-38

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Fire and Fuels

Transportation and access would have impacts similar to those in Alternative 1. In addition, acquisition
would not be pursued in any order of priority. This would potentially limit access for conducting
hazardous fuel reduction projects.

Vegetation treatments would result in impacts similar to those described in Alternative 1 with the
following addition. The increase in landscape-scale vegetation treatments (24,400 acres per year) would
create more diverse mosaics of vegetation communities in treated areas and reduce the size and intensity
of wildland fires. Species listed on the BLM State Director’s Sensitive Species List would not be
protected and therefore would not restrict hazardous fuels reduction or require additional suppression
actions to protect sensitive habitat. A reduction in the proliferation and expansion of noxious and invasive
species (e.g., cheatgrass) where large weed patches influence commodity production would improve
native vegetation vigor and production and return treatment areas to a more natural wildland fire
frequency and intensity. However, the acres of noxious and invasive weeds treated would not completely
eliminate the increased fine fuels and rapid fire spread rates caused by proliferation of weeds in the short
term. A long-term program of treatment of weed patches that affect commodity production or value
would eventually result in the maintenance of native plant communities and natural wildland fire
frequency, size, intensity, and return intervals.

Designated VRM Classes I and II (Map 2-52) would potentially restrict hazardous fuels reduction (such
as straight-line fire breaks), which would lead to an increase in fire size. Visual resource impacts would
be similar to those impacts described under Alternative 1 , although fewer acres would be influenced by
VRM Class I and II surface disturbance restrictions. A wider range of hazardous fuel reduction treatments
could be used to reduce the size and spread of wildland fires in VRM Class III and IV areas.

The management of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species would restrict hazardous
fuels reduction and require additional suppression actions to protect sensitive habitat in certain situations.
With fewer protections for wildlife species, there would be fewer restrictions on fuels reduction projects
and the use of wildland fire for resource benefit. However, emphasizing suppression would lead to
unnatural fuel accumulations that would result in an increase in fire size and intensity and limit
opportunities to reintroduce wildland fire into fire-dependent ecosystems over the long term.

Summary

AMR with an emphasis on suppression, when coupled with the approximately tenfold increase in
vegetation and weed treatments, would reduce the annual size of wildland fires to an estimated 2,000
acres. However, the emphasis on fire suppression of all wildland fires under this alternative, and the
associated reduction in acreage burned each year, would limit the reintroduction of wildland fire into fire-
dependent ecosystems.

4.4.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of
Resources

Air quality; minerals; paleontology; recreation; socioeconomics; water quality, watershed, and soils; and
wild horses would result in impacts similar to those listed in Impacts Common to All Alternatives above.

Cultural, livestock grazing, and OHV management actions would result in impacts similar to those in
Alternative 1.

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to those in Alternative 1 with the following
difference. The emphasis on the use of wildland fire for resource benefit would increase the

Rawlins RMP

4-39

Chapter 4-Fire and Fuels

Final EIS

reintroduction of fire into fire-dependent ecosystems (8,000 acres per year) and would minimize large
wildland fire suppression efforts.

Impacts from forest management actions would be similar to Alternative 1 with the following additions.
Management of forestlands with an emphasis on natural processes would reintroduce wildland fire into
more fire-dependent forest ecosystems. In addition, the lack of commercial timber harvest under this
alternative would require increased hazardous fuels reduction and forest health treatment efforts.

Impacts associated with lands and realty actions would be similar to those in Alternative 1 . However, with
new closures to facility placement (497,080 acres) and locatable mineral entry (271,110 acres), there
would be fewer access roads and a decrease in human-caused ignitions.

OHV impacts would be similar to those in Alternative 1 , but the additional restrictions on locations where
OH Vs would be driven would produce fewer human-caused fires.

SD/MAs would result in impacts similar to Alternative 1 with the following additions. The Stratton
Sagebrush Steppe Research Area ACEC would use wildland fire suppression to meet the needs of
research. This would increase the complexity of fire and fuels management. The Blowout Penstemon
ACEC would be managed for an early serai stage, which would require additional fuels management as
well as the opportunity to allow wildland fires to become larger in size. In addition, all eligible river
segments would be designated as WSRs to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing
nature, and tentative classification. Management of these segments with measures such as designated
VRM Class I (Map 2-49) would potentially restrict hazardous fuels reduction, such as straight-line fire
breaks, which would lead to an increase in fire size. In addition, those portions of the Encampment River
administered by BLM, including those in the Encampment River Canyon WSA, would be managed for
AMR with an emphasis on suppression. This would include areas 1/4 mile on either side of the 100-year
high-water mark. This action is to protect a municipal water supply.

Transportation and access impacts would be similar to those described under lands and realty above.
However, by controlling road density, fewer opportunities would exist for improved access and use of
roads as fire control lines.

Impacts from vegetation management would be similar to those in Alternative 1 with the following
additions. Vegetation treatments (11,800 acres, plus those acres receiving weed treatments) to achieve
DPC would result in increased complexity to fire and fuels management. However, because of the large
number of smaller treatments, the increase in the mosaic vegetation patterns would not be adequate to
slow the spread of wildland fires, or to reduce potential fire size and intensity. Management actions aimed
at achieving native weed-free plant communities would reduce the potential for wildland fire ignition and
spread over the long term. However, plant communities with established populations of noxious and
invasive species could alter natural wildland fire frequency, size, and intensity and could increase the
complexity of wildland fire management in the short term.

Visual resource impacts would be similar to impacts under Alternative 1 but with more acres under
restriction in tenns of disruptions to the viewshed would limit the use of surface disturbing fire prevention
and suppression activities. This would potentially increase the size of individual fires.

Wildlife management impacts would be similar to impacts under Alternative 1 but with increased
restrictions on fuels management activities (i.e., timing, increased areas of protection, and surface
restrictions on raptor nests, big game parturition areas, T&E species habitat, and greater sage-grouse and
sharp-tailed grouse leks, etc.) that would potentially reduce the window of opportunity to conduct fuels
management activities and use wildland fire for resource benefit.

4-40

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Fire and Fuels

Summary

Vegetation treatments (11,800 acres, plus those acres receiving weed treatments) to achieve DPC would
increase the complexity of fire and fuels management. In the short term, vegetation treatments would not
be adequate to reduce potential fire size and intensity. Over the long term, the emphasis on the use of
wildland fire for resource benefit would achieve the goal of reintroduction of wildland fire into fire-
dependent ecosystems. Management actions aimed at reducing the spread of noxious and invasive species
(e.g., cheatgrass) would reduce the potential for fire ignition and spread over the long term. However,
plant communities with established populations of noxious and invasive species could alter natural
wildland fire frequency, size, and intensity in the short term.

4.4.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan

Air quality; minerals; paleontology; recreation; socioeconomics; water quality, watershed, and soils; and
wild horses would result in impacts similar to those described under Impacts Common to All
Alternatives.

Cultural resource and livestock grazing management actions would result in impacts similar to those
under Alternative 1 .

Transportation and access as well as visual resource actions would result in impacts similar to those under
Alternative 3.

Fire and fuels management actions would result in impacts similar to those described under Alternative 1
but with greater emphasis on the use of wildland fire for resource benefit and an increase in vegetation
treatments (an estimated 16,400 acres per year, not including weed treatments) would reintroduce
wildland fire into fire-dependent ecosystems. This would create more diverse vegetation communities and
reduce the size and intensity of wildland fires.

Impacts from forest management activities would also be the same as in Alternative 1, except that 6,700
fewer acres being available for commercial timber harvest would increase the possibility of wildland fire.
Also, greater emphasis on the use of wildland fire for resource benefit and an increase in vegetation
treatments (an estimated 16,400 acres/year, not including weed treatments) would reintroduce wildland
fire into fire-dependent forest ecosystems. This would create more diverse vegetation communities and
reduce the size and intensity of wildland fires.

Impacts from lands and realty related consolidation or disposal of isolated public land would be similar to
those in Alternative 1 . The benefits to fire suppression and fire use would be realized only in response to
the exchange or disposal of 46,230 acres.

OHV impacts would be similar to those in Alternative 1. However, with the additional restrictions on
offroad travel for accessing camping sites and recovering big game kills and with the additional acreage
being limited to designated roads and vehicle routes, OHVs would produce fewer human-caused fires.

Impacts from SD/MAs would be similar to those described under Alternative 3. In addition, Jep Canyon
WHMA, Shamrock Hills RCA, Chain Lakes WHMA, Laramie Peak WHMA, and Red Rim-Daley
WHMA would be managed in association with adjoining private and state lands. AMR would most often
result in suppression that would result in smaller, less intense fires in the short term. All eligible river
segments for WSR designation would not be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values,
free-flowing nature, and tentative classification, with the exception of the Encampment River segment
(2.51 miles). Impacts to this segment would be the same as in Alternative 3.

Rawlins RMP

4-41

Chapter 4- Fire and Fuels

Final EIS

Impacts from vegetation management would be similar to those in Alternative 3 but with the following
additions. Vegetation treatments (16,400 acres, plus those acres receiving weed treatments) would result
in a increased complexity to fire and fuels management. Because of the larger size of treatments, the
increase in the mosaic vegetation patterns would be adequate to slow the spread of wildland fires and
reduce potential fire size and intensity. Management actions aimed at reducing the spread of noxious and
invasive species (e.g., cheatgrass) would reduce the potential for wildland fire ignition and spread over
the long term.

Wildlife and fisheries impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative 3. Timing
restrictions for activities disruptive to wildlife species would impact hazardous fuels reduction by limiting
when those activities would occur. For example, surface disturbing and disruptive activities in big game
winter range would not be allowed during the period of November 15 to April 30. Surface disturbing and
disruptive activities in aquatic habitats for the protection of amphibians would potentially restrict
hazardous fuels reduction from occurring, thereby increasing the size and potential for catastrophic
wildland fires. Habitat management of greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse would influence the
time, size, and location of hazardous fuels reduction projects and the use of wildland fire for resource
benefit, thus increasing the size and intensity of wildland fires over the long term.

Summary

The greater emphasis on the use of wildland fire for resource benefit and the increase in fuels treatments
(16,400 acres, not including weed treatments) would result in reintroducing wildland fire into many fire-
dependent ecosystems. Management actions aimed at reducing the spread of noxious and invasive species
(e.g., cheatgrass) would reduce the potential for fire ignition and spread over the long term.

Increases in public land use and development under minerals and transportation and access management
would increase the potential for large, human-caused wildland fires to occur. However, a greater
emphasis on fire prevention, suppression, and fuels management, especially in WUIs, would moderate
this increase. Also, roads and pipelines associated with increased development would improve access for
fire crews, create fuel breaks, and provide fire control lines when backfired in suppression situations.

4-42

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Forest Management

4.5 Forest Management

This section presents potential impacts to forest management from management actions for other resource
programs. Potential impacts to forest vegetation are presented in the Vegetation section (4.15). Existing
conditions concerning forest resources and their management are described in Section 3.5.

Significance Criteria

Impacts on forests would be considered significant if any of the following were to occur:

• Management actions create substantive changes in forest health values.

• Management actions substantially alter the ability to harvest timber or minor wood products (i.e.,
post and pole, Christmas trees, firewood, and wildlings).

Methods of Analysis

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources and the
project area as well as on a review of existing literature. Effects are quantified where possible using field
investigations, aerial photography, and geographic information systems. In the absence of quantitative
data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are described using ranges of potential impacts or in
qualitative terms if appropriate.

The analysis was based on the following assumptions:

• In all areas that have been designated for forest health and fire fuels reduction treatments,
40 percent of the wood product material would be harvested by thinning, 40 percent would be
removed through fire fuels reduction (i.e., prescribed fire and the mechanical removal of any fire
hazardous fuel products), and less than 20 percent would be harvested by means of clear-cut.

• Clear-cut areas would be revegetated within 5 to 7 years after harvest. Temporary roads would be
revegetated within 3 to 5 years after closure. No new permanent roads would be constructed for
forest management, but some roads would be temporarily improved to allow for forest product
removal.

• Management practices would include removal of encroaching conifers from aspen stands to
release the stand and improve aspen stand health in some locations. Most woodlands (see
“Woodland” in the glossary) would continue in succession until disturbed by natural causes.

• RFDs and RFAs can be found in Appendix 33.

4.5.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Air quality, minerals, paleontology, socioeconomics, and wild horse management actions would have
little or no impact on forest health management actions.

There would be no impacts to forest health management actions from SD/MAs other than for the Cave
Creek Cave area and the Shirley Mountain SRMA.

Modification of forest management actions (application of cultural BMPs, etc.) that might diminish fne
integrity of a cultural property’s setting or incorporation of protective measures for Native American
sacred or sensitive sites would potentially influence the type, size, and location of a forestry project or

Rawlins RMP

4-43

Chapter 4- Forest Management

Final EIS

treatment as well as the amount of forest product that would be removed from an identified area. Forest
thinning projects or commercial harvest would potentially be modified if a known NRHP-eligible cultural
resource site were present. In rare cases, a forest management project would be precluded if redesign or
other mitigation measures were not adequate. These actions under cultural resources would have little or
no impact the overall forest health management program.

Any wildland fire management response that results in wildland fire suppression would preserve forest
products for potential commercial or noncommercial use by the public. Fuel treatments, including
prescribed fire, mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments within or adjacent to forest or woodland
WUI areas, would provide the opportunity for commercial forest product removal to meet both WUI
objectives and forest health objectives including returning fire to its natural role in the ecosystem. Fire
management actions developed and implemented in conjunction with forest health management actions
would combine to reduce hazardous fuels overloading on forestlands as well as reintroduce fire into fire-
dependent ecosystems. Rehabilitation and restoration efforts specific to a wildland fire event would help
stabilize bare ground and return appropriate forest species to the disturbed site. These actions would have
a moderate impact on forest health by contributing to the development of both a spatial mosaic and
vertical age class distribution of the forest landscape and would promote improved stand vigor as well as
reduce hazardous fuels and stand overloading while making forest products available to the public.

All forest and woodlands would be managed to meet the objectives of the Healthy Forest Initiative
(TITLE I — Hazardous Fuel Reduction on Federal Land, pp. 3-15) (TITLE IV— Insect Infestation and
Related Diseases, pp. 22-26) and Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 as well as Wyoming Standards
for Healthy Rangelands (1997) to restore forest health, stand stability, and age-class distribution to
unhealthy forests and woodlands. All forest and woodlands (196,934 acres), with the exception of WSAs
(66,120 acres) and developed recreation sites, would be open to the harvest of minor wood products, such
as fuelwood, posts and poles, Christmas trees, wildings, and special forest products (burl and character
wood) by the general public. Noncommercial harvesting of minor wood products by the general public
would contribute to increased soil erosion/compaction (on and off designated roads and vehicle routes),
creation of new two-tracks, and fire fuel loading from slash as well as short-term loss of vegetation. There
would also be an increase in wildfire ignition potential from campfires, chainsaws, OHVs, and hauling
vehicles that the general public would use to conduct these harvests.

Forest health management actions such as stewardship/service, noncommercial thinning, and hazardous
fire fuels reduction projects would be implemented to reduce stand overstocking in immature stands and
hazardous fire fuel loading created from disease and insect outbreaks (i.e., pine beetles, dwarf mistletoe,
and white pine blister rust), old and decadent stands, and from slash associated with minor wood product
harvest by the general public. These actions would reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire events
and improve overall forest stand health, vigor, and production. Forest and woodlands management actions
would be implemented to manipulate aspen, juniper, limber pine, and other noncommercial tree species to
improve stand health and meet other multiple-use objectives, such as wildlife habitat improvement. These
actions would have significant impact on forest health management by contributing to the development of
noncommercial forest and woodlands, creating a spatial mosaic and vertical age class distribution of the
forest landscape, and promoting improved stand vigor as well as reducing hazardous fire fuel and stand
overloading while making forest products available to the public.

The entire RMPPA would be open to livestock grazing. Livestock management actions would include the
implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (USDI, BLM 1997), which requires
meeting standards for vegetation health, wildlife habitat, and riparian habitat.

Livestock grazing would decrease competition from herbaceous plants that compete with tree seedlings
for water, sunlight, and nutrition. In open harvest or treatment sites, livestock would also trample the

4-44

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Forest Management

topsoil and spread manure, thus contributing to the early success and growth of a forest stand in these
areas. In areas where livestock concentrate, there would be an increase in the grazing of tree saplings and
seedlings in regenerating harvest or treatment sites, causing the trees to grow in a bush-type manner with
stunted or stagnant growth. This would potentially lead to the production of an unhealthy forest stand.
This also would make the trees weak and susceptible to disease and insect attacks as well. This has little
effect on the growth and production of the overall forest landscape. In areas outside of harvest or
treatment regeneration sites, the impact would be moderate to low.

A goal of the OHV management program is to prevent or mitigate resource damage caused by OHV use,
which would help limit the number of newly created two-tracks in forested areas not suitable for OHV
use. The creation of new two-tracks would cause the temporary loss of forest ground cover (such as
forbs/grasses, seedlings, and saplings) and contribute to increased soil compaction and erosion in forested
areas; however, these impacts would have a low or negligible effect on the overall forest landscape.

The removal of forest products from developed recreation sites, such as Prior Flat Campground, would be
limited to activities that lessen hazardous fuel loadings or address public safety concerns (e.g. dead tree
removals). Because recreational sites are generally small and not heavily forested, there would be little
impact on commercial or noncommercial harvest of forest products. Recreational pursuits in forested
areas are generally compatible with most forest management activities, including forest health objectives
and some forms of timber harvesting. Recreationists would potentially be displaced temporarily from or
forced to avoid areas of treatment or harvest activity because of alteration of the visual appearance of the
forest landscape, chainsaw noise, and road traffic. In areas not set aside for recreational use, the impact
would be low or negligible.

The pursuit of land tenure adjustments within the Shirley Mountain SRMA would create a better
opportunity to apply forest health management actions. Ponderosa pine stands in the Pedro Mountains
would be managed with a restriction on commercial and noncommercial forest product removal, which
would have no impact because of the inability to access and harvest forest products in the area.

Actions associated with SD/MA management would have little to no impact on the overall forest health
management program. Commercial forest product harvest activities adjacent to the Cave Creek Cave
location would be designed in a manner that would not affect water temperature going into the cave.

WSAs (Map 2-6) would be managed according to the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under
Wilderness Review, until Congress either designates each WSA as “wilderness” or releases it from
consideration and it reverts to multiple-use land. All forest and woodlands within WSA areas would be
closed to any type of commercial forest product harvesting but would be open to forest health
management treatments that do not require the use of mechanical equipment. The use of prescribed
natural wildland fire as a forest management tool would reduce hazardous fire fuel loading and promote
diversity in stand age class distribution as well as improved forest health. Without periodic disturbance,
stands would overstock, stagnate, and develop poor health, thereby creating the potential for insect and
disease outbreaks, hazardous fire fuels overloading, and catastrophic wildfire events. Actions associated
with WSA management would have little to no impact on the overall forest health management program.

Under vegetation management, aspen stands would be managed to achieve the objectives of the Healthy
Forest Initiative (TITLE I — Hazardous Fuel Reduction on Federal Land, pp. 3-15) (TITLE IV — Insect
Infestation and Related Diseases, pp. 22-26) and Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 as well as
Wyoming Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands (USDI, BLM 1997). Forest health treatments
would be designed to remove hazardous fire fuel loading and stem conifer encroachment as well as
remove decadent and diseased clones from aspen stands, thereby allowing young, vigorous, and healthy
clones to be released to thrive and grow and potentially increasing the overall health of aspen stands over

Rawlins RMP

4-45

Chapter 4-Forest Management

Final EIS

the long term. These actions under vegetation resource management would have a moderate to low impact
on the overall forest health management program.

Forest health management activities would be designed to avoid unstable areas, such as landslides, slopes
of greater than 25 percent, slumps, and areas exhibiting soil creep, and would avoid identified 100-year
floodplains, areas 500 feet from perennial surface water and/ or wetland and riparian areas, and areas 100
feet from ephemeral channels. Riparian buffer zones and steep slope area restriction would potentially
limit the size of a forest product harvest or restrict an area from potential harvest. Actions under water
quality, watershed, and soil resources would have a low impact on the overall forest health management
program.

All forest health management actions would potentially be modified to comply with wildlife stipulations
and restrictions to minimize disturbance as well as to maintain connectivity between large contiguous
blocks of wildlife and raptor habitat, especially identified habitat of T&E species. Forest health
management actions would be designed not only to promote and enhance forest health but also to promote
and enhance healthy wildlife habitat. NSO/Controlled Surface Use (CSU) stipulations of 825 feet would
be placed around all identified raptor nesting sites, such as for goshawks (1,200 feet for ferruginous
hawks), within a forest project or treatment area. However, doing so would lessen the size as well as the
amount of forest product that would be removed from a project or treatment area. Forest management
areas that fall within the 1 /2-mile no-surface-disturbance radius of an active bald eagle’s nest would
potentially be restricted from all forest health management actions during the time period from February 1
to August 15. Such restrictions and timing stipulations from wildlife management on forest health
management actions would allow for excess hazardous fire fuel buildup and would contribute to insect
and disease outbreaks in the isolated forested areas as well as allow for shorter treatment implementation
time and harvest windows. This would also contribute to fewer forest acres being treated and to lower
forest product quantities being harvested during projects for forest product removal and/or treatment in
these identified areas. In times of drought, harsh winters, and low forage production, big game species,
such as elk, tend to feed on young seedlings and saplings in regenerating harvest and/or treatment areas,
potentially causing trees to grow in a bush-type manner with stunted or stagnant growth that would lead
to the production of an unhealthy forest stand. Although this makes the trees weak and susceptible to
disease and insect attacks, it has little effect on the growth and production of the overall forest landscape,
and its impact is low in areas outside of regenerating harvest or treatment sites. T&E and BLM sensitive
species habitat, such as for the boreal toad, would heavily restrict forest management activities in that area
to protect significant habitat. This would also potentially reduce the number of harvest and/or treatment
acres as well as forest product harvest quantities. Actions associated with the management of the overall
wildlife and fisheries program would have moderate to low impacts on forest health management.

4.5.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing

Management

Impacts on forest resources from air quality, minerals, OHV, paleontology, socioeconomics, and wild
horse management would have little or no impact on forest health management actions.

In areas of cultural concern, any area within 1/4 mile of a cultural property or the visual horizon,
whichever is closer, would be an avoidance area for surface disturbing activities, if the setting contributes
to NRHP eligibility. Modification of forest management actions (application of cultural BMPs, etc.) that
might diminish the integrity of a cultural property’s setting or incorporation of protective measures for
Native American sacred or sensitive sites would potentially influence the type, size, and location of a
forestry health project or treatment as well as the amount of forest product that would be removed from an
identified area. Forest health treatments, noncommercial and commercial thinning projects, and hazardous

4-46

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4~Forest Management

fire fuels reductions as well as commercial harvests would potentially be modified if a known NRHP-
eligible cultural resource site were present. In rare cases, a forest management project or treatment would
be precluded if redesign or other mitigation measures were not adequate. Forest health management
actions conducted near or adjacent to these areas would be constructed to protect cultural resources and
would abide by all cultural laws and/or restrictions that apply.

Wildland fire suppression activities would be managed for AMR. Suppression actions associated with
wildland fire would increase the potential for hazardous fuels loading; they would also protect forest
product stands that are of commercial value. There would be an increased need for forest health
management actions including but not limited to thinning projects (both commercial and pre-
commercial), prescribed bums, and commercial harvest to assist in the reduction of hazardous fuels as
well as to create fuel breaks within forested areas. Fire and forest management actions would be designed
to work together to promote forest health and stand vigor as well as reintroduce fire back into fire-
dependent ecosystems. Wildland fire for resource benefit would be used to protect, maintain, and enhance
resources and, as nearly as possible, allow fire to function in its natural ecological role. Fire would
consume duff to expose bare soil for seeds while, at the same time, the heat produced from the fire would
stimulate serotonins pine cones (such as Ponderosa and lodgepole pine), allowing them to release the
seeds. However, if the fuel loading is too great, the heat from the fire would be too intense and cause
damage to the soil as well as cause a potential long-term loss of vegetation.

There are roughly 28,500 acres of identified commercial forest lands (the majority being located in the
Shirley Mountain area) within the RMPPA. Of those 28,500 acres identified as commercial forest lands,
6,700 acres are identified as riparian buffer zones and steep slopes. The allowable harvest level is about
10 million board feet (MMBF) per decade (although the current level is somewhere between 350
thousand board feet [MBF] and 550 MBF because of the current decline in the forest product industry in
the State of Wyoming).

The condition of the commercial forest stands would improve over the long term because mature and
overmature stands would be removed and replaced with younger, healthier stands. The dominant tree
species is lodgepole pine. Clear-cuts are the most feasible commercial forest product harvest method
because of the need of the lodgepole pine for open bare ground and for the large amounts of heat from the
sun, or from alternative sources such as fire, that are required to open its serotonins cones to release seeds
for germination. Another reason why clear-cuts are the most feasible is that the lodgepole pine’s shallow
root systems tend to allow the trees to blow over in high-wind conditions, causing a buildup of hazardous
fire fuels on the forest floor when spaced too widely apart. However, there are several other silvicultural
practices available (Appendix 19, Forestry) (Section 3.5.1 and Map 3-1).

The decline in local demand for saw timber has directly reduced timber harvests and is expected to
continue over the long term. Because of this decline, forest management actions would focus on
improving forest health to meet ecological objectives rather than commercial forest product production.
Over the next 100 years, the nonharvested commercial forestland would continue to follow a natural
succession with a potentially increased likelihood of insects, disease, and wildland fire outbreaks as well
as stagnation problems. These harvest level reductions would contribute to the overgrowth of forest
stands and buildup of hazardous fire fuels, thus creating the need for alternative management actions,
such as stewardship/service, hazardous fire fuels reduction, thinning, and forest health improvement
projects. Implementation of such projects would contribute to the reduction of hazardous fire fuels levels,
forest stand stagnation and overgrowth, and conifer encroachment into aspen stands as well as the
potential for a catastrophic wildland fire event. These alternative management actions, if implemented,
would also contribute to improved stand spacing, health, vigor, and age class distribution, which are key
in controlling wildland fire, insect, and disease outbreaks.

Rawlins RMP

4-47

Chapter 4-Forest Management

Final EIS

Through thinning and improved stand spacing, which opens up the tree crown canopy, allowing rain and
sunlight to reach and promote the growth of grass and forbs on the forest floor, forage for wildlife would
be greatly increased. These actions would have significant impact on forest health management by
contributing to the accomplishment of multiple-use management objectives and the development of both
commercial and noncommercial forest and woodlands to create a spatial mosaic and vertical age class
distribution of the forest landscape and promote improved stand vigor as well as reduce hazardous fire
fuel and stand overloading while making forest products available to the public (see Long-Term [100
Years] Age-Class Redistribution of Lodgepole Pine Under Current Management Table in Appendix 19,
Forestry; Stand Development section).

Under lands and realty management, before taking any disposal action, consideration would be given to
each individual tract and would include public involvement (Appendix 6). The preferred method of
disposal, consolidation, or acquisition of lands by BLM would be through exchange. Pursuing access to
Shirley Mountain, Elk Mountain, Arlington, and Little Medicine through ROWs and/or land exchange
(Appendix 7) would increase the ability to apply forest health management actions to BLM-administered
forest lands in isolated areas to control insect and disease outbreaks and reduce hazardous fire fuels
loading. Individual problem areas would more likely be treated in a timely manner, improving the overall
health of the forest landscape. Access into these areas would also allow for increased opportunities for the
removal of commercial forest products. Communications sites, such as cell phone towers, are sometimes
constructed within forested areas and would cause long-term loss of forest vegetation at the site of the
tower as well as of the access road. Location of new communication sites would be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis. New access roads associated with these site developments would provide new access into
forested areas that previously had limited or no access to apply forest health management treatments and
potentially harvest commercial forest products.

The entire RMPPA would be open to livestock grazing. Livestock management actions would include the
implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (USDI, BLM 1997), which requires
meeting standards for vegetation health, wildlife habitat, and riparian habitat.

Livestock grazing would decrease competition from herbaceous plants that compete with tree seedlings
for water, sunlight, and nutrition. In open harvest or treatment sites, livestock would also trample the
topsoil and spread manure, contributing to the early success and growth of a forest stand in these areas. In
areas where livestock concentrate, there would be an increase in the grazing of tree saplings and seedlings
in regenerating harvest or treatment sites, thereby causing the trees to grow in a bush-type manner with
stunted or stagnant growth, which would potentially lead to the production of an unhealthy forest stand.
This also would make the trees weak and susceptible to disease and insect attacks. This has little impact
on the growth and production of the overall forest landscape.

Developed recreational sites, such as Prior Flats and Bennett Peak campgrounds, would not be available
for commercial forest product harvesting; however, they would be open to forest health management
actions to reduce hazardous fire fuels loading in and around the site to help reduce the potential of a
catastrophic event such as a wildfire. Recreational pursuits in forested areas are generally compatible with
most forest management activities, including forest health objectives and some timber harvesting.

The pursuit of land tenure adjustments within the Shirley Mountain SRMA would create a better
opportunity to apply forest health management actions. Ponderosa pine stands in the Pedro Mountains
would be managed with a restriction on commercial and noncommercial forest product removal, which
would have little to no impact because of the inability to access and harvest forest products in the area.

4-48

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4~Forest Management

Actions associated with SD/MA management would have little to no impact on the overall forest health
management program. Commercial forest product harvest activities adjacent to the Cave Creek Cave
location would be designed in a manner that would not affect water temperature going into the cave.

WSAs (Map 2-6) would be managed according to the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under
Wilderness Review, until Congress either designates each WSA as “wilderness” or releases it from
consideration and it reverts to multiple-use land. All forest and woodlands within WSAs would be closed
to any type of commercial forest product harvesting but would be open to forest health management
treatments that do not require the use of mechanical equipment. The use of prescribed natural wildland
fire as a forest management tool would reduce hazardous fire fuel loading and promote diversity in stand
age class distribution as well as improved forest health. Without periodic disturbance, stands would
overstock, stagnate, and develop poor health, thereby creating the potential for insect and disease
outbreaks, hazardous fire fuels overloading, and catastrophic wildfire events.

Pursuing access through the transportation and access program to Shirley Mountain, Elk Mountain,
Arlington, and Little Medicine through easements (Table 2-8) would increase the ability to apply forest
health management actions to BLM-administered forest lands in isolated areas to control insect and
disease outbreaks and reduce hazardous fire fuels loading. Individual problem areas would be more likely
to be treated in a timely manner, improving the overall health of the forest landscape.

Vegetation management actions would help achieve the objectives of the Healthy Forest Initiative
(TITLE I — Hazardous Fuel Reduction on Federal Land, pp. 3-15) (TITLE IV — Insect Infestation and
Related Diseases, pp. 22-26) and Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 as well as Wyoming Standards
and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands (Forestland) Management (1997) by promoting good-quality
rangeland and aspen stand health. Vegetation treatments would be designed to remove hazardous fire fuel
loading, stem conifer encroachment, and remove decadent and diseased clones from aspen stands, thereby
allowing young, vigorous, and healthy clones to be released to thrive and grow and potentially increasing
the overall health of aspen stands over the long term. Vegetation treatments would be applied to meet
management objectives and standards for rangeland health and watershed function. Implementation of
vegetation treatments in isolated woodland areas would contribute to the reduction of hazardous fuel
loading and promote stand vigor and age class distribution. Priority for control of noxious and invasive
species would be to reduce and/or eliminate, where possible, small new infestations and to control large
infestations. This would contribute to the control of noxious and invasive weed species, in forest and
woodlands, that would compete for food, water, and sunlight with tree seedlings in early stages of
germination. Management actions from vegetation management such as mechanical and prescribed fire
treatments to aspen stands as well as other riparian and woodland ecosystems to rejuvenate decadent and
diseased stands would have a positive impact on the accomplishment of forest health management goals.

VRM classes would be designated as shown in Map 2-51 (Table 2-9 and Appendix 25). Forested public
land adjacent to the Medicine Bow National Forest and a portion of Shirley Mountain would fall into
VRM Class II. Commercial forest product removals conducted within these areas would be regulated and
restricted by rules and guidelines associated with VRM Class II classification. This would influence how
large or visible a harvest or treatment unit would be and how large a buffer zone must be between an
existing road and/or vehicle route and a treatment or harvest area as well as influence the method of
harvest and location and method of construction of access temporary roads.

Surface disturbing activities would be avoided on unstable areas, such as landslides, slopes of greater than
25 percent, slumps, and areas exhibiting soil creep. Surface disturbing activities would avoid identified
100-year floodplains, areas 500 feet from perennial surface water and / or wetland and riparian areas, and
areas 100 feet from ephemeral channels. However, these areas would be open to forest health
management actions, such as hazardous fire fuels reduction projects, to improve poor forest health

Rawlins RMP

4-49

Chapter 4~Forest Management

Final EIS

condition in riparian areas. Leaving buffer zones between harvest sites and riparian and/or drainages
would protect those sensitive areas from potentially damaging surface disturbance, such as soil
compaction/erosion and significant vegetation and habitat loss, associated with commercial forest product
harvests. Forest health management projects and treatments, such as thinning, commercial forest product
removal, and hazardous fire fuels management, would be designed to protect sensitive soils from erosion.

Forest health management projects and/or treatments would be regulated by restrictions, such as seasonal
closures and timing stipulations, to minimize disturbance and to maintain connectivity across large
contiguous blocks of wildlife and raptor habitat, especially identified habitat of T&E species. A 3/4- to 1-
mile buffer zone, as well as February 1 to July 3 1 timing restrictions for nesting raptors, along with big
game timing restrictions from November 15 to April 30 for crucial winter range (Maps 2-53, 2-54, and 2-
55) and from May 1 to June 30 for big game parturition areas (Maps 2-55 and 2-56) would limit the
ability to conduct forest health management actions, such as forest health treatments and commercial
harvests. These restrictions would also limit the amount of forest product that would be removed from an
area in the event that a raptor is found inhabiting an area or if an area is identified as big game parturition
or crucial winter range. These timing restrictions would also limit allowable forest harvest windows.
Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be intensively managed to minimize impacts on
identified crucial habitat for sensitive species for the purpose of protecting these species and their
associated habitats (Appendices 1 and 15). Sensitive species habitat identified within forested areas would
potentially restrict activities associated with forest health management to preserve and protect that habitat.
This would potentially reduce the number of harvest/treatment acres as well as contribute to poor forest
health and hazardous fire fuel buildup in those identified areas, thereby adding a greater potential for
insect, disease, and wildland fire outbreaks.

Summary

There would be little to no impact to forest health management from air quality, minerals, paleontology,
SD/MA, transportation and access, OHV, socioeconomics, and wild horse management actions. Forest
health management actions would have some potential modifications of projects and treatments from
stipulations and restrictions associated with management actions to protect cultural; recreation; VRM;
water quality, watershed, and soils; and wildlife resources; however, impacts would be low. Impacts from
livestock grazing would be moderate to low. The reintroduction of fire into fire-dependent forest
ecosystems as well as the use of fire to reduce fuel loading and promote stand vigor; the acquisition of
legal access to Shirley Mountain, Elk Mountain, Arlington, and Little Medicine areas through easements,
ROWs, and/or land exchange; and the promotion of good rangeland and aspen stand health through
vegetation management actions would all have moderate to low impacts on the overall accomplishment of
forest health management goals.

4.5.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of

Resources

Impacts from air quality; cultural; livestock grazing; minerals; OHV; paleontology; recreation;
socioeconomics; transportation and access; vegetation; water quality, watershed, and soils; and wild horse
management would be the same as those in Alternative 1 .

With the exception of some SD/MAs (Map 2-1), emphasis would be placed on the suppression of all
wildfires, regardless of ignition source. Although these suppression actions would increase the potential
for fuel loading, they would also protect timber stands that are of commercial value. There would be an
increased need for forest health management actions including but not limited to prescribed bums and
commercial harvest to assist in the reduction of hazardous fuels.

4-50

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4~Forest Management

Forest management would focus on forest health for timber production, rather than ecological objectives.

The entire RMPPA, with the exception of SD/MA/WSAs, would be open to commercial forest product
harvest. The allowable harvest level would be double those identified in Alternative 1. Increases in
allowable harvest levels would contribute to the rejuvenation of overmature forest stands by allowing
them to be replaced by young and vigorous trees and also to a reduction in the number of stems per acre
in overstocked forest stands, thus potentially improving the health and productivity of the overall forest
landscape. Stand conversions from even aged stands to uneven aged stands would benefit forest stand
health, vigor, age class distribution, and overall productivity as well as improve wildlife habitat by
replacing old stagnate stands with young thriving trees and plant life. Larger harvest and/or treatment
units would potentially serve as fire breaks between overgrown, mature forest stands, which would
potentially lessen the chances of a catastrophic wildfire event occurring. This would also contribute to
control of insect and disease spread between unhealthy and healthy forest stands. These actions would
have significant impact on forest health management by contributing to the accomplishment of multiple-
use management objectives and the development of commercial forest and woodlands to create a spatial
mosaic and vertical age class distribution of the forest landscape and promote improved stand vigor as
well as reduce hazardous fire fuel and stand overloading while making forest products available to the
public.

ROWs to access Shirley Mountain, Elk Mountain, Arlington, and Little Medicine would not be pursued
for commercial forest development (Appendix 7). This would decrease the opportunity and ability to
pursue commercial forest product harvests as well as implement forest health treatments in these areas.
This would also contribute to insect and disease outbreaks, the buildup of hazardous fire fuels, stand
overstocking and stagnation, poor forest health conditions, and the potential for a catastrophic wildfire
event to occur. Management actions from lands and realty, such as the non-pursuit of land exchanges and
easements for the purpose of forest development, would have a moderate to low impact on forest
management for maximum commercial forest product harvest yields as well as for forest health in these
identified isolated areas because of lack of access.

The Cave Creek Cave area would not be managed as an ACEC, thereby reducing restrictions on ground
disturbing activities associated with commercial forest product harvests in that area. However, within 1/4
mile of the Cave Creek Cave area, forest management activities would be intensively managed so as not
to disturb or alter the cave’s ecosystem and/or water temperature. Commercial forest product harvests in
this area would contribute to the accomplishment of maximum harvest levels. Forest product harvest
projects in the Cave Creek Cave area would be designed not only to promote and enhance forest health
but to improve and protect cultural, wildlife, and ecosystem habitat as well as to meet bat cave
management standards and Healthy Forest Initiative objectives. SD/MA management actions would have
little to no impacts on forest management actions.

Pursuing access through the transportation and access program through easements (Table 2-8) to access
Shirley Mountain, Elk Mountain, Arlington, and Little Medicine would not be pursued for commercial
forest development. This would decrease the opportunity and ability to pursue commercial forest product
harvests as well as implement forest health treatments in these areas. This would also contribute to insect
and disease outbreaks, the buildup of hazardous fire fuels, stand overstocking and stagnation, poor forest
health conditions, and the potential for a catastrophic wildfire event to occur. Management actions from
lands and realty, such as the non-pursuit of land exchanges and easements for the purpose of forest
development, would have a moderate to low impact on forest management for maximum commercial
forest product harvest yields as well as for forest health in these identified isolated areas because of lack
of access.

Rawlins RMP

4-51

Chapter 4~Forest Management

Final EIS

Impacts resulting from VRM would be similar to those in Alternative 1, except that Shirley Mountain
would be designated as VRM Class III. This change would reduce restrictions on forest management
practices, thereby allowing harvesting sites to be more visible from roads and scenic areas and less
tailored toward viewshed protection, which would provide more opportunities for commercial forest
product removal in areas considered to be of visual value. Fewer restrictions on viewshed protection
would contribute to the accomplishment of maximum forest product harvest levels by allowing forested
areas considered to be of viewshed value to be harvested without leaving buffer zones or limiting the size,
make-up, location, or design of a forest harvest project as long as it does not dominate the view of the
landscape.

Impacts to forest health management from wildlife and fisheries management would be similar to those in
Alternative 1, except that there would be no timing stipulations and restrictions placed on surface
disturbing activities associated with commercial forest product harvests in big game habitat. The removal
of timing restrictions and stipulations on big game habitat would allow for earlier start times on forest
harvest projects and longer harvest windows. Fewer restrictions in big game habitat, such as parturition
and crucial winter ranges, would contribute to increased harvest potential in those identified areas.
However, 1/2 mile from the nest buffer zone and increased timing restrictions from April 1 to August 31
for raptors, such as northern goshawks, would potentially reduce the amount of forest product and time of
harvesting windows of a potential harvest or treatment site if the area is identified raptor habitat or is
known to have a raptor present.

Summary

Impacts from air quality; cultural; livestock grazing; minerals; OHV; paleontology; recreation;
socioeconomics; transportation and access; vegetation; water quality, watershed, and soils; and wild horse
management would be the same as those in Alternative 1. The suppression of fire would eliminate or
highly limit the presence of fire in fire-dependent forest ecosystems and the use of wildland fire as a
resource management tool. Such suppressions would contribute to the buildup of hazardous fire fuels as
well as stand stagnation and overstocking in woodland areas, but would protect forest areas considered to
be of commercial value. Actions from fire and fuels management would have a moderate impact on forest
management actions. SD/MA management actions would have little or no impact. VRM would place less
restriction on the makeup, design, and placement of commercial forest product harvest and forest health
treatment projects as compared with Alternative 1. Implementation of fewer wildlife stipulations and
restrictions would allow for more flexibility in implementing forest health actions. The lack of pursuit of
access to Shirley Mountain, Elk Mountain, Arlington, and Little Medicine areas through easements,
ROWs, and/or land exchanges would have moderate impacts on the overall accomplishment of forest
management actions for development under this alternative.

4.5.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of
Resources

Impacts from air quality; lands and realty; livestock grazing; paleontology; transportation and access;
VRM; socioeconomics; water quality, watershed, and soils; and wild horse management would be the
same as those in Alternative 1 .

Minerals, OHV, and recreation management actions would have little to no impact on forest health
management actions under this alternative.

Surface disturbing activities would not be allowed within 1/4 mile of a cultural property or the visual
horizon, whichever is closer, if the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility. Disturbance activities

4-52

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Forest Management

associated with forest health management, such as hazardous fire fuels reductions, would be restricted in
forested areas found to be of cultural value. This would potentially reduce forest health treatment acres as
well as contribute to poor forest health conditions and the buildup of hazardous fire fuels in identified
cultural avoidance areas. In rare cases, a forest management project or treatment would be precluded if
redesign or other mitigation measures were not adequate. Forest health management activities near or
adjacent to cultural property areas would be conducted to protect cultural resources and would abide by
all cultural laws and/or restrictions that apply.

With the exception of WUIs, some ACECs, and other SD/MAs, the use of wildland fire for resource
benefit would be emphasized for all natural ignitions. The use of wildland fire for resource benefit to
reduce heavy fuel loading on forest floors, reintroduce fire into stands that are fire-dependent, and create
fire breaks between healthy and unhealthy forest stands would over the long term result in improved
forest health throughout the overall forest landscape. This would include areas of decadent and/or
stagnate forest stands (both conifer and aspen), stands infested with insects or disease, and species like
ponderosa pine that have a short fire return interval.

Under Alternative 3, forests and woodlands would be managed with emphasis on protection of resources
and natural processes (Appendix 19, Forestry) (Appendix 33, Forestry). Management actions on 28,500
acres of land identified as commercial forests, the majority being in the Shirley Mountain area, would be
conducted to enhance forest health through treatments such as stewardship/service and hazardous fire
fuels reduction projects as well as to meet public demand for minor wood products (Section 3.5.1 and
Map 3-1). Implementing such management actions would potentially reduce forest stand stocking and
improve stand spacing, which would open up the forest floor to rain and sunlight, potentially increasing
ground vegetation. This would lead to a potential improvement in overall forest stand ecosystem health in
these identified commercial forest areas. These actions would have significant impact on forest health
management by contributing to the accomplishment of multiple use management objectives and the
overall improvement of forest stand health in forests and woodlands to create a spatial mosaic and vertical
age class distribution of the forest landscape and promote improved stand vigor as well as reduce
hazardous fire fuel and stand overloading while making forest products available to the public.

The Cave Creek Cave area (520 acres) (Map 2-8), would be managed as an ACEC. Forest health
management actions would not be allowed within 1/2 mile of the cave complex. This would contribute to
a decrease in forest health treatment acres as well as to insect and disease outbreaks, hazardous fire fuels
buildup, and increased potential for a wildland fire to spread. As a result of the small acreage within the
Cave Creek Cave area and its location, there would be little to no impact to overall forest health
management.

Impacts resulting from vegetation management would be similar to those in Alternative 1, except that
vegetation treatments would be applied to meet standards for rangeland health and watershed function and
to achieve DPC. Habitat for wildlife, habitat for Special Status Species, and priority for control of noxious
and invasive species would be managed to attain native, weed-free communities. Implementation of
vegetation treatments combined with forest health management actions in isolated woodland areas would
contribute to the reduction of hazardous fuel loading and promote stand vigor and age class distribution in
those isolated areas. These actions along with the reintroduction of fire as a resource management tool to
manage fire-dependent forest and vegetation ecosystems would improve aspen as well as woodland stand
and ecosystem health, thus positively affecting the overall accomplishments of forest health management
goals.

Impacts resulting from wildlife and fisheries management would be similar to those in Alternative 1,
except there would be more protection placed on habitat for raptors, big game, and protected wildlife/fish
species in the form of restrictions, timing stipulations, and seasonal closures. Implementation of these

Rawlins RMP

4-53

Chapter 4-Forest Management

Final EIS

timing restrictions and seasonal closures would highly limit the ability to apply forest health management
actions in forested areas identified as critical wildlife habitat. This would potentially contribute to the
buildup of hazardous fire fuels, poor forest stand health, and poor wildlife habitat health. Overmature
forest stands would out-compete ground vegetation — such as grasses and forbs needed for forage by
wildlife — for sunlight and water, thereby causing them to die out.

Summary

Impacts to forest health management actions from air quality, livestock grazing, paleontology, VRM,
transportation and access, socioeconomics, and wild horse management would be the same as those in
Alternative 1 , while lands and realty, minerals, OHV, recreation, and water quality, watershed, and soils
management actions would have low impacts. Forest management actions would have stricter guidelines,
restrictions, closures, and timing stipulations from cultural and wildlife management actions. There would
be some loss of harvestable or treatable acres because of these increased stipulations and/or restrictions.
The use of wildland fire for resource benefit to reduce heavy fuel loading on forest floors, reintroduce fire
into stands that are fire-dependent, and create fire breaks between healthy and unhealthy forest stands as
well as to promote good rangeland and aspen stand health through vegetation management actions would
have a positive impact on the overall improvement of forest health and the overall accomplishment of
forest health management goals under this alternative.

4.5.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan

Impacts to forest health management from management actions associated with air quality, fire and fuels,
lands and realty, livestock grazing, OHV, minerals, paleontology, recreation, transportation and access,
vegetation, VRM, and wild horse management would be the same as those impacts in Alternative 1 .

Wildlife and fish management actions would be similar to those in Alternative 1, except that timing
stipulations associated with raptors would be applied to individual nesting species. This would allow for
greater flexibility in the application of forest health management actions.

Impacts to forest health management from management actions associated with cultural; water quality,
watershed, and soils; and SD/MA management would be the same as those impacts in Alternative 3.

Forest health management actions under this alternative would follow the same procedures and direction
as those under Alternative 1, except that there would be 6,700 fewer acres available for commercial forest
product removal (Appendix 33, Forestry). Only 21,813 acres identified as commercial forestlands would
be available for commercial timber harvest (Section 3.5.1 and Map 3-1). These acres are steep slopes and
riparian areas and their associated buffer zones, and they would not be available for commercial timber
harvest. However, these areas would be open to forest health management treatments such as hazardous
fire fuels reductions or stewardship projects to improve riparian ecosystem health. Implementing such
treatments would reduce the potential in those areas for a wildland fire outbreak that would potentially
destroy significant habitat. These actions would have a moderate impact on the overall accomplishment of
forest health management goals.

Summary

Impacts to forest health management from management actions associated with air quality, fire and fuels,
lands and realty, livestock grazing, OHV, minerals, paleontology, recreation, transportation and access,
vegetation, VRM, and wild horse management would be the same as those impacts in Alternative 1 .

4-54

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Forest Management

Wildlife and fish management actions would be similar to those in Alternative 1, except that timing
stipulations associated with raptors would be applied to individual nesting species. This would allow for
greater flexibility in the application of forest health management actions.

Impacts associated with cultural; water quality, watershed, and soils; and SD/MA management would be
the same as those impacts in Alternative 3.

Rawlins RMP

4-55

Chapter 4-Lands and Realty

Final EIS

4.6 Lands and Realty

This section describes potential impacts on lands and realty management from management actions of
other resource programs. Lands and realty management includes land tenure adjustments (sales,
exchanges, and acquisitions) and ROWs. Existing conditions concerning lands and realty are described in
Section 3.6.

Significance Criteria

Impacts to lands and realty management would be considered significant if either of the following were to
occur:

• Substantial reduction in opportunity for ROW authorizations and development activities

• Substantial reduction in the opportunity for land tenure adjustments.

Methods of Analysis

Analysis of the potential impacts on lands and realty management involved close collaboration among
BLM resource specialists to compile infonnation based on expertise and knowledge within the RFO.
Impact analyses and conclusions are therefore based on the interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources
and review of existing literature, as well as information provided by experts in BLM and other agencies.
Spatial analysis was conducted using Environmental Systems Research Institute’s (ESRI) ArcGIS
Desktop 9. 1 computer software. Effects are quantified where possible. In the absence of quantitative data,
best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes described using ranges of potential impacts
or in qualitative terms if appropriate.

The analysis is based on the following assumptions:

• The lands and realty program is a support program rather than an environmental component. The
program responds to requests for authorizations, permits, leases, land tenure adjustments, etc.,
from other programs or outside entities. The discussion of the effects on the lands and realty
program under each alternative will be limited to the influences on community expansion
opportunities and ROW authorizations for other permitted activities, that is, whether the effects of
other resource actions would potentially influence or modify the location, size, or design of a
given proposal or, in some limited cases, preclude a lands and realty action from being approved.

• The demand for disposal of public land would average about 500 acres per year. This acreage
includes disposal via direct sale, competitive sale, modified competitive sale, recreation and
public purpose (R&PP) lease, desert land entry (DLE) patent, or exchange. Before any disposals,
lands would be examined for the presence of high-value resources. Lands containing high surface
values would not be disposed of, or the disposal would provide for those values to be preserved.
BLM RFO Land Exchange Criteria (Appendix 6) would be used to screen potential land
exchanges for possible resource conflicts. Therefore, land disposals would not substantially affect
other resource programs. Lands identified for disposal under Sections 203 and 206 of FLPMA
and identified as such in this plan are hereby classified for disposal under Section 7 of the Taylor
Grazing Act of 1934, as amended (43 U.S.C. 3 1 5f) under E.O. 6910, and under 43 CFR 2400.

• Existing withdrawals (with the exception of approximately 3,200 acres of Bureau of Reclamation
[BOR] withdrawals) would be retained throughout the life of the plan unless it was determined,
through a withdrawal review, that an existing withdrawal(s) would be revoked, or modified.

4-56

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Lands and Realty

• The effects of development and designation of transportation and utility ROW corridors would be
mitigated on a case-by-case basis. Generally, this would be accomplished by locating future
transportation and utility ROWs adjacent to existing facilities (where possible). Designated ROW
corridors identified on Map 2-2 shall have a variable width either side of the centerline of the
existing facilities (see Lands and Realty section, Chapter 2). The corridors would be designated
for (1) aboveground and below-ground power lines, (2) telephone lines, (3) fiber optic lines, (4)
pipelines, and (5) other linear-type ROWs. Specific proposals would require site-specific
environmental analysis and compliance with established permitting processes. Activities
generally excluded from ROW corridors include mineral materials disposals, range and wildlife
habitat improvements involving surface disturbance and facility construction, campgrounds and
public recreation facilities, and other facilities that would attract public use. ROW facilities would
not be placed adjacent to each other if resource conflicts or issues with safety or incompatibility
were identified. Criteria for designated ROW corridors are presented in Appendix 34. Designated
corridors would vary by total width, number, type, extent, and compatibility of activities. New oil
and gas wells would be sited outside these designated ROW corridors. The designated width,
allowable uses, and excluded uses would be modified during implementation of the approved
RMP.

• Disposal of small, isolated parcels of public land would decrease the cost of public land
administration in the RMPPA and enhance efficiency in management of the remaining public
lands. In addition, the disposal of these small parcels would decrease conflicts between public
land users and private landowners.

• Competitive sales of small, isolated parcels might lead to pricing beyond the capability of the
owners of property adjacent to those parcels. If owners of adjacent or surrounding property could
not purchase the isolated parcels, land use conflicts might develop.

• RFDs and RFAs can be found in Appendix 33.

4.6.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Air quality, fire and fuels, forest, OHV, recreation, SD/MAs (except those listed below), transportation
and access, VRM, and wild horse management would have little or no impact on the lands and realty
program.

Management of cultural resources would influence the timing, location, size, and coloration of, but would
rarely preclude the development or completion of, lands and realty actions. In most cases, facilities would
be relocated to avoid disturbance to intact, buried cultural resources. In areas where the integrity of the
setting contributes to NRHP eligibility, proposals resulting in visual elements that diminish the integrity
of a property’s setting would be redesigned according to applicable requirements (Appendix 5).

Existing withdrawals that close areas to operation of the public land laws would restrict the location or
possibly preclude the placement of lands and realty actions. The review of withdrawals would determine
whether the withdrawals are serving or are needed for their intended purpose. Withdrawals that are
revoked or modified would then open public land to the operations of the public land laws and/or
locatable mineral entry, which would open more public land for different types of actions and create more
flexibility for placement of projects.

Land acquisitions would mainly be achieved through exchange. This would provide more flexibility and
opportunity to site facilities or other lands and realty actions as well as improve the management of the
public lands and their resources.

Rawlins RMP

4-57

Chapter 4~Lands and Realty

Final EIS

The designation of ROW corridors would consolidate surface disturbance to a specific area and avoid
areas with important resource values where possible (Table 2-5). In situations where these areas would
not be avoided, additional BMPs would minimize disturbance to these values. In only the rarest of
situations would a lands and realty action be precluded.

Coal leasing would entail only reclamation and would have no impact to lands and realty actions.

Lands and realty actions would avoid areas with important paleontological resource values where
possible. In situations where these areas would not be avoided, additional BMPs would minimize
disturbance to these values, and in only the rarest of situations might a lands and realty action be
precluded.

Recreation resources management of developed and undeveloped recreation sites would have a minimal
impact on the lands and realty program, due primarily to the small acreage required for recreation sites,
which can easily be avoided during placement of ROWs and facilities.

The Shirley Mountain SRMA (24,440 acres), Jelm Mountain SRMA (18,100 acres), and Laramie Plains
Lakes SRMA (1,600 acres) would possibly increase lands and realty actions by initiating the acquisition
of adjacent private lands, thereby improving the manageability of public lands within these areas.

The North Platte River SRMA (5,060 acres) and Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA (600
acres) would restrict oil and gas development within these areas, resulting in less potential for lands and
realty actions to occur. Restrictions would potentially include modification of the facilities location,
height, and color, and in rare cases would preclude lands and realty actions to protect sensitive values
within these SRMAs. Pursuing acquisitions of adjacent private lands would improve the manageability of
public lands within these areas.

WSAs (66,120 acres) management under the IMP would preclude facility placement within WSA
boundaries. However, this total acreage is spread throughout five WSAs across the entire RMPPA.
Therefore, the impacts associated with WSAs on the lands and realty program would be minimal.

Protection measures for Como Bluff ACEC/NNL (1,690 acres) would include restrictions or other
mitigation requirements for the protection of paleontological and historical values. These mitigation
measures would modify the location, height, and color of lands and realty actions so that historical and
paleontological resources are not adversely affected. Because of the relatively small area encompassed by
this ACEC, rarely, if ever, would a lands and realty action be prohibited.

The Sand Hills ACEC (7,960 acres), Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area Potential ACEC (5,530
acres), and High Savery Dam Potential ACEC (530 acres) would preclude surface occupancy. This would
require the rerouting of proposed ROWs outside of the SD/MA boundary.

Protection measures for historic trails (66,370 acres) generally include avoidance of the trail or other
mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts to historic trail settings. Linear crossings of the trail
would occur in previously disturbed areas. These mitigation measures would modify the location, design,
height, and color of facilities and, in some cases, would prohibit lands and realty actions that would
otherwise adversely affect the trail setting.

The Laramie Plains Lake Area (1,600 acres) would possibly increase lands and realty actions by initiating
the acquisition of adjacent private lands, thereby improving the manageability of public lands within these
areas.

4-58

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Lands and Realty

Maintenance of the public land transportation system would provide for public safety and adequate access
to public lands. Industry would, in most cases, use existing state, county, or BLM transportation systems
for initial access to potential mineral development, wind energy development, communication sites, etc.
Once activities are approved by BLM, industry would improve and maintain existing BLM roads or
develop new roads and routes to meet development and operational needs.

Vegetation management would require reclamation and weed control mitigation measures for surface
disturbing activities to revegetate disturbed areas to preexisting native plant species and eliminate weeds
(Appendix 36). Habitat containing threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate plant species
(Appendix 10) would potentially limit the location of utility /transportation facilities, wind energy, and/or
communication sites.

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions would include the avoidance of areas with water
resources, unstable soils, and steep slopes. These management actions would likely change the location or
design of some projects but are unlikely to preclude issuing ROWs and permits for projects. Intensive
management of projects within contributing areas of waterbodies listed as threatened or impaired on the
303d list would be required, which would likely include mitigation or BMPs but would likely not
preclude projects (Appendix 13).

Management of wildlife resources would restrict the location, height, and color of facilities; restrict
construction and/or maintenance schedules; and, in some cases, would prohibit lands and realty actions
that would otherwise adversely affect the wildlife resources and/or their habitat.

4.6.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing

Management

Air quality, fire and fuels, forest, OHV, SD/MAs (except those listed below), transportation and access,
and wild horse management would have little or no impact on the lands and realty program.

The protection of the setting of cultural properties (where the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility)
would be achieved through avoidance within 1/4 mile of the cultural property or other mitigation
measures (Appendix 5). In rare cases, lands and realty actions would be precluded, especially those
involving higher-profile structures such as power lines, communication sites, and wind energy
developments. ROWs and facilities would be hidden, screened, or redesigned to minimize impacts to the
contributing setting.

The protection of sensitive areas (e.g., Chain Lakes, dunal areas) would be achieved through cultural
monitoring on a case-by-case basis and would have little or no impact on the lands and realty program.

Closure of approximately 63,670 acres to the operation of the public land laws to maintain resource
values would potentially restrict the location of ROWs or prohibit lands and realty actions.

Land tenure adjustments would benefit the overall management of the public land through consolidation
or disposal of isolated parcels. Identified land tenure adjustments, approximately 61,010 acres, would be
pursued as appropriate. Acquiring state in-holdings in wild horse herd management areas (HMA), WSAs,
etc., would consolidate management and reduce fragmented surface ownership within these areas. The
ability to sell or exchange land and to issue R&PP leases would benefit both communities and industry by
allowing for needed community and economic expansion. The disposal of isolated tracts, preferably
through exchange, would result in the disposal of lands that are difficult to manage, thereby improving the
overall manageability of public lands within the RMPPA.

Rawlins RMP

4-59

Chapter 4-Lands and Realty

Final EIS

Intensive surface management of energy development and exploration within 1/4 mile of the incorporated
boundaries of all cities (1,500 total acres) would in rare cases limit ROW actions in these areas. However,
this limitation would maintain the availability of unencumbered public land for potential community
expansion.

Precluding development of alternative energy systems on approximately 111,770 acres would limit the
placement of these facilities. However, the majority of these exclusions are located in poor to moderate
wind energy potential areas. Therefore, the restrictions associated with this action would not significantly
affect the ability to develop alternative energy systems within the RMPPA.

Avoidance of sensitive areas or SD/MAs would restrict the location of or in some cases preclude the
development of utility and transportation systems and communication sites (Table 2-5; 518,300 acres). In
situations where these areas would not be avoided, applicable BMPs or mitigation measures would be
required so as to ensure that important resources are not adversely affected. The application of BMPs
would potentially result in project redesign, relocation, or restriction of construction and/or maintenance
schedules.

Livestock grazing mitigation measures applied to lands and realty actions associated with oil and gas
development would alter the location or design of these actions.

Existing and future mineral leasing, exploration, and development would preclude the ability to sell or
exchange subsurface public land parcels. The duration of the impact would be directly related to whether
the federal leases are held by mineral production and for how long the production continues. The number
of ROWs associated with oil and gas development activities is directly related to the oil and gas potential
of an area. In areas with high oil and gas potential, there would be a greater number of ROWs because
more production facilities would be required to extract the resource.

Paleontological resources would potentially restrict the location of lands and realty actions that would
otherwise adversely affect paleontological values. As previously stated, the majority of lands and realty
actions processed within the RMPPA would be within the oil and gas high and moderate potential areas.
As approximately 25 percent of the Class 5 fossil yield formations lie within areas with high and
moderate oil and gas potential, it is likely that lands and realty actions would have a moderate potential to
affect paleontological resources. Application of BMPs and mitigation measures would potentially result
in project redesign or relocation to avoid paleontological resources. Because of the relatively small area
encompassed by individual paleontological resources, rarely, if ever, would a lands and realty action be
prohibited.

Recreation sites would preclude operation of the public land laws, including sale. There would be
minimal impacts on the lands and realty program from recreation management primarily because of the
small acreage required for recreation sites, which can easily be avoided during placement of ROWs and
facilities. Therefore, recreation management would have little or no impact on lands and realty.

WSA (66,120 acres) management under the IMP would preclude facility placement within WSA
boundaries to maintain the wilderness characteristics.

Protection measures for Como Bluff ACEC/NNL (1,690 acres) would include restrictions or other
mitigation requirements for the protection of paleontological and historical values. Intensive management
of surface disturbing and disruptive activities within 1/4 mile of exposures of the Morrison Formation
would potentially result in additional BMPs or mitigation measures. These mitigation measures would
modify the location, height, and color of lands and realty actions so that historical and paleontological
resources are not adversely affected. Because of the relatively small area encompassed by this

4-60

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Lands and Realty

management area and the limited public land within this management area, rarely, if ever, would a lands
and realty action be prohibited.

Management actions for the Sand Hills ACEC (7,960 acres) would modify or restrict the placement of
lands and realty projects, such as utility/transportation systems and communication sites. The ACEC
would be an avoidance area to protect the relevant and important values. Should situations arise where the
ACEC would not be avoided, additional BMPs would be applied to minimize disturbance. Wind energy
projects would be excluded from within the boundaries of the ACEC, which would limit the placement of
these facilities within fair to good potential areas.

Management actions for the Jep Canyon ACEC (13,810 acres) would modify or restrict the placement of
facilities in this area.

Laramie Peak WHMA would possibly increase lands and realty actions by initiating the acquisition of
adjacent private lands, thereby expanding habitat to meet the objectives of the management area.
However, the nature of the terrain would preclude placement of major linear transportation facilities.

Protection measures for historic trails (66,370 acres) generally include avoidance of the trail or other
mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts to historic trail settings. These mitigation measures
would modify the location, height, and color of facilities and, in some cases, would prohibit lands and
realty actions that would otherwise adversely affect the trail setting.

Protection measures for T&E and Special Status Species habitat for the Laramie Plains Lakes Potential
ACEC (1,600 acres) and the Blowout Penstemon Potential ACEC (17,050 acres) would include
modification for the location of lands and realty actions or, in rare cases, would prohibit lands and realty
actions that would otherwise adversely affect the potential habitat. Increased potential habitat in public
ownership would increase opportunity to route or site lands actions where minimum disturbance would
occur.

The Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area Potential ACEC (5,530 acres) and High Savery Dam
Potential ACEC (530 acres) would preclude surface occupancy. This would require the reroute of
proposed lands and realty actions.

Vegetation management would require reclamation and weed control mitigation measures for surface
disturbing activities to revegetate disturbed areas to preexisting native plant species and eliminate weeds
(Appendix 36, Reclamation). Habitat containing threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate plant
species, as well as those plants listed on the Wyoming BLM sensitive list (Appendix 10), would
potentially limit the location of utility/transportation facilities, wind energy, and/or communication sites.
The sensitive species habitat would be avoided where possible, and, in situations where these areas would
not be avoided, additional BMPs would minimize disturbance to the habitat.

VRM classes would potentially restrict projects within VRM Class II areas of approximately 359,610
acres. To maintain the visual settings, ROWs and associated facilities would require mitigation measures,
including reducing the height of structures, painting structures to match the existing environment, and/or
redesigning or relocating facilities that would allow ROWs and facilities to blend better into the
surrounding landscape, and, in rare cases, would prohibit lands and realty actions.

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions include the avoidance of areas with water
resources, unstable soils, and steep slopes. These management actions would likely change the location or
design of some projects but are unlikely to preclude issuance of ROWs and permits for projects. Intensive
management of projects within contributing areas of waterbodies listed as threatened or impaired on the

Rawlins RMP

4-61

Chapter 4~Lands and Realty

Final EIS

303d list would be required, which would likely include mitigation or BMPs but would likely not
preclude projects (Appendix 13).

Mitigation measures (e.g., seasonal restrictions) to protect wildlife resources and T&E species and
Critical habitats would restrict the timing of surface disturbing and other disruptive activities, and would
restrict the location of facilities to avoid sensitive habitats.

Summary

Under Alternative 1, it is anticipated that there would be no reduction in ROW authorizations and
development activities, although there would be the need to protect other sensitive resources and habitats,
which would influence the location, opportunity, and timing of ROWs and other land and realty
authorized facilities. Protection of sensitive resources would have minimal influence on the ability to sell
or exchange public lands to meet community expansion needs. Therefore, no significant impacts would
occur to the lands and realty program under this alternative.

4.6.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of
Resources

Impacts from air quality, cultural resources; fire and fuels; forest; livestock grazing; OHV;
paleontological; recreation; SD/MAs (except those listed below); transportation and access; water quality,
watershed, and soils; and wild horse management would be the same as those under Alternative 1 .

Closure of approximately 6,400 acres to the operation of the public land laws to maintain resource values
would restrict the location of ROWs or prohibit lands and realty actions.

Land tenure adjustments would benefit the overall management of the public land through consolidation
or disposal of isolated parcels. Land tenure adjustments identified, of approximately 46,230 acres, would
be pursued as appropriate. Acquiring state in-holdings in wild horse HMAs, WSAs, etc., would
consolidate management and reduce fragmented surface ownership within these areas. The ability to sell
or exchange land and to issue R&PP leases would benefit both communities and industry by allowing for
needed community and economic expansion. The disposal of isolated tracts would result in the disposal
of lands that are difficult to manage, thereby improving the management of public lands within the
RMPPA.

Intensive surface management of energy development and exploration within 1/4 mile of the incorporated
boundaries of all cities (1,500 total acres) would be the same as in Alternative 1.

A reduction in the acres of avoidance for utility and transportation systems management, alternative
energy development, and communication sites would provide increased opportunity for ROWs and
facility placement.

Impacts resulting from minerals management would include increased opportunities and the flexibility for
the siting of proposed actions.

Management actions for the Sand Hills WHMA (7,960 acres), Como Bluff NNL (1,690 acres), Jep
Canyon WHMA (13,810), Shamrock Hills WHMA (18,400 acres), and WSRs would be same as those
under Alternative 1, except that wind energy projects would be allowed to occur. However, the resource
values of the areas would be protected through BMPs and mitigation, potentially resulting in modification
or alteration to the proposed action.

4-62

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Lands and Realty

Protection measures for habitat for the endangered Wyoming toad within the Laramie Plains Lakes
Potential ACEC would include modification for the location of lands and realty actions or, in rare cases,
would prohibit lands and realty actions that would otherwise adversely affect the potential habitat.

The Blowout Penstemon Potential ACEC area (130 acres) would be an avoidance area and would restrict
the location of ROWs and facilities. Should situations arise where the Potential ACEC would not be
avoided, additional BMPs would be applied to minimize disturbance to the habitat.

Vegetation management would require reclamation and weed control mitigation measures for surface
disturbing activities to revegetate disturbed areas to preexisting native plant species and eliminate weeds
(Appendix 36). Habitat containing threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate plant species
(Appendix 10) would potentially limit the location of utility/transportation facilities, wind energy, and/or
communication sites. BLM state sensitive species would not be afforded any protection; therefore, the
potential for reduction in species would occur.

Impacts resulting from the reduction in VRM Class II acreage would result in fewer restrictions and
would increase opportunities to route or site lands actions.

Wildlife and fisheries actions would result in fewer timing and distance restrictions, which would allow
for construction of lands and realty actions for longer periods throughout the year.

Summary

Under Alternative 2, it is anticipated that there would be no reduction in ROW authorizations and
development activities. The potential exists that there would be an increase in ROW authorizations and
development activities because of fewer restrictions. Protection of sensitive resources would have
minimal influence on the ability to sell or exchange public lands to meet community expansion needs. No
significant impacts would occur to lands and realty management activities under this alternative.

4.6.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of

Resources

Impacts from air quality, fire and fuels, forest, livestock grazing, OHV, paleontological, SD/MAs (except
those listed below), transportation and access, WSAs, and wild horse management would be the same as
those under Alternative 1 .

The protection of the setting of cultural properties (where the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility)
would be achieved through exclusion within 1/4 mile of the cultural property. This would influence the
location of lands and realty actions allowed to occur within the RMPPA.

The protection of sensitive areas (e.g. Chain Lakes dunal areas) would be achieved through cultural
monitoring. The monitoring would ensure that cultural properties not visible on the surface are protected
but would have little impact on lands and realty.

Closure of approximately 270,610 acres to the operation of the public land laws to maintain resource
values would restrict the location of ROWs or prohibit lands and realty actions.

Intensive surface management of energy development and exploration within 1/2 mile of the incorporated
boundaries of all cities (4,500 total acres) would limit the ROW actions in these areas. However, the
limitation would maintain the availability of unencumbered public land for potential community
expansion.

Rawlins RMP

4-63

Chapter 4-Lands and Realty

Final EIS

The increase in acreage of avoidance areas would result in fewer opportunities for the placement of
facilities for utility and transportation systems, alternative energy development, and communication sites.

Impacts resulting from minerals management would be the same as those of Alternative 1, except that
there would be less mineral development, resulting in fewer ROW actions.

Developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres) and the surrounding 1/2-mile area (an
additional 12,750 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation, and closed to the
operation of the public land laws, which would preclude the placement of ROWs and easements;
however, because these sites are relatively small, there would be sufficient opportunity outside of these
areas for placement of ROWs and easements.

The North Platte River SRMA (12,740 acres) would be closed to the operations of the public land laws,
which would result in fewer opportunities for the placement of facilities.

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA (600 acres), Jelm Mountain SRMA (18,100 acres),
Pedro Mountains SRMA (18,650 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA (1,600 acres), and Rawlins Fishing
SRMA (330 acres) would be closed to land tenure adjustments, which would retain the opportunity to site
facilities; however, the goals for the SRMAs would likely preclude placement of facilities within the
SRMAs.

The North Platte River SRMA (12,740 acres), Jelm Mountain SRMA (18,100 acres), and Laramie Plains
Lakes SRMA (1,600 acres) would possibly increase lands and realty actions by initiating the acquisition
of adjacent private lands, thereby expanding the acres of contiguous public land, which would influence
or reduce conflicts with siting of facilities or ROWs.

Closure of the North Platte River SRMA (12,740 acres) to new oil and gas leases would restrict and/or
require additional mitigation on existing oil and gas leases. These mitigation measures would modify the
location of lands and realty actions.

The Shirley Mountain SRMA (37,820 acres), Jelm Mountain SRMA (18,100 acres), Pedro Mountains
SRMA (18,650 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA (1,600 acres), and Rawlins Fishing SRMA (330
acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation, which would preclude the placement
of ROWs and facilities; however, because these areas are relatively small, there would be sufficient
opportunity outside of these areas for placement of ROWs and facilities.

Impacts resulting from the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA would be the same as in
Alternative 1, except that it would preclude any land tenure adjustments. It would possibly increase lands
and realty actions by initiating withdrawals for the management areas.

Como Bluff NNL/ACEC (1,690 acres), Sand Hills ACEC and JO Ranch Expansion (12,680 acres), Jep
Canyon WHMA (13,810 acres), Shamrock RCA (18,400 acres), Chain Lakes ACEC (30,560 acres), Cave
Creek Cave ACEC (520 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes ACEC (1,600 acres), Historic Trails ACEC (66,370
acres), and WSR SD/MA (23,770 acres) would be closed to the operations of the public land laws, which
would result in fewer opportunities for the placement of facilities.

Stratton Sagebrush Steppe ACEC (5,530 acres), Red Rim-Daley ACEC (11,100 acres), Upper Muddy
Creek Watershed/Grizzly ACEC (59,720 acres), Cow Butte/Wild Cow WHMA (49,570 acres), and High
Savery Dam ACEC (530 acres) would be closed to land tenure adjustments, including sale, which would
retain the opportunity to site facilities; however, the goals for the SRMAs would likely preclude
placement of facilities within the SRMAs.

4-64

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Lands and Realty

Como Bluff NNL (1,690 acres), Jep Canyon ACEC (13,810 acres), Red Rim-Daley ACEC (11,100
acres), Pennock Mountains ACEC (7,770 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes ACEC (1,600 acres), Historic
Trails ACEC (66,370 acres). Blowout Penstemon ACEC (17,050 acres), and White-Tailed Prairie Dog
ACEC (109,650 acres) would possibly increase lands and realty actions by initiating the acquisition of
adjacent private lands, thereby expanding the acres of contiguous public land, which would influence or
reduce conflicts with siting of facilities or ROWs.

Closure of the Sand Hills and JO Ranch Expansion ACEC (12,680 acres), Jep Canyon WHMA (13,810
acres), Wick-Beumee WHMA (280 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes ACEC (1,600 acres) Stratton Sagebrush
Steppe Research Area ACEC (5,530 acres), Cave Creek Cave ACEC (520 acres), Cow Butte/Wild Cow
WHMA (49,570 acres), and Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly ACEC (59,720 acres) to new oil and
gas leases would restrict and/or require additional mitigation on existing oil and gas leases. These
mitigation measures would modify the location of lands and realty actions.

Como Bluff ACEC/NNL (1,690 acres), Historic Trails ACEC (66,370 acres), and Continental Divide
National Scenic Trail SRMA (600 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation,
which would preclude the placement of ROWs and facilities; however, because these areas are relatively
isolated, there would be sufficient opportunity outside of these areas for placement of ROWs and
facilities.

The Blowout Penstemon ACEC (17,050 acres) would possibly increase lands and realty actions by
initiating the acquisition of adjacent private lands, thereby expanding habitat to meet the objectives of the
management area. However, this area is an exclusion area for utility/transportation systems and wind
energy projects, which would limit the placement of these facilities within fair to outstanding potential
areas.

Protection measures for historic trails would preclude lands and realty actions within 1/4 mile from the
Overland Trail, Cherokee Trail, Rawlins-to-Baggs Wagon Road, and Rawlins-to-Fort Washakie Road on
new oil and gas leases and would include restrictions or other mitigation requirements for the protection
of cultural values on existing oil and gas leases. These mitigation measures would modify the location of
lands and realty actions that would otherwise adversely affect these values.

The White-Tailed Prairie Dog Potential ACEC would possibly increase lands and realty actions by
initiating the acquisition of adjacent private lands, thereby expanding habitat to meet the objectives of the
management area. Protection measures would preclude lands and realty actions within 164 feet of prairie
dog towns within the management area. It would also modify above-ground facilities to be equipped with
anti-perching devices within 1/4 mile of prairie dog towns.

Impacts resulting from the High Savery Dam Potential ACEC would be the same as in Alternative 1,
except that it would preclude any land tenure adjustments. It would possibly increase lands and realty
actions by initiating withdrawals for the management areas.

WSRs would be closed to oil and gas leasing, which would reduce the number of ROW actions. Surface
disturbing activities would be prohibited within 1/4 mile on either side of the Encampment River, which
would modify the location of lands and realty actions that would otherwise adversely affect these values.

Vegetation management actions would be similar to those described in Alternative 1 with the addition of
management actions to meet DPC objectives for reclamation in rangelands. These objectives would
require changes in seed mixtures and/or planting methods to promote desired plant species (Appendix
36).

Rawlins RMP

4-65

Chapter 4-Lands and Realty

Final EIS

Management of VRM Class II areas would potentially restrict projects within approximately 351,050
acres. To maintain the visual settings, ROWs and associated facilities would require mitigation measures,
including reducing the height of structures, painting structures to match the existing environment, and/or
redesigning or relocating facilities that would allow ROWs and facilities to blend better into the
surrounding landscape and, in rare cases, would prohibit lands and realty actions.

Impacts resulting from water quality, watershed, and soils management would be the same as those
described in Alternative 1 , except that management of the Encampment River watershed would preclude
new permanent roads or structures in this area.

Impacts to lands and realty actions from wildlife and fisheries would preclude construction during a
greater part of the year because of increased timing restrictions and greater avoidance distances. In
addition, surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be prohibited within big game parturition
areas. Land disposals would also be precluded in areas where Special Status and sensitive wildlife species
and habitats are found.

Summary

A slight reduction in ROW authorizations and development activities would occur under this alternative.
The presence of various Special Status and sensitive wildlife species and habitats would preclude land
disposal. Also, the additional VRM Class II areas would restrict or, in some cases, preclude lands and
realty actions such as higher-profile structures (e.g., power lines, communication sites, and wind energy
development).

4.6.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan

Impacts from air quality, cultural, fire and fuels, forest, livestock grazing, minerals, OHV,
paleontological, recreation, SD/MAs (except those listed below), and wild horse management would be
the same as those described in Alternative 1 .

Impacts resulting from cultural resources for setting and vegetation, except for Blowout Penstemon (see
separate SD/MA analysis) would be the same as those as described in Alternative 3.

Impacts resulting from land tenure adjustments identified as suitable for disposal would be the same as
described in Alternative 2.

Closure of approximately 14,950 acres to the operation of the public land laws to maintain the resource
values would restrict the location of ROWs or prohibit any lands and realty actions.

Intensive surface management of energy development and exploration within 1/4 mile of the incorporated
boundaries would be the same as described in Alternative 1 , except that new oil and gas leases would be
encumbered with an NSO stipulation, which would preclude the placement of ROWs.

Impacts as a result of utility and transportation systems management, alternative energy development, and
communication sites would be the same as described in Alternative 1 .

Impacts resulting from the management of the Shirley Mountain SRMA and Rawlins Fishing SRMA
would be the same as in Alternative 3.

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA, Jelm Mountain SRMA, and Pedro Mountains
SRMA would not be closed to land tenure adjustments, which would retain the opportunity to site

4-66

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4~Lands and Realty

facilities; however, the goals for the SRMAs would likely preclude placement of facilities within the
SRMAs.

Impacts from the North Platte River SRMA would be the same as in Alternative 3 for surface disturbance
on existing oil and gas leases and as in Alternative 1 for surface disturbance activities within 1/4 mile on
either side of the river.

Impacts from the Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA would be the same as in Alternative 3, and would possibly
increase lands and realty actions by initiating the acquisition of adjacent private lands to meet the
objectives of the management area.

Impacts resulting from the management of the Historic Trails area; Blowout Penstemon ACEC (17,050
acres); Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area (5,530 acres); and water quality, watershed, and soils
management would be the same as in Alternative 3, except the Historic Trails area would not be closed to
the operation of the public land laws, which would increase the opportunity for the placement of facilities
in this area.

Protection measures for Como Bluff NNL would be the same as those described in Alternative 1, except
that impacts would possibly increase lands and realty actions by initiating the acquisition of adjacent
private lands, thereby protecting the resource values.

Impacts resulting from management of the Sand Hills ACEC would be the same as those described in
Alternative 1, except that it would preclude placement of ROWs within the JO Ranch (18 acres).

Impacts resulting from management of the Jep Canyon WHMA would be the same as those described in
Alternative 1, except for the possible increase in lands and realty actions by initiating the acquisition of
adjacent private lands.

Impacts from the Chain Lakes WHMA would result in restrictions on lands and realty actions within the
unique alkaline desert wetland communities. Should situations arise where the WHMA would not be
avoided, additional BMPs would be applied to minimize disturbance and, in some cases, would prohibit
lands and realty actions that would otherwise adversely affect the habitat in the management area.

Impacts from management of the Cave Creek Cave Potential ACEC would preclude disposal of public
land within the management areas.

Impacts from management of the Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly Potential ACEC would be the
same as in Alternative 3 for surface disturbance on existing oil and gas leases and as in Alternative 1 for
surface disturbance around perennial surface water and/or wetland and riparian areas.

Cow Butte/Wild Cow Potential WHMA would preclude surface disturbing activities in aspen and
mountain shrub communities to improve serai structure, thereby reducing the number of ROW actions in
the management area. Impacts would be the same as in Alternative 3 for surface disturbing activities on
oil and gas leases and as in Alternative 1 for the operation of the public land laws.

WSRs would be the same as in Alternative 1, except that the Encampment River Canyon WSA would
preclude surface disturbing activities, which would reduce the number of ROW actions.

Laramie Plains Lakes WHMA would possibly increase lands and realty actions by initiating the
acquisition of adjacent private lands, thereby expanding habitat to meet the objectives of the management
area. The management area would preclude surface occupancy for new oil and gas leases, and increase

Rawlins RMP

4-67

Chapter 4-Lands and Realty

Final EIS

mitigation measures such as modification of the location of lands and realty actions or, in rare cases,
would prohibit lands and realty actions that would otherwise adversely affect the potential habitat.

Impacts resulting from transportation and access would be the same as in Alternative 2.

Protection measures for vegetation communities would be the same as in Alternative 1, except that no
surface occupancy would be allowed within occupied habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, and
candidate species. The presence of blowout penstemon habitat would preclude land disposal.

VRM management classes would potentially restrict projects within VRM Class II areas of approximately
346,670 acres. To maintain the visual settings, ROWs and associated facilities would require mitigation
measures, including reducing the height of structures, painting structures to match the existing
environment, and/or redesigning or relocating facilities that would allow ROWs and facilities to blend
better into the surrounding landscape, and, in rare cases, would prohibit lands and realty actions.

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions would have the same impacts as those described
in Alternative 1, except that ROWs within the Encampment River watershed (Map 2-20) would require
proposed actions to consider access to private property and community expansion. This would restrict the
location or limit some surface ROWs in this watershed.

Mitigation measures (e.g., seasonal restrictions) to protect wildlife resources and T&E species and
Critical habitats would restrict the timing of surface disturbing and other disruptive activities, and would
restrict the location of facilities to avoid sensitive habitats. Land disposals would also be precluded in
areas where Special Status and sensitive wildlife species and habitats are found.

Summary

It is anticipated that there would be little reduction in capability to site ROWs and facilities, except that
the type, location, route, height, and color of ROWs and facilities in more areas would be influenced by
BMPs, mitigation measures, etc., to protect various sensitive resources and special areas.

4-68

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4- Livestock Grazing

4.7 Livestock Grazing

This section describes potential impacts on livestock grazing from management actions for other resource
programs. Existing conditions concerning livestock grazing management are described in Section 3.7.

Significance Criteria

Impacts on livestock grazing activities would be considered potentially significant if the following were
to occur:

• Resource management actions cause a reduction in forage that results in a greater than 1 0-percent
permanent reduction in animal unit months (AUM) available for livestock grazing within the
RMPPA or a given allotment.

• Resource management actions reduce or eliminate the opportunity to run the livestock of choice.

Methods of Analysis

Environmental impacts associated with the management alternatives are caused by land use activities
within the RMPPA. Impacts on livestock grazing activities are generally the result of activities that affect
management of forage levels for individual grazing allotments. Impact analyses and conclusions are based
on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources and the project area, review of existing literature, and
information provided by specialists within BLM or other agencies. Effects are quantified where possible.
In the absence of quantifiable data, best professional judgment was used. Certain assumptions are made
concerning the level of land use activity, resource condition, and resource response on which to determine
potential impacts.

The analysis is based on the following assumptions:

• Livestock grazing would occur throughout the entire RMPPA.

• Anticipated grazing use would be similar to the recent 10-year average (1991-2000) of 273,938
AUMs (allowing for year-to-year fluctuations).

• The type of grazing use would be expected to remain about the same: cattle would use 246,540
AUMs (90 percent of the total), sheep would use 24,650 AUMs (9 percent of the total), and other
types of livestock would collectively use 2,740 AUMs (1 percent of the total).

• RFDs and RFAs can be found in Appendix 33.

4.7.1 Impacts Common to ASI Alternatives

Air quality management would have little or no impact to livestock grazing.

In general, management actions associated with cultural resources affect relatively small localized areas
and would not have measurable effects on livestock forage. Even under the most intense management
(i.e., excavation), the amount of acreage disturbed would be small. Cultural sites that are fenced would
exclude grazing, causing a small loss of available forage; however, this would occur on few sites.
Restrictions on surface disturbing activities near cultural sites would potentially result in modifications or
relocation of range improvements, but not preclude them except in rare cases.

Rawlins RMP

4-69

Chapter 4-Livestock Grazing

Final EIS

Deferment of livestock use after a wildland fire allows the establishment of new vegetation and would
have a short-term effect on livestock operators through the reduction in available AUMs and modification
of grazing systems. Although these impacts are short-term, they can result in serious impacts to the
affected grazing permittees, such as additional expenses and/or lost revenues. The severity of these
impacts will vary from one situation to another depending upon the size of the burned area and alternative
forage sources available in the local area. Temporary fences that are constructed would potentially require
maintenance by the livestock operator. Wildland fires result in additional maintenance or reconstruction
of range improvements such as fences and corrals that are damaged during the fire or suppression
activities. This would potentially result in herding of livestock and a reduction in pastures available for
use.

Forestlands would be managed to sustain forest health objectives for the benefit of other resource values,
such as wildlife, watershed, fisheries, and healthy plant communities. Management practices would
include removal of conifers that have encroached into shrub and aspen stands, thinning of diseased and
insect-infested trees, and reducing fuel loads. These practices would result in increased understory
vegetation, which would increase forage and potentially increase water for livestock.

Short-term impacts from lands and realty management actions, such as the construction of power lines
and pipelines, and other construction activities would temporarily reduce forage and displace livestock.
Long-term impacts would affect approximately 5,794 acres, which would result in the loss of forage
where roads and facilities are constructed. In areas adjacent to roads and facilities, increased dust on
vegetation would reduce forage palatability. The continued expansion of weeds would impact livestock
through reduced forage and increased livestock death loss from poisonous plants. Long-term loss of
forage would occur as a result of road construction, land disposals and exchanges, and development of
wind farms and other facilities. Reclamation of disturbed areas would replace the forage lost, primarily
with grasses in the short term, which would benefit cattle more than sheep.

Increased human activity associated with lands and realty management actions would lead to disturbance
to livestock; in addition, damage to fences, and gates left open would allow livestock to escape. This
would result in increased efforts to locate, gather, and transport livestock. Animals that mix with other
herds would have an increased potential to be exposed to diseases and to breed at the wrong time or with
the wrong individuals. This would potentially change the time at which cows calve, birth weights, and
mortality rates of cow and calves.

The effects of livestock grazing management on livestock grazing management are principally the effects
of forage removal by the grazing animals, which would potentially alter the amount, condition, and vigor
of the plants being grazed. Adjustments in grazing operations to comply with the Wyoming Standards for
Healthy Rangelands (USDI, BLM 1997) would affect livestock operators. These adjustments would
include changes in season or duration of use, development of riparian pastures and exclosures,
modification of forage utilization levels, and type of livestock grazed. Rotational grazing, range
improvement projects, and other BMPs are intended to increase livestock dispersal in pastures and reduce
the effects that livestock have upon the forage being grazed. These practices often improve the condition
and production of the forage, which would further increase flexibility for the grazing management
program. The use of smaller pastures would also result in increased conception rates, higher weaning
weights, and fewer bulls needed for breeding. Animals within smaller pastures would be monitored more
efficiently, which would result in improved care of sick animals, reduced animal mortality, and increased
overall production. Higher-intensity, short-duration grazing management programs would increase the
amount of herding and range improvement maintenance required by the livestock operator. In areas
supporting wild sheep, domestic sheep and goat grazing would be avoided, which would reduce livestock
management flexibility. In addition to grazing management, control of grazing animals is an important
factor, particularly as it relates to fence conversions where creating more “wildlife-friendly” fences must

4-70

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4- Livestock Grazing

be balanced with adequate control of livestock. When cattle leave their permitted grazing area, the legal
components of trespass and enforcement issues and disputes between neighbors are most apparent.
However, there are also costs to the operation from retrieval of stray livestock, livestock that are missing
at shipping dates, increased risk of disease transmission, unintended breeding and changes in herd
genetics, breeding of first-calf heifers by large birthweight bulls resulting in increased death loss of both
calves and heifers, and calves being bom outside the planned calving period, which expands into lowered
conception rates, weaning weights, and selling prices because of lack of uniformity.

Minerals management activities in areas with high or moderate oil and gas potential would affect 107
allotments that contain approximately 222,000 AUMs (47 percent of the public AUMs within the
RMPPA) used by 28 livestock operations. Surface disturbance from the constmction of pipelines and well
sites would result in short-term removal of forage and displacement of livestock. In the long term, there
would be a reduction of forage availability where roads and facilities are constructed, decreased
productive life of mother cows from tooth wear and increased cow replacement, and increased
disturbance or mortality to livestock caused by increased levels of vehicle activity. The continued
expansion of weeds would reduce forage availability and increase livestock death loss from poisonous
plants. Reclamation of disturbed areas would replace the forage lost, primarily with grasses in the short
tenn, which would benefit cattle more than sheep. Increased human activity would lead to disturbance to
livestock; in addition, damage to fences and gates left open would allow livestock to escape. Animals that
mix with other herds would have an increased potential to be exposed to diseases and to breed at the
wrong time or with the wrong individuals. This would potentially change the time at which cows calve,
birth weights, and mortality rates of cow and calves. Increased road networks would allow for improved
access to check, move, or provide supplements to livestock. However, vehicle traffic on roads also creates
dust, which settles on vegetation, reducing plant growth and palatability and changing livestock
distribution of grazing use. Although loss of forage available for livestock grazing is the most apparent
affect from surface disturbing activities, the sum of the impacts described, which reduce flexibility and
increase complexity of management, has the greatest effect upon livestock operations.

The only remaining coal mine in the area is closing and is being reclaimed. The lands would be available
for livestock grazing after reclamation has occurred, which would restore AUMs available for livestock
use. These reclaimed lands often support higher quality and quantity of forage than existed before the
mine.

Oil and gas exploration and development on BLM-administered lands creates a network of access roads,
pipelines, wells, and other facilities. Pipeline construction would potentially result in instances of
livestock falling into construction trenches, causing injury and/or death. Produced water from oil and gas
activities would be made available for livestock use if water quality met state standards for such use. This
additional water would improve distribution of livestock use and flexibility in the season of use, as well
as increase the forage available for livestock.

OHV use would cause animal displacement, increased dust on forage that reduces palatability, and injury
or death to animals as a result of vehicle-animal collisions. Designated OHV areas that are closed to
livestock grazing would result in a small loss of forage. OHV use that results in gates left open or cut
fences would increase required fence maintenance and the resources needed to locate and return livestock
to their appropriate grazing areas. These impacts on livestock operations would likely increase over the
life of the plan, because the popularity of outdoor recreational activities is increasing.

In general, management actions associated with paleontological resources affect relatively small localized
areas and would not have measurable effects on livestock management or forage availability. Even under
the most intense management (i.e., excavation), the amount of acreage disturbed would be small.
Paleontological sites that were fenced would exclude grazing, causing a small loss of available forage.

Rawlins RMP

4-71

Chapter 4-Livestock Grazing

Final EIS

Restrictions on surface disturbing activities near paleontological sites would potentially result in
modifications or relocation of range improvements but not preclude them, except in rare cases.

Recreational activities would cause animal displacement, increased dust on forage that reduces
palatability, and injury or death to animals as a result of vehicle-animal collisions. Grazing closures in
recreational areas would result in a small loss of forage. Minor impacts to livestock grazing would result
from the temporary removal of vegetation by campers in concentrated areas. Recreational activities that
result in gates left open or fences cut would increase required fence maintenance and the resources needed
to locate and return livestock to their appropriate grazing areas. These impacts on livestock operations
would likely increase over the life of the plan, because the popularity of outdoor recreational activities is
increasing.

Minimal effects on livestock grazing activities would be anticipated as a result of management actions
associated with SD/MAs. In general, the protections afforded to these areas (i.e., restrictions on surface
disturbing activities) would help to maintain and improve vegetation conditions, thereby maintaining or
improving forage for livestock. WSAs would be managed according to the Interim Management Policy
for Lands under Wilderness Review. Within WSAs, the use of mechanical equipment is limited and the
integrity of the wilderness setting must be maintained, which would increase the complexity of
construction techniques for range improvements and limit the types of improvements that are feasible.
WHMAs would be managed with an emphasis on wildlife habitat and range improvements would be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which would potentially increase the complexity of construction of
rangeland improvement projects. Within 1 mile of blowout penstemon occupied habitat (9,542 acres),
new water developments would be prohibited, which would restrict flexibility in livestock management
and reduce opportunities to use water to improve the distribution of livestock use.

Transportation and access management actions would serve to improve the transportation network, which
would increase the distribution of people within the RMPPA. This would in turn increase the potential for
incidental damage to range improvements and general disturbance of livestock. Increased road networks
would allow for improved access to check, move, or provide supplements to livestock. Increased traffic
on highways makes livestock trailing and crossing more difficult and raises the threat to public health and
human safety for both travelers and wranglers, and increases the need for crossing facilities.

Vegetation management actions designed to enhance vegetative conditions would increase forage
production and vegetation age and structural diversity, which would improve livestock distribution and
forage utilization. Vegetation treatment areas would receive short-term deferment to allow vegetation to
recover; this would reduce forage available in the short term. However, enhanced forage availability and
production would be realized over the long term with increased production and availability of herbaceous
vegetation as dense and/or old shrub stands are treated. Achieving vegetation objectives would also result
in grazing management adjustments, such as changes in the season and/or duration of use. Livestock
adjustments would also be needed to meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (USDI, BLM
1997). Vegetation treatments would potentially improve vegetation composition and production in
riparian areas and increase available stock water in areas that receive 14 inches or more of precipitation
annually.

Prescribed fires would potentially displace livestock in the short term, as a result of activities associated
with burning, and post-bum to provide for plant recovery. Forage for livestock grazing would be reduced
during this same period. Over the long term, prescribed fire improves forage production and availability,
which leads to better distribution of livestock use across the grazing area and often reduces their use and
trampling along stream drainages. Prescribed fires can increase watershed yield (primarily at locations
that receive 14 inches or more of annual precipitation) by reducing sublimation and transpiration while
improving water infiltration. This would potentially increase stock water and sediment loads in the short

4-72

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Livestock Grazing

term. Although most sediment is caught by vegetation before it enters a channel, this would accelerate the
rate at which stock ponds fill with sediment and lose capacity. Peak flows following extreme storm events
would have an increased potential to damage water diversions and developments or other infrastructure
downstream.

VRM classifications that restrict surface disturbing activities (VRM Class I in WSAs) or influence the
size, design or location of surface disturbing activities (VRM Class II and III elsewhere) would indirectly
help to maintain forage production, reduce the potential for noxious and invasive weeds, and meet the
standards for rangeland health. Consideration of visual quality in VRM Class II or Class III areas (refer to
Table 2-9 for acreages) would potentially influence the type, design, and/or location of proposed range
improvements. This would rarely preclude development, but would affect the complexity of construction
and/or maintenance to be consistent with the VRM standards.

Any project designed to enhance watershed and soils health would enhance vegetation resources by
reducing erosion, which would have the indirect effect of increasing forage production for livestock.
However, effects on livestock grazing would result from the need to adjust or modify current livestock
management to achieve the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (USDI, BLM 1997). Protection
of water quality, watershed, and soils health would in some cases require changes in livestock
management, such as deferred or shortened grazing periods, riparian pastures, increased cattle herding,
and upland water development. Management actions that result in increased water availability and forage
production would indirectly affect livestock through improved livestock distribution and increased weight
gain and conception rates. Produced water made available in contained water storage systems for
livestock would increase available water for and improve distribution of livestock.

When livestock and wild horses occupy the same area, their needs for space, water, and forage would be
competitive. The degree of competition would vary depending on the kinds of livestock and the season of
use. The competition would be mitigated (when necessary) through adjustments in season of use and
improved distribution of livestock. BLM would continue to monitor vegetation and habitat condition to
ensure that a thriving natural ecological balance and the multiple-use relationship that existed in 1971 are
maintained. Livestock operation flexibility would be reduced when requests for changes of livestock use
are altered or denied if the requested change conflicts with wild horse management objectives.
Maintenance of fences damaged by wild horses would be the responsibility of the livestock operator as
would be the control of livestock within each allotment. Fences knocked down by wild horses would
increase livestock mixing with other herds and lead to increased potential to be exposed to diseases and to
breed at the wrong time or with the wrong individuals. This would potentially change the time at which
cows calve, birth weights, and mortality rates of cow and calves. Where season of use by wild horses is
being managed to meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, timing of water availability would
potentially restrict livestock use. Livestock grazing would primarily be affected within HMAs; however,
horses move out of HMAs into adjacent allotments. When this occurs, impacts to livestock management
are expanded into these areas.

Introduction, transplantation, reestablishment, and augmentation of wildlife species would potentially
influence the kind of livestock, management systems, or range improvements permitted. Fisheries actions,
such as stream restoration and fish stocking or reintroduction, would have the potential to reduce
available forage for livestock grazing through the construction of exclosures designed to protect water
sources and plantings of woody species, and riparian pastures that alter the timing and duration of
livestock use and provide for fish habitat. Protection measures in potential mountain plover occupied
habitat (Appendix 16) and other special status species habitat (Appendices 1, 10, and 15) would be
implemented on a case-by-case basis and would involve the least restrictive measure necessary to protect
occupied habitat. Rarely, if ever, would plover protection measures preclude construction or development
of livestock grazing range improvements. Intensive management of surface disturbing and disruptive

Rawlins RMP

4-73

Chapter 4-Livestock Grazing

Final EIS

activities would potentially influence the location, construction timing, and cost of range improvements;
however, range improvement would rarely be precluded.

4.7.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing

Management

Air quality, cultural resource, and socioeconomics management would have little or no impact to
livestock grazing. Impacts to livestock grazing management from paleontology, recreation, and wild
horse management would be the same as those described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives
above.

The use of fire for resource benefit would increase the size of wildland fires. Larger sizes of wildland
fires would also result in modification of grazing systems on a short-term basis that would reduce
flexibility and increase management complexity of livestock operations.

Practices associated with forest health improvement would result in mixed forest types and age class
structure, which would reduce tree density and ground shading and maintain/increase forage production
and availability for livestock use. Temporarily improved roads associated with timber harvesting are used
by animals as travel corridors (particularly in steeper terrain) and as access for operators to check, provide
supplements to, and move their livestock. Improved forage condition and access would promote better
distribution of livestock use. Timber harvesting activities, such as sawing, skidding, and road building,
would displace livestock temporarily and reduce forage available for grazing. Most roads and skid trails
would be revegetated by natural processes, which would reestablish forage and increase production on the
small areas that were disturbed.

Lands and realty management actions have identified approximately 61,010 acres of public lands suitable
for disposal, which, if disposed, would reduce federal land grazing. However, most land disposals and
exchanges are of isolated tracts, are of checkerboard landownership areas, or are close to towns. Land use
would potentially switch from public to private land grazing or would change to industrial or urban
development. The total acreage of lands lost to grazing use would be relatively small; therefore, the loss
of AUMs would be minimal. These actions would help to block up public lands or dispose of small
isolated tracts, which would improve management efficiency.

Livestock grazing management would result in 45 range improvements annually, consisting of a mixture
of spring developments, reservoirs, wells, pipelines, new fence construction, and conversion projects.
Conversions from cattle or sheep to domestic bison would be considered in all areas, which would
maintain management flexibility. New fences constructed and existing fences modified to BLM standards
would provide adequate livestock control.

Minerals management activities would create a total of 16,538 acres of long-term disturbances that would
result in the loss of approximately 1,860 AUMs. The construction of roads and facilities would result in
long-term disturbance that would reduce forage availability and palatability (as a result of dust on
vegetation) and increase disturbance to livestock. Short-term disturbances of 61,895 acres would result in
a loss of approximately 7,020 AUMs because of forage removal and livestock displacement. The short-
term loss of AUMs would be mitigated through the reestablishment of forage following reclamation of
pipelines and other temporary disturbances. The total effect on AUMs would be short term and would be
mitigated through the reestablishment of forage following reclamation. In addition, these impacts would
occur over a long time period and would be distributed across nearly 30 allotments. This would reduce the
effects for any one livestock operator; however, temporary adjustments of use would potentially be
implemented on some allotments.

4-74

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4- Livestock Grazing

Mining of other leaseable, salable, and locatable minerals would result in surface areas being disturbed
and fenced out during mining and reclamation activities, which would result in a small loss of forage.
Reclamation of these lands usually returns the grazing lands to production levels found prior to
development.

OHV closures would total 23,020 acres that would preserve vegetation and forage in limited areas for
livestock use. Continuing vehicular use in poor road locations contributes to the accelerated soil erosion
and desertification associated with gullies that reduce forage production and availability for livestock use.

SD/MA management would be the same as described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives. In
addition, the continued use of existing roads to check and move livestock, place salt, and maintain range
improvements in the Ferris Mountain WSA would facilitate livestock management.

Vegetation treatments would occur on up to 56,000 acres over the next 20 years, which would initially
remove plant cover in treated areas but provide additional long-term forage. However, in spite of this
existing level of treatments, the serai condition class would remain predominantly late (e.g., dominated by
mature to decadent vegetation). Herbaceous cover would continue to be inadequate for watershed
protection and exhibit lower vigor and production, which would eventually decrease forage production
and availability for livestock in areas not treated.

Special Status Plant Species management would preclude grazing when exclosures are required to protect
habitat. Currently, 15 acres are excluded from grazing to protect Gibben’s beardtongue {Penstemon
gibbensii). Management of Special Status Species and unique plant communities would potentially
require changes in livestock management (e.g., season or duration of use) to improve the production and
vigor of these species where fencing of populations would not be feasible.

In the areas that are treated for invasive weeds (2,800 acres per year, including rangeland treatments and
mitigation for surface disturbance), weed proliferation would be controlled. In treated areas, forage
production, diversity, and vigor would be maintained; however, approximately 15,000 weed-infested
acres would remain untreated. Infested acreage would continue to result in a decline in forage production
and devaluation of animal commodities (i.e., burrs in sheep wool). Untreated invasive poisonous plants
would continue to injure and kill livestock, particularly sheep, which potentially would lead to further
reductions in the sheep industry in this area. Livestock would be temporarily displaced during treatment
activities. Livestock management flexibility would be reduced over the long term in untreated areas
because of the presence of invasive weeds and the reduction of usable forage.

Restrictions in VRM Class II areas (359,610 acres) would potentially change the type, design, and/or
location of proposed range improvements. This would not necessarily preclude development but would
affect the complexity of construction and/or maintenance.

Surface discharge of produced water would be allowed, which would increase the availability of water,
improve distribution of livestock grazing, and alter both forage availability and management flexibility.
Existing vegetation would be lost through down cutting or become dominated by salt-tolerant species.
When discharges fluctuate, vegetation composition would shift to favor weeds and other less palatable
forage for livestock. Infiltration/evaporation reservoirs would remove vegetation and reduce available
forage for livestock.

Animal damage control activities would be considered, which would allow livestock operators the
flexibility needed to control predators and damage caused by wildlife. Sensitive wildlife habitat (e.g.,
greater sage-grouse leks, prairie dog towns, raptor nests, mountain plover habitat, and crucial winter
range) protection measures or use restrictions would influence the location, construction timing, and cost

Rawlins RMP

4-75

Chapter 4-Livestock Grazing

Final EIS

of range improvements. Seasonal restrictions would also delay surface disturbing activities from other
program actions within domestic livestock calving or lambing areas (May and June), which would reduce
potential mortality resulting from increased stress or displacement of livestock.

Modification of fences constructed prior to adoption of BLM standards (BLM Manual H-1741-1) would
occur as needed. Modified fences would cause permittees to perform increased fence maintenance and to
ride the area more frequently to ensure that livestock remain in the appropriate area because fences
designed for wildlife passage are less effective in restraining livestock. However, the maintenance of
newer fences constructed to BLM standards would be less time consuming and costly than the
maintenance of older fences.

Summary

The introduction and proliferation of noxious and invasive weeds within individual allotments or
localized areas would result in a reduction in available AUMs. Within some allotments, the practicality of
running sheep would be reduced and in some cases eliminated in areas with invasive poisonous plants.
Compounding this problem is the lack of sufficient weed treatments. Similarly, insufficient vegetation
treatments are contributing to the continued trend in mature to decadent shrubland and woodland
communities, which would result in lower herbaceous production over the long term and ultimately in
reduced management flexibility.

Surface disturbing activities would reduce the amount of forage available to livestock. However, the long-
term loss of approximately 1,860 AUMs from development represents only about one-third of a percent
of all federal AUMs in the RMPPA, which would not be considered a major impact.

4.7.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of
Resources

Air quality, cultural resource, and socioeconomics management would have little or no impact to
livestock grazing. Impacts to livestock grazing management from paleontology, recreation, and wild
horse management would be the same as those described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives
above.

Impacts from forest, OHV, water quality, SD/MA, and water quality, watershed, and soils management
would be the same as those identified in Alternative 1 .

Impact from wildland fire and fuels management would be the same as in Alternative 1 except for the
increased emphasis on fire suppression and decreased use of natural fire. Suppression activities would
result in smaller size of fires, which would reduce forage loss, damaged fences, changes in grazing
management, and the need for temporary fencing (to allow for recovery of plants). This would reduce
management costs and maintain the flexibility of livestock operations. Reduced use of natural fire in the
long term would result in decreased forage production and/or availability for livestock use (however, this
would be compensated for with increased vegetation treatments described under the Vegetation
Management section).

Lands and reality management actions would be similar to those in Alternative 1 except that
approximately 14,780 fewer acres would available for disposal and there would be no preferred method of
disposal. However, to maintain the forage base for livestock use, exchange would be preferred. If
exchange were used, there would be minimal changes in AUMs, and administration issues would be
decreased because scattered and isolated lands would be consolidated. If sales were used, there would be

4-76

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Livestock Grazing

a loss of public AUMs permitted by the BLM, although administration issues would still be decreased
because checkerboard and isolated lands would no longer be managed by the BLM.

Livestock management actions would be similar to those in Alternative 1 except for the emphasis on
increased livestock production. This would result in an increase from 45 to 55 rangeland improvement
projects. These projects would emphasize reliable water development projects, which improve grazing
distribution and reduce concentrated livestock trampling and forage utilization during drought periods.
The implementation of grazing systems would promote increases in livestock weaning weights,
conception rates, and animal health. New fence construction would decrease management complexity and
indirectly help increase pasture and forage productivity with improved distribution of livestock.

The minerals management program would impact livestock grazing as in Alternative 1 , except a greater
amount of disturbance from oil and gas development would occur. A total of 17,013 acres of long-term
disturbance would result in the loss of 1,880 AUMs. Short-term disturbance of 63,649 acres would result
in a loss of 7,070 AUMs (50 more AUMs than under Alternative 1). The short-term loss of AUMs would
be mitigated through the reestablishment of forage following reclamation.

Vegetation management actions would be similar to those in Alternative 1, except that the increase to
24,400 treated acres would result in increased forage availability and production. Treatments would also
help maintain early serai conditions in aspen stands, increasing the herbaceous component of vegetation
preferred by cattle. Prescribed bums in aspen and dense shmb stands would draw more livestock into
these areas by increasing availability and production of herbaceous forage and reduce trailing and forage
use along drainages. Long-term benefits would include increased weight gains, conception rates, and
reduced health issues with livestock.

Sensitive plant species would not be protected, which would reduce the potential for plant exclosures or
other livestock management restrictions.

Approximately 25,786 acres of weeds would be treated annually, which would reduce competition with
native plants that are often desirable forage species. In the short term, some infested acreage would
continue to result in a decline in forage production and devaluation of animal commodities. However, in
the long term, treatments would slow the proliferation of existing weed species and the introduction of
weed species into new areas, until all areas received treatments. Also, treatment of poisonous plants
would result in lower livestock injury and death and reduce the need to avoid grazing infested locations.

Impacts from VRM would be similar to those in Alternative 1, except that the reduction in VRM Class II
area (to 232,830 total acres) would allow greater flexibility in type, design, and/or location of proposed
range improvements.

Impact from wildlife management actions would be similar to impacts described in Alternative 1 , except
that the removal of timing stipulations for non-federally protected species would allow for longer
construction periods for range improvements in these areas. However, surface disturbing activities from
other program actions within livestock calving and lambing areas (May and June) would potentially
increase stress, displacement, and mortality of livestock. The reduced distance stipulation and a more
flexible timing stipulation for protection of nesting raptors would allow additional flexibility for the
construction of range improvements.

Summary

In the long term, forage quality and quantity would be improved overall as a result of substantial increases
in both vegetation and weed treatments. The reduction and elimination of wildlife mitigation measures

Rawlins RMP

4-77

Chapter 4- Livestock Grazing

Final EIS

affecting range improvements would increase flexibility in livestock management. Increased surface
disturbing activities would increase long-term AUM loss to 1,880 AUMs, which would result in a slightly
greater loss of forage, but would still be less than 1 percent of total AUMs for the RMPPA.

4.7.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of
Resources

Impacts from cultural resource management would have little or no impact to livestock grazing. Impacts
to livestock grazing management from paleontology and recreation would be the same as those described
under Impacts Common to All Alternatives above.

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to those under Alternative 1 , except that more
acres of wildland fire would be allowed to bum for resource benefit. This would result in additional areas
requiring rest from livestock grazing to allow recovery of vegetation following a wildland fire, which
would reduce the flexibility of livestock operations in the short term.

Forest management actions would allow natural succession to occur while managing for healthy forests.
This would result in a mature forest consisting of an older age class structure and species dominance of fir
and spmce, with lower composition of aspen and pines, and would reduce forage production and quality
for livestock use. Lack of commercial timber harvest would reduce disturbance from roads and maintain
vegetation for forage, although there would not be improved distribution of livestock and vehicle access
to check, doctor, and move livestock as a result of new or improved roads. Forage production and
availability would be reduced where undesirable conifer tree species are encroaching into old clear-cuts,
aspen woodlands, dry meadows, and rangeland areas.

Impacts from lands and realty management would be similar to those identified in Alternative 1, except
that lands would not be considered for disposal. Thus, the loss of AUMs for livestock grazing from the
possible disposal of lands would not occur. However, as private lands associated with checkerboard and
isolated BLM-administered public lands are subdivided and sold, the grazing privileges associated with
these public lands would potentially no longer be accessible for grazing use. This action would remove
the ability to block up public lands or dispose of small isolated tracts, which would not improve
management efficiency and flexibility.

Impacts from livestock management actions would be similar to those in Alternative 1, except that
livestock operations would incur additional management complexity to meet DPC objectives. One
example where managing to meet DPC objectives would positively impact livestock grazing is the
increase in shade provided by willows and water birch within riparian areas and an expanded forage base
as stream channels narrow and the functioning width of riparian habitat expands. However, there would
be a reduction in herbaceous forage availability as the density of woody plants increases. The emphasis of
range improvement projects would shift to modification of existing fences and small-scale spring/seep
developments (rather than reservoirs and pipelines). This would emphasize enhancement of vegetation,
watershed, and wildlife resource values and would result in fewer new projects to benefit livestock.
Conversions of cattle or domestic sheep to bison would not be allowed in identified areas of blocked
public lands for public safety. Restricting the type of livestock that managers permit in these areas would
reduce the flexibility of livestock operations.

The minerals management program would have similar impacts on livestock grazing as under
Alternative 1 , except that a lesser amount of disturbance from oil and gas development would occur. A
total of 15,489 acres of long-term disturbance would result in the loss of 1,730 AUMs. Short-term
disturbance of 56,505 acres would result in a loss of 6,220 AUMs (800 fewer AUMs than under

4-78

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Livestock Grazing

Alternative 1). The short-term loss of AUMs would be mitigated through the reestablishment of forage
following reclamation.

Impacts from OHV use would have similar impacts on livestock grazing as under Alternative 1 , except
that OHV closures would increase to 71,980 acres. Closing additional areas to OHV use would further
preserve vegetation and forage for livestock use. The use of designated roads and vehicle routes would
result in closure (and reclamation) or road maintenance of existing roads in poor locations, which would
eliminate or minimize loss of forage production or availability for livestock use.

Impacts from SD/MAs would have similar impacts on livestock grazing as those identified for Alternative
1, except that the closure of road access within the Ferris Mountain WSA would prohibit vehicle use to
maintain fences, check livestock, and distribute supplements, which would increase the time and cost for
maintenance, fence conversion, and other livestock management activities. Additionally, the historic JO
Ranch buildings in the Sand Hills ACEC would be used as an interpretive site for historic/working ranch
operations, which would increase public visitation and potentially alter management of the ranch.

Vegetation would be managed to meet DPC objectives, which would require livestock operations to incur
additional management complexity. Examples of this would include adjustments in season or duration of
use, rest from livestock use, additional herding, offsite water developments, and pasture fencing. In most
cases, there would be improved forage production that would result in increased weight gains or other
benefits to the livestock operation.

A fivefold increase in the number and acres of vegetation treatments to 1 1,800 acres per year would occur
with an emphasis on small, mosaic pattern of treatments, which would result in increased forage
availability and production and better distribution of grazing use. However, the increase in acres treated
by vegetation treatments would also reduce management flexibility to the livestock operator because
treatments would be smaller and more frequent and subsequent additional periods of deferment for plant
recovery would be required.

Weed treatments would occur on 28,542 acres annually for noxious and invasive weeds, which would
result in a long-term reduction of most invasive weeds found in grazing allotments. This would reduce the
effect weeds have on livestock management and production. Increased emphasis on weed management
for native, weed-free communities would maintain forage for livestock grazing.

The increase in VRM Class II acres (to 351,050 total acres) would affect proposed range improvements
needed for livestock management. New range improvements would have to be moved or altered if they
happen to fall into the expanded viewsheds. However, mitigation should enable most fence and water
improvement projects to proceed, but would potentially increase construction and/or maintenance cost to
livestock operators. Construction activities from other resource programs would also have to be mitigated,
which would potentially result in a reduction in the amount of forage lost as compared with Alternative 1 .

Water impoundments, including reservoirs and spreader dikes, that would result in an annual water loss
and/or storage of greater than 1 acre-foot per project in Muddy Creek within the Muddy Creek Watershed
(Map 2-20) would be prohibited. This would eliminate the potential to construct impoundments which
would hold water during drought periods, create more palatable and productive vegetation, and maintain
flexibility in livestock grazing management.

Surface discharge of produced water would not be allowed in the Colorado River Basin and would be
limited in the North Platte and Great Divide Basins, which would limit some dispersed water sources and
fail to increase the availability of water or improve distribution of livestock grazing and management
flexibility.

Rawlins RMP

4-79

Chapter 4-Livestock Grazing

Final EIS

Provisions to protect municipal water sources in the Encampment River watershed would result in more
intensive grazing management in this area, such as adjustments in the timing of use, which would reduce
flexibility in the livestock operations using this area.

Actions identified as necessary to preserve the New World Iberian Genotype in the Lost Creek HMA
would constrain future livestock management options within one (or possibly two) allotment(s). These
actions would include increases in the Appropriate Management Level (AML) (approximately 165 adult
wild horses) and reductions in forage available for livestock, modification of existing or limiting of new
range improvements, and restrictions in requests for conversion of sheep to cattle AUMs and/or
adjustments in existing livestock permits.

Impacts from wildlife management actions would be similar to those described in Alternative 1, except
that prohibiting the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wildlife Services from animal
damage control activities would result in a reduction or elimination of sheep operations on public lands in
17 allotments because of unacceptable livestock losses due to predation. This would result in an inability
to use between 20,000 to 30,000 AUMs for sheep, with limited potential to convert these AUMs to cattle
use. There would also be an increase in the loss of cattle to predation, especially during calving.
Construction of range improvement projects would have greater limitations and/or mitigation
requirements because of more protective wildlife restrictions. This would result in less flexibility in
scheduling seasonal work and in design and location of projects, increased fence maintenance, and
increased livestock herding. Changes in grazing systems and development of new range improvements
would not be allowed unless there were associated wildlife benefits. Water developments in big game
crucial winter range and new fences in migration corridors would not be allowed, which would reduce
livestock management flexibility.

The reintroduction of Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) and other native fish species would
potentially change livestock management in areas where these species are reintroduced. Management and
planning changes would include altering grazing season and duration of use as well as additional
construction of offsite water sources, riparian pastures, and exclosures.

Summary

The inability to use up to 20,000 to 30,000 AUMs for sheep as a result of lack of predator control would
be a significant impact on up to 17 grazing allotments.

Long-term forage production and availability would be improved overall, as a result of substantial
increases in both vegetation and weed treatments. Loss of forage use caused by surface disturbing
activities would be reduced from the level in Alternative 1 because of reclamation activities, weed
control, and restrictions on surface disturbing activities from VRM Class II designations and wildlife
management actions.

4.7.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan

Impacts from cultural resource management and wild horse management on livestock grazing would be
the same as under Alternative 1 . Impacts to livestock grazing management from SD/MA management and
wild horse management would be the same as those described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives
above. Livestock grazing management action impacts would be the same as those described under
Alternative 3.

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to those under Alternative 1, except that fuel
treatments would increase four to eight times, resulting in an overall shift in plant communities to more

4-80

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Livestock Grazing

early- and mid-seral conditions, which would increase grasses for forage. There would also be a decrease
in dense shrub stands, thereby improving livestock distribution and access to forage.

Forest management action impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative 1, except that
6,700 acres would be eliminated from commercial timber harvest. Restricted commercial harvest on steep
slopes and other sensitive areas would reduce disturbance from the improvement of temporary roads and
maintain vegetation for forage.

Approximately 46,230 acres would be suitable for disposal, which, if disposed, would reduce federal land
grazing. However, most land disposals and exchanges are of isolated tracts, are of checkerboard
landownership areas, or are close to towns. Land use would potentially switch from public to private land
grazing or would change to industrial or urban development. The total acreage of lands lost to grazing use
would be relatively small; therefore, the loss of AUMs would be minimal. These actions would help to
block up public lands or dispose of small isolated tracts, which would improve management efficiency.

Impacts resulting from minerals management on livestock grazing would be fewer than those in
Alternative 1. A total of 15,472 acres of long-term disturbance would result in the loss of 1,730 AUMs.
Short-term disturbances of 57,819 acres would result in a loss of 6,430 AUMs (about 590 AUMs fewer
than in Alternative 1). The short-term loss of AUMs would be mitigated through the reestablishment of
forage following reclamation. A long-term loss of AUMs would not be anticipated; however, temporary
adjustments of active use would potentially occur.

OHV closures would increase to 46,370 acres, which is about 50-percent more area than under
Alternative 1 . Closing areas to OHV use would preserve vegetation and forage for livestock use.

In addition to impacts common to all from SD/MAs, development of an interpretive program for the
historic JO Ranch in the Sand Hills ACEC would increase public visitation and would potentially alter
management of livestock grazing in close proximity to the JO Ranch headquarters to achieve objectives
for cultural and recreation values.

Vegetation treatments would increase to 16,400 acres and would emphasize meeting multiple-use
objectives while providing for the protection of Special Status Species. Treatments would increase
production and availability of forage, would improve distribution of use, and would potentially increase
weight gains and conception rates in livestock. In addition, to meet DPC objectives, more intensive
management would potentially be required.

Treatment of 25,023 acres of weeds annually with an emphasis on outbreaks in native, weed-free areas
would reduce competition with native plants. In the short term, some infested acreage would continue to
result in a decline in forage production and devaluation of animal commodities. However, in the long
term, treatments would slow the proliferation of existing weed species and the introduction of weed
species into new areas. Treatments would target removal of new weed infestations and control of large
patches. This would increase forage available for livestock use.

Impacts from VRM would have the same impacts as those described under Alternative 1, except that the
VRM Class II areas (346,670 total acres) would be slightly reduced.

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions would have the same impacts as those described
under Alternative 3, except that water impoundments that would result in an annual water loss and/or
storage of greater than 1 acre-foot per project in Muddy Creek located within the Upper Muddy
Creek/Grizzly WHMA would be prohibited. This would reduce the flexibility of management during
periods of drought or require the use of wells, pipelines, and water hauling to provide additional reliable

Rawlins RMP

4-81

Chapter 4-Livestock Grazing

Final EIS

water sources. For surface discharged produced water, impacts would be the same as those described
under Alternative 1 .

Impacts from wildlife management actions would be similar to those impacts described in Alternative 1 ,
except that the reintroduction of CRCT and other native fish species would potentially result in changes in
livestock management in areas where these species are reintroduced. Management and planning changes
would include altering grazing season and duration of use as well as using riparian pastures and
exclosures to meet wildlife related goals and objectives.

Summary

Long-term forage production, quality, and availability would be improved overall, as a result of
substantial increases in both vegetation and weed treatments. However, 5,000 to 7,000 acres of existing
weed patches would remain untreated, which would not slow the proliferation of weeds and would reduce
usable forage for livestock and increase animal mortality.

Loss of forage use as a result of surface disturbing activities would be reduced from the level in
Alternative 1 because of reclamation activities, weed control, and restrictions on surface disturbing
activities resulting from VRM Class II designations and wildlife management actions.

4-82

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Minerals

4.8 Minerals

The overall goal of the minerals program is to make mineral resources available from BLM-administered
lands while minimizing impacts to the environment, public health and safety, and other resource values
and uses. Mineral resources are not evenly distributed throughout the RMPPA. This section presents
potential impacts on minerals development from management actions for other resource programs.
Existing conditions concerning minerals are described in Section 3.8. Impacts to minerals are organized
as follows: (1) leaseable minerals, (2) locatable minerals, and (3) salable minerals. The location of oil and
gas fields is presented on Map 3-5.

Significance Criteria

Impacts to minerals would be considered significant if either of the following were to occur:

• Management actions cause a substantial reduction in federal leasing and development activities.

• Management actions cause a substantial reduction in the development of locatable and salable
minerals.

The Statement of Adverse Energy Impacts specified in Executive Order 133212 is no longer required.
Changes in anticipated oil and gas production levels associated with each alternative are discussed in the
sections below that analyze impacts associated with each alternative.

Methods of Analysis

Impact analysis and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources and the
project area, review of existing literature, and information provided by other agencies. Effects are
quantified where possible. Spatial analysis was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.1 computer
software. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes
described using ranges of potential impacts or are described in qualitative terms, if appropriate.

Reductions in the number of well locations (and potential surface disturbance) from the baseline RFD
scenario (Appendix 20, Oil and Gas Operations, Production) for each alternative are a result of proposed
management actions, mitigation measures, and BMPs presented in Table 2-1, Detailed Comparison of
Alternatives, and various appendices. Those protective measures can affect oil and gas development
activities by not allowing leasing, restricting surface occupancy, controlling surface use, or adding
restrictive mitigation to Conditions of Approval on federal Applications for Permit to Drill. For RFD
scenario analysis purposes, the restrictions were separated into four classifications described in Table 2-1.
After the acres of federal oil and gas resources were calculated for each classification by alternative, the
percent reduction in well numbers for each classification by alternative was estimated. This estimate is a
percentage of the well numbers and surface disturbance that would not occur under each alternative
(Appendix 20). The effects of the various restrictions are depicted using the change in oil and gas
production that results from all management actions.

The number of wells projected to be drilled under each alternative is used to estimate potential impacts to
other resources. These well numbers provide an easy but incomplete picture for estimating impacts
because multiple wells can be drilled from the same surface location. Well locations (as opposed to well
numbers) are an indicator of human presence or disruptive activity and related impacts. The other major
component of the fluid mineral RFD scenario is surface disturbance related to the construction of
exploration and development wells and associated infrastructure. Surface disturbance associated with oil
and gas development activity is the primary barometer of impacts to other resources. Surface disturbance

Rawlins RMP

4-83

Chapter 4-Minerals

Final EIS

varies by type of well (conventional versus CBNG) because well pad size may vary and multiple wells
may be drilled from one surface location. The estimate of surface disturbance by alternative is included in
the RFO final RFD report (which can be found on the Rawlins BLM RMP website); these estimates are
included in Appendix 33, Reasonably Foreseeable Development and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions
Tables.

Many variable circumstances could increase or decrease the level of drilling activity and associated
surface disturbance acreage throughout the expected life of the RMP. If the projections in the RFD prove
to be inaccurate, then BLM will evaluate the RMP when the well numbers or surface disturbances in the
RFD are approached to determine if a plan amendment or revision is warranted. Every subsequent action
must be consistent with the RMP, and that consistency is checked in every National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) document BLM completes.

In addition to the number of oil and gas wells and the surface disturbance estimated for the various
alternatives, the location of the oil and gas activity is important to the analysis of impacts to other
resources. The majority of the oil and gas exploration and development is projected to occur in areas
currently experiencing oil and gas development, based on high and moderate oil and gas potential. Many,
if not most, of the wells drilled will be infill wells within existing areas of production. Current oil and gas
field development project areas and current oil and gas well locations are depicted on Map 4-7 along with
the high and moderate oil and gas potential areas. Map 4-7 identifies the areas within the RMPPA most
likely to experience future oil and gas development activity.

The analysis is based on the following assumptions:

• Oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development could occur throughout the entire RMPPA,
except where restricted.

• The number of oil and gas wells proposed under each alternative that would be drilled over the
next 20 years in the RMPPA includes 8,945 wells (3,834 federal) under Alternative 1; 9,198 wells
(4,087 federal) under Alternative 2; 8,632 wells (3,521 federal) under Alternative 3; and 8,822
wells (3,71 1 federal) under Alternative 4 (Appendix 33). Because of the high potential for future
development, the RFD scenario for oil and gas includes federal and nonfederal wells in the
checkerboard area.

• Nonfederal well numbers (5,1 1 1 wells) and disturbance acreage (35,000 acres) are assumed to be
the same for all alternatives.

• Sixty-eight percent of the federal wells drilled would be in the checkerboard area of the RMPPA.

• Based on historical drilling data, 75 percent of the future conventional wells are expected to be
drilled in Townships 14-24 North and Ranges 90-96 West.

• No substantial development potential is foreseen for locatable minerals. There are currently four
active Plans of Operation for uranium exploration, one active Notice for uranium exploration, and
one active Notice for gold exploration.

• Locatable mineral exploration and development proposals, if they should occur, are subject to
specific legal mandates such as protecting T&E animal and plant species, water, air, and cultural
resources. All proponents, for projects of any size, are subject to legal action for violating any
laws. For project proposals of fewer than 5 acres of surface disturbing activities, proponents are
required to notify the BLM and may be subject to ESA and cultural requirements. However, they
are not legally bound to follow administrative protection established for other resources unless
the projects are proposed in an ACEC, part of the WSR system or Wilderness Preservation

4-84

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Minerals

system (or a proposed addition), a National Monument or National Conservation Area, or an area
designated as “closed” to offroad vehicle use, or where the operator is proposing bulk sampling of
more than 1,000 tons of material. If any of these described conditions exist, then an operator must
file a 43 CFR 3809 Plan of Operations that is subject to BLM approval and the addition of any
mitigation or restrictions deemed necessary.

• No reasonably foreseeable coal development is anticipated other than on the existing lease in
Carbon Basin (Section 4.20, Cumulative Impact Analysis). Reclamation would continue in the
Hanna Basin from past coal mining.

• Demand for salable minerals over the next 20 years would follow the rate of resource
development in a given area. New sales could be requested in order to establish closer proximity
to development areas.

• Reasonable measures would be required by the Authorized Officer to minimize adverse impacts
to other resource values, land uses, or users not addressed in the lease stipulations at the time
operations are proposed. Reasonable measures could include modification to siting or design of
facilities, timing of operations, and specification of interim and final reclamation measures. These
modifications might occur only through site-specific post-lease actions (e.g., Applications for
Permit to Drill [APD] and ROWs) that are supported by onsite conditions and/or project-specific
NEPA analysis. Modification and/or waivers to lease terms and stipulations can be accomplished
in accordance with applicable regulatory guidelines (Appendix 9). Surface disturbing and other
disruptive activities could occur at existing authorized facilities.

• RFD/RFA tables can be found in Appendix 33.

4.8.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Forest management, national natural landmarks management, and WSR management actions are unlikely
to impact mineral development activities.

Leaseable Minerals — Oil and Gas

BLM would maintain or enhance air quality levels, within the scope of its authority, by minimizing
emissions that may cause violations of air quality standards or degrade visibility. These activities would
potentially limit oil and gas exploration and development activities in certain areas. Necessary mitigation
would be applied as discussed in Appendix 4, Air Quality Impact Technical Support Document.

Cultural resource management would influence the timing, location, size, and coloration of oil and gas
facilities but would rarely preclude the development or completion of oil and gas activities. In most cases,
oil and gas facilities would be relocated to avoid disturbance to cultural resources. In areas where the
integrity of the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility, well site proposals resulting in visual elements
that diminish the integrity of a property’s setting would be redesigned according to applicable
requirements (Appendix 5).

Fire and fuels management would concentrate fire suppression in areas with high resource or human
value, including oil and gas development areas and infrastructure. Wildland fires when they occur
generally cause minimal indirect impact on the development and production of oil and gas resources, but
they can be devastating when they occur. Health and safety impacts for oil and gas personnel can be
significant. Fuel treatments designed to reduce fuels and meet other multiple-use resource objectives
would benefit oil and gas production by reducing wildland fire size and intensity, thereby reducing the
threat of loss of oil and gas facilities to wildland fire where possible.

Rawlins RMP

4-85

Chapter 4-Minerals

Final EIS

Lands and realty management actions could influence oil and gas activities in some situations. Corridors
established for utility/transportation systems (power lines, pipelines, and other linear- type ROWs) and
ROWs for existing linear transmission facilities would be avoided where possible for the placement of oil
and gas development activities and infrastructure. Oil and gas facilities would not be placed immediately
adjacent to corridors or linear ROWs if issues with safety or incompatibility were identified. This would
relocate, but rarely preclude, any oil and gas facility. ROWs for wind energy development would
influence oil and gas development in areas where project proposals would occupy the same areas.
Conflicts and necessary mitigation would have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. The revocation
of certain withdrawn lands in the Seminoe and Savery- Pothook areas would potentially allow the
opportunity to place oil and gas infrastructure on these lands previously withdrawn for BOR water
management projects.

Livestock grazing mitigation measures applied to the oil and gas program would increase the operational
complexity in order to provide for the protection of livestock watering facilities and monitoring sites,
upkeep and repair of fences/gates and cattle guards affected by oil and gas activities, control of invasive
(poisonous) weeds, minimization of forage loss, and prevention of mortality or injury to livestock.

Minerals resource management impacts associated with the development of other mineral resources
would be minimal. In these types of situations, conflicts between fluid mineral development and other
mineral development (primarily locatable minerals) would generally be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Regulations preclude the waste of any public resource and in most situations compromises would be
reached that affirm the ability of mineral developers to produce the mineral resources. A time delay on the
part of one developer often provides a workable solution. If a legal battle does occur, the person with the
prior right may have the advantage. This could be particularly true in a case involving leaseable and
locatable minerals where the date on which claims were located might establish a priority right compared
to the date when a lease was issued. Existing withdrawals of 935,530 acres, primarily from locatable
mineral entry (Table 3-4), as well as the low potential for locatable development, would reduce the
potential for conflict between fluid minerals and development of other mineral resources.

OHV use for “necessary tasks,” such as geophysical exploration including project survey and layout,
would allow for the orderly and efficient completion of oil- and gas-related tasks.

Paleontological resource management impacts on oil and gas exploration and development would be
minimal. If important scientific fossils were discovered as a result of inventories conducted in association
with surface disturbing activities, the resource would be managed according to BLM procedures.
Avoidance of important paleontological resources would relocate oil and gas facilities or oil and gas
facility placement would be delayed while paleontological resources are collected and removed.
Relocation of proposed access roads, drill pads, pipelines, and other ancillary facilities would cause
temporary delays in developing oil and gas resources.

Existing recreation sites and management areas (6,076 acres, primarily in low hydrocarbon potential
areas) would preclude oil and gas activities within a relatively small area that makes up individual
recreation sites. Only minor relocation or avoidance of developed and undeveloped recreation sites would
be required because of no surface occupancy restrictions.

Only the Adobe Town WSA, which is closed to leasing, is situated in an area considered to have at least
moderate potential for the presence of oil and gas resources (Map 4-7). WSAs totaling 64,150 acres are
closed to federal mineral leasing (Map 2-6), thus precluding new oil and gas leasing and development
activities in these areas. Approximately 37,100 acres of the WSAs have a moderate hydrocarbon
potential, and approximately 27,050 acres have a low hydrocarbon potential (Table 2-6).

4-86

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Minerals

The establishment of SD/MAs would require the intensive management of oil- and gas-related surface
disturbing and disruptive activities to reduce impacts to sensitive vegetation complexes, important
cultural properties and their visual settings, and sensitive or important wildlife habitats that have high or
moderate potential for oil and gas development. The extent of any impacts common to all alternatives
varies according to the actions identified for each SD/MA. The Sand Hills, Red Rim-Daley, Cow
Butte/Wild Cow, Jep Canyon, Upper Muddy Creek, Chain Lakes, and Historic Trails SD/MAs would
have the most potential to influence the location, design, size, and coloration of oil and gas development
activities (Maps 2-8, 2-12, and 4-7).

Transportation and access management actions for maintenance of the public land transportation system
would provide for public safety and adequate access for mineral development tasks. Industry would, in
most cases, use the existing state, county, or BLM transportation network for initial access to potential oil
and gas exploration sites, access for geophysical exploration, etc. Once oil and gas exploration and
development activities were approved by BLM, industry would be required to improve and maintain
existing BLM roads or develop new roads and routes to meet development and operational needs.

Vegetation management would require reclamation and weed control mitigation measures for surface
disturbing activities to revegetate disturbed areas to preexisting native plant species and eliminate weeds
(Appendix 36). Habitat containing Special Status Plant Species (Appendix 10) would potentially limit the
location of fluid mineral development activities within any oil and gas lease.

VRM would affect the placement of facilities associated with minerals exploration and development
activities on the public lands and could exert a definite influence on finding acceptable locations where
development might occur as well as the size and coloration of facilities depending on the visual class and
location.

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions such as avoiding areas within specified distances
of ephemeral streams, live water (springs, rivers, and creeks), etc., and unstable areas such as landslides,
slumps, and steep slopes would restrict but not preclude the ability to explore for and develop fluid
minerals in most areas. This mitigation is applicable to all proposed well sites and surface disturbing
activities and would limit the location of oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure in areas where
these conditions exist. In most cases, the well pad or facility would be placed outside the avoidance area.
If the protected resources cannot be avoided, an alternative site using appropriate measures necessary to
mitigate impacts to other resources would be proposed. The application of various BMPs or other
measures that would be attached to the APD as conditions of approval (Appendices 1,13, and 15) would
influence how an activity is accomplished but rarely preclude the activity from occurring. Such
management actions in complex areas involving several resources would potentially limit the number of
well pads.

Wild horse management (horse roundups) would potentially delay oil and gas exploration and
development activities for a few days per location. Location of permanent wild horse trap sites would
preclude oil and gas activities.

Management actions that include the introduction, transplant, establishment, augmentation, and/or
stocking of wildlife does not often occur within the oil and gas developed fields; however, in the event
these actions do occur they may occasionally influence the timing and location of oil and gas
development. Intensive management in RCAs potentially would require the relocation of proposed
facilities away from nesting substrates and ensure that development is restricted to non-breeding or
nesting periods of the year. Wildlife habitat and forage requirements would influence the use of
appropriate seed mixes and planting techniques that add additional time and effort to reclamation
activities.

Rawlins RMP

4-87

Chapter 4-Minerals

Final EIS

Management actions that consider maintenance of connectivity between large, contiguous blocks of
undisturbed habitat would result in modification of facility locations and minimization of construction
disturbance. Within the constraints of existing lease rights, surface facilities would be located to avoid
fragmentation of habitat, where possible. Applicable mitigation measures and BMPs would delay oil and
gas development activities by precluding activity in certain areas and during certain times of the year to
allow wildlife to complete breeding, nesting, and other important life-cycle processes. Avoidance of
important or sensitive habitats (rock outcrops, aspen stands, lek sites, and other potential breeding and
nesting substrates) would influence access routes and facility placement in Critical habitat areas.

Proposed protection measures implemented to reduce and/or eliminate potential impacts to occupied
mountain plover habitat (Appendix 16) would delay development in some areas. These requirements
influence, but rarely preclude, the placement of mineral exploration and development activities in areas
where mountain plover are present.

Leaseable Minerals— Coal

No coal development (except in the Carbon Basin where federal coal lands have already been determined
acceptable for further leasing consideration) is expected during the 20-year life of the RMP. Only the first
two steps of the coal screening process (Appendix 2) have been conducted on federal coal lands. A
determination was made that approximately 5,029 acres were unsuitable (Appendix Maps A2-2, A2-3,
and A2-4) for surface coal mining. Approximately 56,240 acres were identified as acceptable for further
leasing consideration pending application of the remaining coal screens. The only coal activity analyzed
is reclamation activity in the Hanna Basin.

Fire and fuels management and vegetation management would potentially influence reclamation activities
in the Hanna Basin. Wildland fire management within the RMPPA would concentrate fire suppression in
areas with high resource or human value, including resource development. Fire management would
benefit reclamation activities by reducing fire danger. Vegetation management would require reclamation
and weed control mitigation measures for surface disturbing activities to revegetate disturbed areas to
preexisting native plant species and eliminate weeds (Appendix 36). Habitat containing Special Status
Plant Species (Appendix 10) would potentially change reclamation methods for leaseable mineral
development activities.

Locatable Minerals

Impacts to locatable mineral development would be limited because of the relatively minor amount of
locatable mineral exploration anticipated to occur under the RFD scenario presented in Appendix 33.

BLM would maintain or enhance air quality levels, within the scope of its authority, by minimizing
emissions that may add to acid rain, cause violations of air quality standards, or degrade visibility. These
activities would potentially limit or modify locatable mineral exploration and development activities in
certain areas. Necessary mitigation would be applied as discussed in Appendix 4, Air Quality Impact
Technical Support Document.

Management of cultural resources could influence locatable mineral development activities. In areas
where the integrity of the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility, proposals involving surface disturbance
that result in visual elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s setting would be limited
according to applicable requirements (Appendix 5).

Fire and fuels management would concentrate fire suppression in areas with high resource or human
value, including minerals infrastructure. Wildland fires when they occur generally cause minimal indirect

4-88

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Minerals

impact on the development and production of mineral resources. Health and safety impacts for personnel
can be significant. Fuel treatments designed to reduce fuels and meet other multiple-use resource
objectives would benefit mineral production by reducing wildland fire size and intensity, thereby reducing
the threat of loss of mineral facilities to wildland fire.

Lands and realty management actions would result in minimal impacts because access and the
establishment of the infrastructure for locatable mineral development are authorized under the provisions
of the 1872 Mining Law and the 43 CFR 3809 surface management regulations. Existing withdrawals of
approximately 935,530 acres would limit the land available for locatable mineral entry.

Livestock grazing mitigation measures applied to locatable mineral activities involving 5 acres or more
would increase the operational complexity in order to provide protection of livestock watering facilities
and monitoring sites, upkeep and repair of fences/gates and cattle guards affected by locatable mineral
activities, control of invasive (poisonous) weeds, minimization of forage loss, and prevention of mortality
or injury to livestock.

Mineral resource impacts associated with the development of other mineral resources would be minimal.
In these types of situations, conflicts would generally be handled on a case-by-case basis. Regulations
preclude the waste of any public resource, and in most situations compromises would be reached that
affirm the ability of mineral developers to produce the mineral resources. A time delay on the part of one
developer often provides a workable solution. If a conflict arises, the party with the prior right may have
the advantage. This could be particularly true in a case involving leaseable and locatable minerals where
the date on which claims were located might establish a priority right compared to the date on which a
lease was issued.

OHV management would potentially affect some locatable mineral exploration activities by limiting
times or places where vehicles could travel. Vehicle use for “necessary tasks,” such as geophysical
exploration including project survey and layout, would aid in the access to, and exploration for, locatable
minerals.

Paleontological resource management impacts on locatable mineral exploration and development would
be minimal. If important scientific fossils were discovered as the result of inventories conducted in
association with surface disturbing activities, the paleontological resource would be managed according
to BLM procedures. The Federal Government bears the responsibility and would cover the costs
associated with investigations and salvage of paleontological resources at the Notice level or after a Plan
of Operations has been approved. Avoidance of important paleontological resources would possibly delay
locatable mineral exploration and development activities while paleontological resources are collected
and removed. Relocation of proposed access roads, drill pads, and other ancillary facilities would
potentially cause delays in developing locatable mineral resources.

Developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres) could limit locatable mineral exploration and
development in some areas. Recreation sites would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry, which
would reduce the land available for exploration of locatable minerals.

The establishment of SD/MAs would require the intensive management of locatable mineral-related
surface disturbing and disruptive activities to reduce impacts to sensitive vegetation complexes, important
cultural properties and their visual settings, and sensitive or important wildlife habitats. The extent of any
impacts varies according to the actions identified for each SD/MA. Specific closures to locatable mineral
entry and requirements for Plans of Operation are discussed for each SD/MA by alternative below.

Rawlins RMP

4-89

Chapter 4- Minerals

Final EIS

Red Rim-Baley Potential ACEC (11,100 acres) is open for metalliferous locatable minerals, but it is
closed to non- metalliferous locatable minerals.

Transportation and access management actions for maintenance of the public land transportation system
would provide for public safety and adequate access for mineral development tasks. Industry would, in
most cases, use the existing state, county, or BLM transportation network for initial access to potential
mineral exploration and development sites, access for geophysical exploration, etc. Once mineral
exploration and development activities were approved by BLM, industry would be required to improve
and maintain existing BLM roads or develop new roads and routes to meet development and operational
needs.

Vegetation management would require reclamation and weed control mitigation measures for surface
disturbing activities to revegetate disturbed areas to preexisting native plant species and eliminate weeds
(Appendix 36). Habitat containing Special Status Plant Species (Appendix 10) would potentially limit the
location of locatable mineral exploration and development activities.

VRM would affect the placement of facilities associated with minerals exploration and development
activities on the public lands and could exert a definite influence on finding acceptable locations where
development might occur as well as the size and coloration of facilities depending on the visual class and
location.

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions such as avoiding areas within specified distances
of ephemeral streams, live water (springs, rivers, and creeks), etc., and unstable areas such as landslides,
slumps, and steep slopes would restrict but not preclude the ability to explore for and develop locatable
minerals. Avoiding water resources in areas would mean modifying the methods of extracting locatable
mineral projects of more than 5 acres. The application of various BMPs or other mitigation measures
would be attached to the approval of projects of more than 5 acres (Appendices 1,13, and 15) and would
influence how a project is accomplished but rarely preclude the project from occurring.

Wild horse management (horse roundups) would potentially delay locatable mineral exploration and
development activities for a few days per location. Location of permanent wild horse trap sites would
preclude locatable mineral activities.

Management of wildlife resources would result in modification of locations and designs and minimization
of construction disturbance when possible to maintain connectivity between large contiguous blocks of
habitat, protect sensitive wildlife habitat, and reduce repeated human presence in crucial raptor habitats
and migration corridors. Mitigation would limit locatable mineral development activities by using
withdrawals, not allowing surface occupancy, controlling surface use, or placing other restrictive
stipulations on 43 CL R 3809 Plans of Operation approvals. Applicable mitigation would possibly delay or
postpone some locatable mineral development activities by precluding activity in certain areas and during
certain times of the year to allow for completion of breeding, nesting, and other important life-cycle
processes. Avoidance of important or sensitive habitats (rock outcrops, aspen stands, lek sites, and other
potential breeding and nesting substrates) would influence access routes and facility placement in Critical
habitat areas. Wildlife habitat and forage requirements would influence the development of appropriate
seed mixes and add additional time and effort to reclamation activities.

Salable Minerals

BLM would maintain or enhance air quality levels, within the scope of its authority, by minimizing
emissions that may add to acid rain, cause violations of air quality standards, or degrade visibility. These

4-90

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Minerals

activities would potentially limit salable mineral activities in certain areas. Necessary mitigation would be
applied as discussed in Appendix 4, Air Quality Impact Technical Support Document.

Management of cultural resources could influence salable mineral development activities. In areas where
the integrity of the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility, proposals involving surface disturbance
resulting in visual elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s setting would be limited
according to applicable requirements (Appendix 5).

Fire and fuels management would concentrate fire suppression in areas with high resource or human
value, including minerals infrastructure. Wildland fires when they occur generally cause minimal indirect
impact on the development and production of mineral resources. Health and safety impacts for personnel
can be significant. Fuel treatments designed to reduce fuels and meet other multiple-use resource
objectives would benefit mineral production by reducing wildland fire size and intensity, thereby reducing
the threat of loss of mineral facilities to wildland fire.

Lands and realty actions could influence salable mineral activities in some situations. Areas closed to
locatable mineral entry are also generally unavailable for the development of salable minerals. Operations
located around incorporated cities/towns would be subject to intensive management if they are allowed at
all. Other avoidance areas associated with utility/transportation systems management actions could
preclude salable mineral development activities.

Livestock grazing mitigation measures applied to the salable minerals program would increase the
operational complexity in order to provide protection of water facilities and monitoring sites, upkeep and
repair of fences/gates and cattle guards affected by salable mineral activities, control of invasive
(poisonous) weeds, minimization of forage loss, and prevention of mortality or injury to livestock.

Minerals management impacts associated with conflicts between salable and other types of mineral
resources would be minimal. In these types of situations, conflicts would generally be handled on a case-
by-case basis. Regulations preclude the waste of any public resource, and in most situations compromises
would be reached that affirm the ability of mineral developers to produce the mineral resources. A time
delay on the part of one developer often provides a workable solution.

OHV management would potentially affect some salable mineral development activities by limiting times
or places where vehicles could travel.

Paleontological resource management impacts on salable mineral development would be minimal. If
important scientific fossils were discovered as the result of inventories conducted in association with
surface disturbing activities, the resource would be managed according to BLM procedures. Avoidance of
important paleontological resources would possibly delay or postpone salable mineral development
activities while paleontological resources were collected and removed. Relocation of proposed access
roads and other ancillary facilities would potentially cause delays in developing salable mineral resources.

Developed and undeveloped recreation sites could limit salable mineral development in some areas.
Recreation sites would be closed to salable mineral disposal, which would reduce the land available for
development of salable minerals.

The establishment of SD/MAs would have an impact on salable mineral activities because of the
imposition of limits on activities in areas containing sensitive resource values. The extent of these limits
varies according to the basis for establishing each SD/MA and the associated mitigation measures.
Because mineral material disposal is a discretionary activity, where sensitive resource values and salable
mineral materials overlap, the salable mineral development would be precluded.

Rawlins RMP

4-91

Chapter 4- Minerals

Final EIS

Transportation and access management actions for maintenance of the public land transportation system
would provide for public safety and adequate access for mineral development tasks. Industry would, in
most cases, use the existing state, county, or BLM transportation network for initial access to potential
mineral exploration and development sites, access for geophysical exploration, etc. Once mineral
exploration and development activities were approved by BLM, industry would be required to improve
and maintain existing BLM roads or develop new roads and routes to meet development and operational
needs.

Vegetation management would require reclamation and weed control mitigation measures for surface
disturbing activities to revegetate disturbed areas with preexisting native plant species and eliminate
weeds (Appendix 36). Habitat containing Special Status Plant Species (Appendix 10) would potentially
limit the location of salable mineral exploration and development activities.

VRM would affect the placement of facilities associated with minerals exploration and development
activities on the public lands and could exert a definite influence on finding acceptable locations where
development might occur as well as the size and coloration of facilities depending on the visual class and
location.

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions such as avoiding areas within specified distances
of ephemeral streams, live water (springs, rivers, and creeks), etc., and unstable areas such as landslides,
slumps, and steep slopes would restrict but not preclude the ability to explore for and develop salable
minerals. Avoiding water resources in these areas would mean modifying extraction methods, changing
the location, or precluding some projects. The application of various BMPs or other mitigation measures
would be attached to the project approval (Appendices 1,13, and 15).

Wild horse management (horse roundups) would potentially delay salable mineral development activities
for a few days per location. Location of permanent wild horse trap sites would preclude salable mineral
activities.

Management of wildlife resources would result in modification of locations and minimization of
construction disturbance to maintain connectivity between large contiguous blocks of habitat, protect
sensitive wildlife habitat, and reduce repeated human presence in crucial raptor habitats and migration
corridors. Mitigation would delay or postpone salable mineral development activities by not allowing
surface occupancy, controlling surface use, or placing timing restrictions on project proposals. In some
situations, mineral material disposal would be precluded and a new mineral material site would need to be
established at another location. Avoidance of important or sensitive habitats (rock outcrops, aspen stands,
lek sites and other potential breeding and nesting substrates) would influence access routes and facility
placement in Critical habitat areas. Wildlife habitat and forage requirements would influence the
development of appropriate seed mixes and add additional time and effort to reclamation activities.

4.8.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing

Management

The effects of air management, fire and fuels management, forest management, livestock management,
minerals management, OHV management, national natural landmarks management, WSR management,
transportation and access management, vegetation management, and wild horse management are
discussed in the Impacts Common to All Alternatives section for all mineral resources.

4-92

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4- Minerals

Leaseable Minerals — Oil and Gas

To protect cultural resources, an area within 1/4 mile of an NRHP property or the visual horizon,
whichever is closer, would be an avoidance area for surface disturbing and disruptive activities, if the
setting contributes to NRHP eligibility. If small NRHP-eligible cultural resource sites are present, access
roads, drill pads, pipelines, and other ancillary facilities would be relocated to avoid adverse impacts to
cultural resources. These avoidance measures would require establishment of facilities in adjacent areas,
which would delay and possibly limit oil and gas activities in these areas. Also, within sensitive areas
(e.g.. Chain Lakes and dunal areas in general) all surface disturbing activities would be subject to cultural
monitoring on a case-by-case basis. This could delay oil and gas exploration and development activities in
these areas.

Lands and realty management actions include areas within 1/4 mile of incorporated boundaries of all
cities/towns (1,500 acres) open to oil and gas leasing with intensive management and would delay
proposed projects. Land disposal actions (63,460 acres) could reduce the area available for future oil and
gas leasing and development activities. For projects proposed in avoidance areas (Map 2-30), intensive
management of surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be applied to existing leases and would
potentially change the location and/or design of some projects.

OHV use for “necessary tasks,” such as geophysical exploration including project survey and layout,
would allow for the orderly and efficient completion of oil- and gas-related tasks.

Paleontological resources management for Class 4 and 5 geologic formation exposures where
paleontological resources could be found would be subject to on-the-ground surveys prior to approval of
surface disturbing activities. This would delay oil and gas activities within these areas.

Developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an
NSO stipulation, making the use of directional drilling mandatory and restricting placement of facilities in
these areas. Surface disturbance would be intensively managed in the 1 /4-mile buffer surrounding these
sites (an additional 7,930 acres; Map 3-7), which would potentially delay development activities.

Only the Adobe Town WSA (32,650 acres), which is closed to leasing, is situated in an area considered to
have at least moderate potential for the presence of oil and gas resources (Map 4-7). WSAs totaling
64,150 acres are closed to federal mineral leasing (Map 2-6), thereby precluding new oil and gas leasing
and development activities in these areas. Approximately 27,050 acres of the WSAs have a moderate
hydrocarbon potential (Table 2-6).

The Shirley Mountain SRMA (24,440 acres) and North Platte River SRMA (5,060 acres, including a 1/4-
mile buffer on either side of the river) would be open to oil and gas leasing with intensive management of
surface disturbing and disruptive activities. This management action would limit placement of some
facilities and potentially delay activities associated with oil and gas exploration and development in order
to avoid sensitive resources (Map 2-14).

SD/MA management actions protect the integrity of unique resource values and provide the opportunity
for other uses where appropriate. All WSAs are closed to future leasing, which would preclude future oil
and gas activities in these areas. The impact of SD/MAs (Maps 2-7, 2-10, and 2-14) on oil and gas
exploration and development would depend on the type and extent of the resources requiring special
designations as well as on hydrocarbon potential in these areas (Table 2-6). Restrictions or stipulations
necessary to manage SD/MAs would potentially lead to a reduction in the time available to drill and
complete oil and gas wells and construct ancillary facilities; restrictions would also result in the relocation
of proposed well pads, access roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities.

Rawlins RMP

4-93

Chapter 4- Minerals

Final EIS

The Como Bluff ACEC/NNL (1,690 acres), which is open to oil and gas leasing with intensive
management of surface disturbance within 1/4 mile of Morrison Formation surface exposures, would
directly influence the placement of oil and gas facilities (Map 2-7) within the area.

The Sand Hills ACEC (7,960 acres), Jep Canyon ACEC (13,810 acres), Shamrock Hills ACEC (18,400
acres), Chain Lakes Potential ACEC (30,560 acres), Cave Creek Cave ACEC (240 acres), Laramie Peak
Potential ACEC (18,940 acres), Red Rim-Daley Potential ACEC (11,100 acres), Pennock Mountain
WHMA (7,770 acres), Wick-Beumee WHMA (280 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes Potential ACEC (1,600
acres), and Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly Potential ACEC (26,850 acres) would be open to oil
and gas leasing with intensive management of surface disturbing and disruptive activities. This
management action would limit placement of some facilities and potentially delay activities associated
with oil and gas exploration and development to avoid sensitive resources (Maps 2-7 and 2-10).

To protect historic trails, an area within 1/4 mile of the trail or the visual horizon, whichever is closer,
would be an avoidance area for surface disturbing and disruptive activities, if the setting contributes to
NRHP eligibility. If historic trails are present, access roads, drill pads, pipelines, and other ancillary
facilities would be relocated to avoid adverse impacts to cultural resources. These avoidance measures
would require establishment of facilities in adjacent areas, which would delay and possibly limit oil and
gas activities in these areas.

The Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area Potential ACEC (5,530 acres) and the Continental Divide
National Scenic Trail SRMA (600 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation.
This would mandate the use of directional drilling and preclude the placement of oil and gas facilities in
these areas.

VRM Class II area requirements (359,610 acres; Table 2-9 and Appendix 25), which preserve the existing
character of the landscape, would potentially change the location or design of oil and gas facilities, and in
rare cases preclude development activities.

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions would be the same as the impacts described in
common to all, except that surface discharge of produced water from oil and gas development would be
allowed provided it meets state standards for water quality in the Colorado River Basin, North Platte
River Basin, and Great Divide Basin. These actions would increase the flexibility of oil and gas
development projects by allowing for surface discharge as a disposal method for produced waters, subject
to limits posed by state and federal regulatory requirements for water quality.

To protect wildlife resources, surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be prohibited: (1) within
3/4 to 1 mile of raptors, depending on species (Table 2-1, Wildlife and Fisheries section), from February 1
to July 31; (2) in big game crucial winter range during the period November 15 to April 30; (3) in
parturition areas (Maps 2-55 and 2-56) from May 1 to June 30; (4) in winter concentration areas for
greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse during the period November 15 to April 30; and (5) where
they potentially affect nesting and breeding within a 2-mile radius of the perimeter of a greater sage-
grouse lek and within a 1 -mile radius of the perimeter of a sharp-tailed grouse lek from March 1 to July
15. In the area east of State Highway 789, south of Interstate 80 (1-80), west of State Highway 71 and
Carbon County Road 401, and north of State Highway 70, surface disturbing and disruptive activities
potentially affecting nesting and breeding of greater sage-grouse or sharp-tailed grouse would be
prohibited within a 2-mile radius of the perimeter of a greater sage-grouse lek and within a 1-mile radius
of the perimeter of a sharp-tailed grouse lek from March 1 to July 15. Prohibiting surface disturbance
would preclude oil and gas exploration (including geophysical) and development activities during these
times and within the areas specified. Overlapping restrictions with respect to both time and areal extent
could cause even greater delays to oil and gas activities. Seasonal restrictions would potentially limit the

4-94

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Minerals

time available to complete activities. For deep wells that may take 6 or more months to drill, complete,
and install production facilities, phased operations would be necessary. Normal depth wells may require
drilling and completion operations to be interrupted, and these activities would need to be completed in
phases to accommodate the seasonal restrictions.

Locatable Minerals

To protect cultural resources, an area within 1/4 mile of an NRHP property or the visual horizon,
whichever is closer, would be an avoidance area for surface disturbing and disruptive activities, if the
setting contributes to NRHP eligibility. If small NRHP-eligible cultural resource sites are present, access
roads, drill sites, and other ancillary facilities would be relocated to avoid adverse impacts.

Lands and realty management actions include an additional 63,670 acres of public land that would be
withdrawn from locatable mineral entry and would preclude development in these areas. Land disposal
actions (63,460 acres) could reduce the area available for future locatable mineral exploration and
development activities. Conflicts involving placement of locatable mineral facilities and transportation
ROWs (pipelines, power lines, etc.) could be resolved by relocating infrastructure as deemed necessary.

OHV use for “necessary tasks,” such as geophysical exploration including project survey and layout,
would allow for the orderly and efficient completion of locatable exploration.

Closure of developed recreation sites (5,560 acres) to locatable mineral entry would prohibit future
locatable mineral development activities in these areas (Map 3-7). Surface disturbance would be
intensively managed in the 1/4-mile buffer surrounding these sites (an additional 7,930 acres; Map 3-7),
which could restrict the placement of facilities in these areas.

Interim management of lands under Wilderness Review precludes locatable mineral exploration and
development activities in the Ferris Mountains, Adobe Town, Prospect Mountain, Bennett Mountains,
and Encampment River Canyon WSAs (66,120 acres).

Any locatable mineral project proposals in SD/MAs designated as ACECs, etc. (Table 2-1), would require
the submittal and BLM approval of a 43 CFR 3809 Plan of Operations as described in the Assumptions
for Analysis above. Public lands within 1/4 mile of historic trails would be open to locatable mineral
entry but would require placement of facilities away from historic trails.

VRM Class II area requirements (359,610 acres; Table 2-9 and Appendix 25), which preserve the existing
character of the landscape, would potentially change the location or design of locatable mineral
development, and in rare cases preclude development activities.

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions would result in the same impacts as those
described under the Impacts Common to All Alternatives section.

Wildlife restrictions (Table 2-1, Wildlife and Fisheries section) would potentially delay locatable mineral
exploration and development projects that propose more than 5 acres of surface disturbance. Impacts to
locatable minerals activities would be minimal because no major development is expected to occur during
the life of the current RMP.

Rawlins RMP

4-95

Chapter 4- Minerals

Final EIS

Salable Minerals

This alternative describes the current situation with respect to mitigation applied to salable mineral
activities on the public lands. Use authorizations for salable minerals are discretionary actions, and BLM
is not legally obligated to authorize any particular mineral material disposal from the public lands.

To protect cultural resources, an area within 1/4 mile of a NRHP property or the visual horizon,
whichever is closer, would be an avoidance area for surface disturbing and disruptive activities, if the
setting contributes to NRHP eligibility. If small NRHP-eligible cultural resource sites are present, access
roads, and other ancillary facilities would be routed around these sites to avoid adverse impacts. If
adequate mitigation could not be achieved, the material site would not be approved and an alternate site
would need to be found.

Lands and realty management actions would include areas within 1/4 mile of incorporated boundaries of
all cities/towns (1,500 acres) and would be open to salable mineral disposals with intensive management
to reduce impacts. Any land disposal of isolated public parcels (61,010 acres) would reduce the area
available for future salable mineral exploration and development activities on public land; alternate
sources might be available on private land. ROWs or disposal sites would be relocated if salable mineral
development conflicts with other resource values.

Development of oil and gas would have immediate and localized impact on the development of salable
minerals based on the need to provide construction materials for roads and infrastructure. Development of
the oil and gas resource would typically drive the demand for salable mineral resources and therefore
could result in an increase or decrease in the number of salable mineral disposal actions. Material sites
would be located close to but not in conflict with oil and gas development infrastructure.

OHV use for “necessary tasks,” such as geophysical exploration including project survey and layout,
would allow for the orderly and efficient completion of salable minerals tasks.

Developed recreation sites (5,560 acres) closed to salable mineral disposals would be intensively
managed in the 1/4-mile buffer surrounding these sites (an additional 7,930 acres; Map 3-7) and would
potentially preclude salable mineral activities in the subject areas. Mineral material development activities
that create dust, noise, and visual intrusions would be constrained or precluded to retain recreation values
at adjacent recreation sites.

The Ferris Mountains, Adobe Town, Prospect Mountain, Bennett Mountains, and Encampment River
Canyon WSAs are subject to the Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review.
Current policy precludes any salable mineral exploration and development activities in these areas, which
total 66,120 acres (Map 2-6).

SD/MAs (Table 2-1) would influence salable mineral disposal in terms of the size, location, and period of
operation to protect sensitive resources in the area and would potentially preclude salable mineral
development activities in some situations. Public lands within 1/4 mile of historic trails would be open to
salable mineral development but would require placement of facilities away from the trails.

The Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area Potential ACEC (5,530 acres) would be unavailable for
salable mineral disposals, thereby precluding development activities in this area.

VRM Class II area requirements (359,610 acres; Table 2-9 and Appendix 25), which preserve the existing
character of the landscape, would potentially change the location or design of salable mineral
development, and in rare cases preclude development activities.

4-96

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Minerals

Impacts from water quality, watershed, and soils management actions would be the same as the impacts
described in Impacts Common to All Alternatives, except that surface discharge of produced water from
gravel and sand pit dewatering would be allowed provided it meets state standards for water quality in the
Colorado River Basin, North Platte River Basin, and Great Divide Basin. These actions would increase
the flexibility of gravel or sand pit dewatering by allowing for surface discharge as a disposal method for
produced waters, subject to limits posed by state and federal regulatory requirements for water quality.

Wildlife restrictions outlined in previous sections would apply to proposed mineral material sites (Table
2-1, Wildlife and Fisheries section). Where distance and seasonal restrictions severely limit the time and
areas available to conduct salable mineral activities, the projects could be precluded. Exceptions to some
restrictions might in some cases allow some development to occur (Appendix 9). If restricted areas are
small enough, alternate sites could possibly be found in some areas.

Summary

Leaseabie Minerals

Many management actions result in a reduction of expected oil and gas exploration and development
activities. This in turn influences the number of wells and the petroleum production expected from the
public lands in the RMPPA. Implementation of restrictions, such as distance and timing restrictions and
closures to surface disturbing activities, would cause a decrease in oil and gas development activities.
Closing 66,120 acres to oil and gas leasing (Map 2-35) would preclude new oil and gas leasing and
development in these areas while use of NSO requirements (185,130 acres) would make the use of
directional drilling mandatory.

Approximately 8,945 oil and gas wells would be drilled during the life of the plan; of these, 5,1 1 1 would
access private minerals. Approximately 3,834 federal wells would disturb 26,500 acres out of a total
estimated disturbance of 62,000 acres for all wells drilled in the RMPPA. The Rawlins RFD scenario
determined the percentage reduction in projected oil and gas production for Alternative 1 and established
a baseline for assessing the impacts associated with existing restrictions. From baseline (no restrictions)
conditions, (1) oil production would decrease by 24.7 percent; (2) conventional gas production would
decrease by 9 percent; (3) coalbed gas production would decrease by 13.6 percent; and (4) total gas
production would decrease by 1 1.5 percent.

Locatable Minerals

Withdrawals to locatable mineral entry currently total 935,530 acres. An additional 63,670 acres would be
withdrawn from locatable mineral entry (Table 2-2 and Map 2-4). This would limit the amount of lands
available for future locatable mineral exploration and development activities on the public lands.

Salable Minerals

Because the disposal of salable minerals, under current legal mandates, is discretionary on the part of the
BLM Authorized Officer, any protection measures deemed necessary for the protection of various
resource values would be implemented as required. Proposals to initiate exploration and development
projects can be allowed or denied as desired. Any resource in conflict with the development of a salable
mineral site can provide the basis for applying necessary mitigation measures or denying a request for
authorization to establish such a site. Each specific proposal must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In
some situations, an alternative site can be found; however, this is not always possible. In some areas,
suitable replacement deposits may not be available because the deposits are located outside of reasonable

Rawlins RMP

4-97

Chapter 4-Minerals

Final EIS

haul distances. As a result of the long haul distances required from the source area to the use area,
utilization is too expensive.

Proposed management actions would close 1 1,090 acres to salable mineral disposals. This would limit the
amount of lands available for salable mineral exploration and development activities on the public lands.

4.8.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of
Resources

The effects of air management; cultural management; fire and fuels management; forest management;
livestock management; minerals management; OHV management; recreation management; national
natural landmarks management; WSR management; transportation and access management; vegetation
management; water quality, watershed, and soils management; and wild horse management are the same
as the impacts described under Alternative 1 for all mineral resources.

Leaseable Minerals — Oil and Gas

Lands and realty management impacts would be essentially the same as those described in Alternative 1 .
Land disposals would be considered on a reduced amount of acreage (46,230 acres), and restrictions on
placement of new facilities, including linear ROWs, in areas identified in Table 2-5 would affect fewer
areas in Alternative 2.

Paleontological resource management for Class 4 and 5 geologic formation exposures where
paleontological resources could be found would be subject to on-the-ground surveys prior to approval of
surface disturbing activities. This could delay oil and gas activities within these areas while required
surveys are being conducted.

The North Platte River SRMA would be managed using standard mitigation measures instead of being
intensively managed as in Alternative 1. This would enhance the ability to conduct oil and gas projects in
this area.

Impacts from SD/MA management actions discussed in Alternative 1 are also applicable to Alternative 2,
with one exception. The Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area Potential ACEC (5,530 acres) would
be open to leasing subject to an approved management plan. The plan must address concerns about
ongoing research projects in this area and avoid impacting these projects. Approval, if granted, would
require the implementation of BMPs and other mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the research area.
This would potentially delay oil and gas activities planned for the area. Also, leasing is still allowed in the
Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly Potential ACEC, but the acreage has expanded from 26,850 acres
to 59,720 acres, which would cause delays to oil and gas project proposals over a larger area. Wildlife
restrictions in SD/MAs would be greatly reduced, resulting in more flexibility in terms of timing and
location where mineral activities would occur as compared with Alternative 1 .

VRM actions would be the same as those described in Alternative 1 except that the acreage would be less
(232,830 acres; Table 2-9 and Appendix 25).

Wildlife restrictions would be greatly reduced, resulting in more flexibility in terms of timing and location
where oil and gas activities would occur as compared with Alternative 1. Wildlife management of oil and
gas activities involving surface disturbance would be subject to delays resulting from the prohibition of
activities within 1/2 mile of raptors (Table 2-1, Wildlife and Fisheries section) for various periods,
depending on species, from February 1 to September 15. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities
located within 1/4 mile of a greater sage-grouse or sharp-tailed grouse lek would be prohibited.

4-98

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4- Minerals

Locatable Minerals

Impacts from lands and realty management would be similar to those described in Alternative 1 , except
that land disposals would be considered on a reduced amount of acreage (46,230 acres), and restricting
placement of new facilities, including linear ROWs, in areas identified in Table 2-5 would affect fewer
areas in Alternative 2.

Potential paleontological discovery areas would be subject to on-the-ground surveys prior to approval of
surface disturbing activities for Class 4 and 5 geologic formations on a case-by-case basis. This would
delay locatable mineral activities for projects proposing more than 5 acres of disturbance until surveys
could be conducted on the public lands.

Impacts from SD/MA management actions (Table 2-1) discussed in Alternative 1 are also applicable to
Alternative 2, with one exception. The Cave Creek Cave Potential ACEC (240 acres) would be closed to
locatable mineral entry, which would preclude future locatable mineral exploration and development
activities in this area. Shamrock Hills would not require a 43 CFR 3809 Plan of Operation for projects of
fewer than 5 acres in size. Wildlife restrictions in SD/MAs would be greatly reduced, resulting in more
flexibility in terms of timing and location where mineral activities would occur as compared with
Alternative 1.

VRM actions would be the same as those described in Alternative 1, except that the acreage would be less
(232,830 acres; Table 2-9 and Appendix 25).

Locatable mineral activities involving more than 5 acres of surface disturbance would be subject to delays
resulting from the prohibition of activities within 1/2 mile of raptors (Table 2-1, Wildlife and Fisheries
section) for various periods, depending on species, from February 1 to September 15. Surface disturbing
and disruptive activities located within 1/4 mile of a greater sage-grouse or sharp-tailed grouse lek would
be prohibited. Wildlife restrictions would be greatly reduced, resulting in more flexibility in terms of
timing and location where locatable mineral activities would occur as compared with Alternative 1 .

Salable Minerals

Impacts from lands and realty management would be essentially the same as those described in
Alternative 1, except that land disposals would be considered on a reduced amount of acreage (46,230
acres), and restricting placement of new facilities, including linear ROWs, in areas identified in Table 2-5
would affect fewer areas in Alternative 2.

Paleontological resource management for Class 4 and 5 geologic formation exposures where
paleontological resources could be found would be subject to on-the-ground surveys prior to approval of
surface disturbing activities. Discovery of paleontological resources would likely preclude the
establishment of any material sites in these areas.

The North Platte River SRMA would be managed using standard mitigation measures instead of being
intensively managed as in Alternative 1 . This would allow salable mineral activities in areas where they
previously would have been precluded.

Impacts from SD/MA management actions discussed in Alternative 1 are also applicable to Alternative 2
with one exception. The Cave Creek Cave Potential ACEC (240 acres) would be unavailable for salable
mineral activities. This would preclude salable mineral exploration and development activities in these
areas. Wildlife restrictions in SD/MAs would be greatly reduced, resulting in more flexibility in terms of
timing and location where mineral activities would occur as compared with Alternative 1 .

Rawlins RMP

4-99

Chapter 4-Minerals

Final EIS

VRM actions would be the same as those described in Alternative 1 except that the acreage would be less
(232,830 acres; Table 2-9 and Appendix 25).

Salable mineral activities involving surface disturbance would be subject to delays resulting from the
prohibition of activities within 1/2 mile of raptors (Table 2-1, Wildlife and Fisheries section) for various
periods, depending on species, from February 1 to September 15. Surface disturbing and disruptive
activities located within 1/4 mile of a greater sage-grouse or sharp-tailed grouse lek would be prohibited.
Wildlife restrictions would be greatly reduced, resulting in more flexibility in terms of timing and location
where salable mineral activities would occur as compared with Alternative 1 .

Summary

Leaseable Minerals

Management actions under Alternative 2 are less restrictive as compared with other alternatives.
Approximately 66,120 acres closed to new oil and gas leasing would preclude future oil and gas
exploration and development activities in these areas, and NSO requirements (92,180 acres) would make
the use of directional drilling mandatory. Fewer restrictions on surface disturbing and other disruptive
activities would allow more time for exploration and development to occur.

Approximately 9,198 wells, or 3 percent more wells than in Alternative 1, would be developed during the
planning period; of these, 5,1 1 1 would access private minerals. Approximately 4,087 federal wells would
disturb 28,300 acres out of a total estimated disturbance of 64,000 acres for all wells drilled in the
RMPPA. A small increase in the amount of oil and gas produced would occur as compared with
Alternative 1. The Rawlins RFD scenario determined that from baseline (no restrictions) conditions, (1)
oil production would decrease by 15.1 percent; (2) conventional gas production would remain stable (no
change); (3) coalbed gas production would decrease by 1 1.2 percent; and (4) total gas production would
decrease by 6 percent.

Locatable Minerals

Impacts to locatable mineral exploration and development would be similar to impacts described in
Alternative 1 , but there would be fewer restrictions on surface disturbing and other disruptive activities
that would allow more time for exploration and development to occur. An additional 6,400 acres would
be withdrawn from mineral entry (Table 2-2 and Map 2-39). This would preclude future locatable mineral
exploration and development activities on these public lands.

Salable Minerals

Impacts to salable mineral exploration and development would be similar to impacts described in
Alternative 1 , but the reduced number of restrictions on surface disturbance in Alternative 2 would allow
more opportunities for salable mineral activities to occur. Approximately 12,230 acres would be off-limits
to salable mineral disposals.

4.8.4 Impacts under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of
Resources

The effects of air management, fire and fuels management, forest management, livestock management,
minerals management, OHV management, recreation management, national natural landmarks
management, WSR management, transportation and access management, and wild horse management are
the same as the impacts described under Alternative 1 for all mineral resources.

4-100

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Minerals

Leaseable Minerals — Oil and Gas

To protect cultural resources, surface disturbing activities would not be allowed within 1/4 mile of a
cultural property or the visual horizon, whichever is closer, if the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility.
This would preclude oil and gas exploration and development if directional drilling was not feasible in
these areas. Also, within sensitive areas (e.g., Chain Lakes area and dunal areas in general), all surface
disturbing activities would be subject to cultural monitoring for all project proposals, thereby potentially
delaying oil and gas exploration and development activities.

Lands and realty management actions for areas within 1/2 mile of incorporated boundaries of all
cities/towns (4,500 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation making use of
directional drilling and offsite facilities mandatory for oil and gas activities in these areas. Existing leases
would be intensively managed, resulting in delays to project proposals. No land disposal actions would be
considered, so no reduction in the area available for the future leasing of oil and gas would occur. Road
densities would not be allowed to exceed levels that diminish or adversely affect other resources or
resource values, which could delay and possibly preclude development in some areas (Table 2-5 and Map
2-32).

Potential paleontological resource areas would be subject to on-the-ground surveys and possibly site
monitoring on a case-by-case basis prior to approval of surface disturbing activities where Class 4 and 5
geologic formations are exposed. This management action would potentially delay oil and gas activities
on the public lands.

Developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres) and the surrounding 1/2-mile area (an
additional 12,750 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation that would
mandate the use of directional drilling and possibly preclude development in some portions of these areas
by restricting the placement of facilities.

The Shirley Mountain SRMA (37,820 acres), North Platte River SRMA (12,740 acres, including a 1/4-
mile buffer on either side of the river), Jelm Mountain SRMA (18,100 acres), Pedro Mountain SRMA
(18,650 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA (1,600 acres), and Rawlins Fishing SRMA (330 acres)
would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation making the use of directional drilling
mandatory and precluding the placement of oil and gas facilities in these areas. Intensive management of
surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be applied to existing leases, potentially changing the
location and/or design of some projects. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and vehicle
routes, thereby delaying and possibly precluding geophysical exploration on these lands (Map 2-16).

All WSAs are closed to future oil and gas leasing and associated activities. The Adobe Town WSA
(32,650 acres) would be accessible for extant lease development subject to specific mitigation measures.
The other WSAs totaling 33,470 acres would be closed to all types of motorized vehicle use (Map 2-6)
and would preclude oil and gas exploration and development activities in these areas.

The Como Bluff ACEC (1,690 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation on
any new leases. This would make directional drilling mandatory and preclude the placement of oil and
gas facilities in this area. Surface disturbing activities on existing leases would be subject to delays
associated with intensive management.

The Sand Hills ACEC and Potential JO Ranch Expansion (12,680 acres), Jep Canyon WHMA (13,810
acres), Chain Lakes Potential ACEC (30,560 acres), Pennock Mountain WHMA (7,770 acres), Wick-
Beumee WHMA (280 acres), Cave Creek Cave Potential ACEC (520 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes
Potential ACEC (1,600 acres), Blowout Penstemon Potential ACEC (17,050 acres), Upper Muddy Creek

Rawlins RMP

4-101

Chapter 4- Minerals

Final EIS

Watershed/Grizzly Potential ACEC (59,720 acres), and Cow Butte/Wild Cow Potential WHMA (49,570
acres) would be closed to new oil and gas leasing, thereby precluding development in these areas where
the SD/MA is currently not leased. Intensive management of surface disturbing and disruptive activities
would be applied to existing leases, potentially changing the location and/or design of some projects (Map
2-8 and Map 2-12).

The Laramie Peak Potential ACEC (18,940 acres), Shamrock Hills RCA (18,400 acres), and Red Rim-
Daley Potential ACEC (1 1,100 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with intensive management of
surface disturbing and disruptive activities. This action would result in delays to oil and gas exploration
and development activities in these areas.

The Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area Potential ACEC (5,530 acres), Historic Trails Potential
ACEC (66,370 acres), High Savery Dam Potential ACEC (530 acres), and Continental Divide National
Scenic Trail (600 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation making the use of
directional drilling mandatory and precluding the placement of oil and gas facilities in these areas.
Intensive management of surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be applied to existing leases,
potentially changing the location and/or design of some projects. OHV use would be limited to designated
roads and vehicle routes, thereby delaying and possibly precluding geophysical exploration on these
lands.

Prohibiting surface disturbing or disruptive activities within 50 meters (164 feet) of a prairie dog town
inside the White-Tailed Prairie Dog Potential ACEC (109,650 acres) would make the use of directional
drilling mandatory and would potentially preclude the placement of oil and gas facilities in these areas.

Vegetation management actions would be similar to those described in Alternative 1, with the addition of
management actions to meet DPC objectives for reclamation in rangelands. These objectives would
require changes in seed mixtures and/or planting methods to promote desired plant species (Appendix
36). Occupied habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species would be open to oil
and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation, which would require the use of directional drilling to access
mineral resources from adjacent areas that might be amenable to these activities (Appendix 24). Occupied
habitat for the blowout penstemon would not allow OHV use for “necessary tasks” including geophysical
exploration, which would reduce the operational flexibility for these types of activities.

VRM actions would be the same as those described in Alternative 1 except that the acreage would be
more (351,050 acres, See Table 2-9 and Appendix 25).

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions place restrictions on the placement of facilities,
the location and design of roads, and well pads impacts. Impacts from these types of restrictions are
similar to those described in Alternative 1 . Surface discharge of produced water would not be allowed in
the Colorado River Basin and would be limited in the North Platte River Basin and the Great Divide
Basin. These management actions would potentially complicate oil and gas development projects that
require the disposal of produced water. In some cases, the economics would make marginal projects
infeasible; if this were to occur, the federal mineral resources might not be fully developed. However,
most projects would still be economically feasible with the injection of produced waters.

New permanent roads or structures would not be allowed in the Encampment River watershed, and
surface disturbing activities would be intensively managed to meet watershed objectives. This would
preclude any oil and gas activity on public lands that might be proposed in this area (Map 2-19), which
generally has low potential for oil and gas development.

4-102

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Minerals

To protect wildlife resources, surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be prohibited: (1) within
1.5 miles of raptors for various periods, depending on species (Table 2-1, Wildlife and Fisheries section),
from February 1 to September 15; (2) in big game parturition areas (Maps 2-55 and 2-56); (3) within 50
meters (164 feet) of the prairie dog towns; (4) in winter concentration areas for greater sage-grouse and
sharp-tailed grouse during the period November 15 to March 14; and (5) within 1/4 mile of the perimeter
of a greater sage-grouse or sharp-tailed grouse lek (with an additional 1 /4-mile buffer around all leks
being applied to all human activity from 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 a.m. daily from March 1 to May 20) and
within a 2-mile radius of the perimeter of a greater sage-grouse lek and a 1-mile radius of the perimeter of
a sharp-tailed grouse lek from March 1 to July 15. In the area east of State Highway 789, south of 1-80,
west of State Highway 71 and Carbon County Road 401, and north of State Highway 70, surface
disturbing and disruptive activities, including geophysical surveys, would be prohibited that potentially
affect the breeding and nesting of greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse within a 4-mile radius of
the perimeter of a sage grouse lek and within a 2-mile radius of the perimeter of a sharp-tailed grouse lek
from March 1 to July 15. Prohibiting and avoiding surface disturbance would delay oil and gas
exploration (including geophysical surveys) and development activities at the times and places specified.
Oil and gas activities would be strongly discouraged in avoidance areas and any authorizations made
would have to be compatible with the purpose for which the area was designated. Overlapping restrictions
with respect to both time and areal extent would potentially cause even greater delays to oil and gas
activities. For deep wells that may take 6 or more months to drill, complete, and install production
facilities for, phased operations would be necessary. Normal depth wells may require drilling and
completion operations to be interrupted, and these activities would need to be completed in phases to
accommodate the seasonal restrictions.

RCAs (620 acres), except for the Shamrock Hills RCA, would be closed to future oil and gas leasing, and
surface disturbance and disruptive activities proposed in RCAs on existing leases would be intensively
managed. Closing these areas to leasing would preclude future oil and gas activities and intensive
management of surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be applied to existing leases would
potentially change the location and/or design of some projects. Well locations, roads, ancillary facilities,
and other surface structures requiring repeated human presence would not be allowed within 1/4 mile of
active raptor nest sites. This action could preclude exploration and development activities within the
specified distance of raptor nests.

Locatable Minerals

Areas within 1/2 mile of incorporated boundaries of all cities/towns (4,500 acres) would be withdrawn
from locatable mineral entry, thus precluding future locatable mineral activities in these areas. No land
disposal actions would be considered, so no reduction in the area available for locatable mineral activities
would result from this action. Proposed total withdrawals for this alternative of about 271,1 10 total acres
would be initiated (Table 2-2), thereby reducing the acreage available for future locatable mineral
exploration and development.

Potential paleontological resource areas would be subject to on-the-ground surveys, and possibly site
monitoring, on a case-by-case basis prior to approval of surface disturbing activities where Class 4 and 5
geologic formations are exposed. This management action would potentially delay locatable mineral
projects proposing more than 5 acres of surface disturbance on the public lands.

Developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres) and the surrounding 1 /2-mile area (an
additional 12,750 acres) would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. These management actions
would preclude locatable mineral exploration and development activities in these areas.

Rawlins RMP

4-103

Chapter 4- Minerals

Final EIS

The Shirley Mountain SRMA (37,820 acres), North Platte River SRMA (12,740 acres, including a 1/4-
mile buffer on either side of the river), Jelm Mountain SRMA (18,100 acres), Pedro Mountain SRMA
(18,650 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA (1,600 acres), and Rawlins Fishing SRMA (330 acres)
would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. These management actions would preclude any future
locatable mineral exploration and development activities in these areas (Map 2- 1 6).

All WSAs (66,120 acres) would be closed to mineral entry, thus precluding any locatable mineral
exploration and development activities in these areas.

The Como Bluff ACEC (1,690 acres), Sand Hills ACEC and Potential JO Ranch Expansion (12,680 acres
with expansion), Jep Canyon WHMA (13,810 acres), Shamrock Hills ACEC (18,400 acres), Chain Lakes
Potential ACEC (30,560 acres), Laramie Peak Potential ACEC (18,940 acres), Pennock Mountain
WHMA (7,770 acres), Wick-Beumee WHMA (280 acres), Red Rim-Daley Potential ACEC (11,100
acres), Cave Creek Cave Potential ACEC (520 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes Potential ACEC (1,600
acres), Historic Trails Potential ACEC (66,370 acres), Blowout Penstemon Potential ACEC (17,050
acres), Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly Potential ACEC (59,720 acres), Cow Butte/Wild Cow
Potential WHMA (49,570 acres), White-Tailed Prairie Dog Potential ACEC (109,650 acres), High Savery
Dam Potential ACEC (530 acres), and Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA (600 acres)
would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. These management actions would preclude any future
locatable mineral exploration and development activities in these areas (Map 2-8 and Map 2-12).

Vegetation management actions would be similar to those described in Alternative 1 with the addition of
management actions to meet DPC objectives for reclamation in rangelands. These objectives would
require changes in seed mixtures and/or planting methods to promote desired plant species (Appendix
36). Occupied habitat for the blowout penstemon would be closed to locatable mineral exploration and
development (Appendix 24), precluding future activities in these areas. Occupied habitat for the blowout
penstemon would not allow OHV use for “necessary tasks” including geophysical exploration, which
would reduce the operational flexibility for these types of activities.

VRM actions would be the same as those described in Alternative 1 except that the acreage would be
more (351,050 acres; Table 2-9 and Appendix 25).

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions would have the same impacts to locatable
minerals as those described in Alternative 1 .

Seasonal and other types of wildlife management restrictions, described in the previous section, would
apply only to locatable mineral projects that propose more than 5 acres of surface disturbance. Projects
that involve fewer than 5 acres of disturbance would be subject to legal mandates described at the
beginning of this section. Impacts to locatable minerals exploration and development activities would be
minimal because no major projects are expected during the life of the current RMP.

Salable Minerals

Surface disturbing activities would not be allowed within 1/4 mile of a cultural property or the visual
horizon, whichever is closer, if the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility. This would preclude salable
mineral exploration and development in these areas. Also, within sensitive areas (e.g., Chain Lakes area
and dunal areas in general), all salable mineral activities, if allowed, would be subject to delays associated
with cultural monitoring for all project proposals. In most cases, alternative sites would need to be
established.

4-104

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Minerals

Lands and realty management actions for areas within 1/2 mile of incorporated boundaries of all
cities/towns (4,500 acres) would be unavailable for salable mineral activities. No land disposal actions
would be considered; therefore, no reduction in the area potentially available for salable mineral activities
would result from this action. Road densities would not be allowed to exceed levels that diminish or
adversely affect other resources or resource values, which would limit and possibly preclude development
in some areas. Areas proposed for withdrawals (271,110 acres; Table 2-2) would be unavailable for
salable mineral exploration and development.

Potential paleontological resource areas would be subject to on-the-ground surveys, and possibly site
monitoring, on a case-by-case basis prior to approval of surface disturbing activities where Class 4 and 5
geologic formations are exposed. These management requirements would delay salable mineral activities
in areas where they apply.

Developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres) and the surrounding 1 /2-mile area (an
additional 12,750 acres) would be unavailable for salable mineral development activities. Mineral
disposal activities that create dust, noise, and visual intrusions would be constrained or precluded in order
to retain recreation values at the adjacent recreation sites.

All WSAs (66,120 acres) would be closed to salable exploration and development activities.

All of the SD/MAs listed in the previous section, except the Shamrock Hills RCA, would allow salable
mineral activity, with special emphasis placed on wildlife management areas. This would delay the
establishment of material disposal sites in areas where they are not precluded. Salable mineral
development is discretionary; therefore, this type of development would be unlikely to occur in most
SD/MA areas regardless of specific restrictions. The Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area Potential
ACEC and Historic Trails ACEC would be unavailable for salable mineral disposals, precluding salable
activities in this area.

Vegetation management actions would be similar to those described in Alternative 1 with the addition of
management actions to meet DPC objectives for reclamation in rangelands. These objectives would
require changes in seed mixtures and/or planting methods to promote desired plant species (Appendix
36). Occupied habitat for the blowout penstemon would be closed to salable mineral exploration and
development (Appendix 24), precluding future activities in these areas.

VRM actions would be the same as those described in Alternative 1, except that the acreage would be
more (351,050 acres; Table 2-9 and Appendix 25).

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions would not allow surface discharge of produced
waters in the Colorado River Basin and would limit surface discharge of produced waters in the North
Platte River Basin and the Great Divide Basin. These management actions would complicate salable
mineral development projects that require the disposal of produced water.

New permanent roads or structures would not be allowed in the Encampment River watershed. This
would preclude salable mineral activity in this area (Map 2-19).

Wildlife restrictions would limit the times and locations available to conduct exploration and
development activities; in some cases, the projects would be precluded and alternate sites would need to
be established.

Rawlins RMP

4-105

Chapter 4-Minerals

Final EIS

Summary

Leaseable Minerals

Management actions under this alternative would be the most restrictive to oil and gas exploration and
development activities as compared with Alternatives 1, 2, and 4. Approximately 86,210 acres would be
closed to new oil and gas leasing and thereby preclude new oil and gas activities, while approximately
281,560 acres would be leased with an NSO stipulation mandating the use of directional drilling
technology. Implementation of restrictions, such as the imposition of timing and distance limits as well as
closures to surface disturbing activities, would cause a decrease in oil and gas activities. The Rawlins
RFD scenario determined the percent reduction in projected oil and gas production for Alternative 3.
From baseline (no restrictions) conditions, (1) oil production would decrease by 45.3 percent; (2)
conventional gas production would decrease by 27.2 percent; (3) coalbed gas production would decrease
by 16.7 percent; and (4) total gas production would decrease by 21.5 percent.

Approximately 8,632 wells would be developed during the planning; of these, 5,1 1 1 would access private
minerals. Approximately 3,521 federal wells would disturb 21,000 acres out of a total estimated
disturbance of 56,000 acres for all wells drilled in the RMPPA. A decrease in the amount of oil and gas
produced would result from implementation of the mitigation described in this alternative.

Locatable Minerals

Approximately 271,1 10 additional acres would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry (Table 2-2 and
Map 2-40). This would preclude locatable mineral exploration and development activities on these public
lands.

Salable Minerals

Because the disposal of salable minerals under current legal mandates is completely discretionary on the
part of the BLM Authorized Officer, any protection measures deemed necessary for the protection of
various resource values would be implemented as required. Any resource in conflict with the
development of a salable mineral site can provide the basis for denying a request for authorization to
establish such a site. Each specific proposal must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In some situations,
an alternative site can be found; however, this is not always possible. In some areas, suitable replacement
deposits may not be available because the areas are located many miles away from deposits. As a result of
the long haul distances required from the source area to the use area, utilization is too expensive.

Approximately 586,326 acres would be closed to salable mineral exploration and development proposals.
This would restrict the areas available for salable mineral exploration and development activities on the
public lands.

4.8.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan

The effects of air management, fire and fuels management, forest management, livestock management,
minerals management, OHV management, recreation management, national natural landmarks
management, WSR management, transportation and access management, and wild horse management are
the same as the impacts described under Alternative 1 for all mineral resources.

The effects of vegetation management are the same as the impacts described under Alternative 3 for all
mineral resources.

4-106

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Minerals

Leaseable Minerals — Oil and Gas

To protect cultural resources, surface disturbing activities would not be allowed within 1/4 mile of a
cultural property or the visual horizon, whichever is closer, if the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility.
This would preclude oil and gas activities if directional drilling is not feasible within these areas. Also,
within sensitive areas (e.g.. Chain Lakes and dunal areas in general) all surface disturbing activities would
be subject to cultural monitoring on a case-by-case basis. This could delay oil and gas exploration and
development activities in these areas.

Lands and realty management actions for areas within 1/4 mile of incorporated boundaries of all
cities/towns (1,500 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation. This would make
the use of directional drilling mandatory for any new leases in these areas and require that all facilities be
placed off-lease. Existing leases would be intensively managed, resulting in delays to proposed activities.
About 46,230 acres of BLM-administered isolated parcels that meet FLPMA disposal criteria would be
available for sale (Maps 2-26 through 2-29 and Appendix 6). Any land disposals made would reduce the
number of acres available for future oil and gas leasing. Areas with important resource values would be
avoided where possible in planning for new facility placement; if it becomes necessary for facilities to be
placed within an avoidance area, associated impacts would be intensively managed (Table 2-5 and Map 2-
33). This would delay and potentially preclude development in some areas.

Potential paleontological resource areas would be subject to on-the-ground surveys on a case-by-case
basis prior to approval of surface disturbing activities where Class 4 and 5 geologic formations are
exposed at the surface. Monitoring during surface disturbing activities could also be required on a case-
by-case basis, and surveys and monitors could be required on a case-by-case basis following a
paleontological discovery in Class 3 geological formations. These management requirements would
potentially delay oil and gas activities in areas where they would be applicable.

Developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres), and the surrounding 1 /4-mile area (an
additional 7,930 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation (Map 3-7).
Directional drilling from off-lease locations and off-lease placement of facilities would be mandatory in
these areas. Smaller areas would be easier to explore than larger ones that might require distances too
great to be reached with directional well bores.

The Shirley Mountain SRMA (37,820 acres), North Platte River SRMA (5,060 acres, including a 1/4-
mile buffer on either side of the river), Jelm Mountain SRMA (18,100 acres), Pedro Mountain SRMA
(18,650 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA (1,600 acres), and Rawlins Fishing SRMA (330 acres)
would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation making directional drilling mandatory and
precluding the placement of oil and gas facilities in these areas. With a well bore using directional
drilling, smaller, narrower areas would be easier to access than larger areas. Intensive management of
surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be applied to existing leases, would potentially change
the location and/or design of some projects. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and vehicle
routes, potentially preventing geophysical exploration on these lands.

Management actions and associated impacts for WSA areas would be the same as described in
Alternative 3 (Map 2-6).

The Como Bluff NNL (1,690 acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with intensive management of
surface disturbing and disruptive activities within 1/4 mile of exposures of the Morrison Fonnation.
Intensive management of surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be applied to existing leases,
potentially changing the location and/or design of some projects.

Rawlins RMP

4-107

Chapter 4-Minerals

Final EIS

The Jep Canyon WHMA (13,810 acres), Shamrock Hills RCA (18,400 acres), Chain Lakes WHMA
(30,560 acres), Laramie Peak WHMA (18,940 acres), Red Rim-Daley WHMA (11,100 acres), Pennock
Mountain WHMA (7,770 acres), Wick-Beumee WHMA (280 acres), and Cave Creek Cave ACEC (240
acres) would be open to new oil and gas leasing with intensive management of surface disturbing and
disruptive activities. These management actions could delay oil and gas exploration and development
(Maps 2-9, 2-13, and 2-17) in these areas. OHV travel for “necessary tasks” would not be allowed, thus
potentially preventing geophysical exploration of these areas.

The Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA (1,600 acres), Historic Trails area (66,370 acres), High Savery Dam
area (530 acres), and Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA (600 acres) would be open to oil
and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation making directional drilling mandatory and precluding the
placement of oil and gas facilities in these areas. With a well bore using directional drilling, smaller,
narrower areas would be easier to access than larger areas. Intensive management of surface disturbing
and disruptive activities would be applied to existing leases, potentially changing the location and/or
design of some projects. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and vehicle routes, potentially
preventing geophysical exploration on these lands.

The Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area (5,530 acres), Blowout Penstemon Potential ACEC
(17,050 acres), Sand Hills ACEC and Potential JO Ranch Expansion (12,680 acres), Upper Muddy Creek
Watershed/Grizzly WHMA (59,720 acres), and Cow Butte/Wild Cow WHMA (49,570 acres) would be
closed to new leasing, thus precluding future exploration and development in these areas where they are
not currently leased. Intensive management of surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be
applied to existing leases, potentially changing the location and/or design of some projects. Avoidance of
surface disturbing or disruptive activities within white-tailed and black-tailed prairie dog towns would
also be required. These actions may require the use of directional drilling and potentially would delay
and/or relocate the placement of oil and gas facilities in these areas. However, this action would still
allow for development.

VRM actions would be the same as those described in Alternative 1 except that the acreage would be
more (346,670 acres; Table 2-9 and Appendix 25).

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions and their associated impacts would be the same
as described under Alternative 1, except that water impoundments in the Upper Muddy Creek/Grizzly
WHMA (Map 2-13) that would result in an annual water loss and/or storage of greater than 1 acre-foot
per project in Muddy Creek would not be allowed. Limits posed by administrative and regulatory
requirements could influence the location and intensity of development in areas where specific water
management actions are implemented.

New permanent roads or structures would not be allowed in the Encampment River watershed, which
generally is considered to have low potential for oil and gas development. Surface disturbing activities
would be intensively managed to meet watershed objectives, potentially causing delays to any oil and gas
activity in this area (Map 2-19).

To protect wildlife resources, surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be prohibited (1) within
3/4 to 1 mile of raptors for various periods, depending on species (Table 2-1, Wildlife and Fisheries
section), from February 1 to September 15; (2) in parturition areas (Maps 2-55 and 2-56) from May 1 to
June 30; (3) in winter concentration areas for greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse during the
period November 15 to March 14; and (4) within 1/4 mile of the perimeter of a greater sage-grouse or
sharp-tailed grouse lek (with an additional 1 /4-mile buffer around all leks being applied to all human
activity from 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 a.m. daily from March 1 to May 20) and within a 2-mile radius of the
perimeter of a greater sage-grouse lek and within a 1 -mile radius of the perimeter of a sharp-tailed grouse

4-108

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Minerals

lek from March 1 to July 15. Prohibiting and avoiding surface disturbance would delay oil and gas
exploration (including geophysical surveys) and development activities at the times and places specified.
Oil and gas activities would be strongly discouraged in avoidance areas and any authorizations made
would have to be compatible with the purpose for which the area was designated. Overlapping restrictions
with respect to both time and areal extent would potentially cause even greater delays to oil and gas
activities. For deep wells that may take 6 or more months to drill, complete, and install production
facilities for, phased operations would be necessary. Normal depth wells may require drilling and
completion operations to be interrupted, and these activities would need to be completed in phases to
accommodate the seasonal restrictions.

Well locations, roads, ancillary facilities, and other surface structures requiring repeated human presence
would not be allowed within 825 feet (1,200 feet for ferruginous hawks) of active raptor nest sites. This
would preclude oil and gas activities in these areas. Surface disturbance and disruptive activities proposed
in RCAs would be intensively managed, causing delays to proposed oil and gas projects.

Locatable Minerals

Surface disturbing activities would not be allowed within 1/4 mile of a cultural property or the visual
horizon, whichever is closer, if the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility. These restrictions would
preclude locatable mineral activities in these areas. Within sensitive areas (e.g., Chain Lakes area and
dunal areas in general), all surface disturbing activities would not be subject to cultural monitoring unless
the proposed project area involves more than 5 acres of surface disturbance. Projects of more than 5 acres
would be subject to possible delays.

Lands and realty management for areas within 1/4 mile of incorporated boundaries of all cities/towns
( 1 ,500 acres) would be withdrawn and closed to locatable mineral entry, thus eliminating these areas from
future locatable mineral exploration and development activity. About 46,230 acres of BLM-administered
isolated parcels that meet FLPMA disposal criteria would be available for consideration for disposal
(Maps 2-26 through 2-29 and Appendix 6), thus potentially reducing the amount of public lands available
for locatable mineral activities if land disposals occur. Avoidance of important resource values could limit
the areas where locatable mineral activities involving more than 5 acres of surface disturbance could
occur (Table 2-5 and Map 2-33).

Potential paleontological resource areas would be subject to on-the-ground surveys, on a case-by-case
basis, prior to approval of surface disturbing activities where Class 4 and 5 geologic formations are
exposed. Monitoring during surface disturbing activities could also be required on a case-by-case basis,
and surveys and monitors could be required on a case-by-case basis following a paleontological discovery
in areas where Class 3 geological formations are exposed. These actions could potentially delay the
implementation of locatable mineral project proposals of more than 5 acres in these areas.

Lands within 1/4 mile of developed and undeveloped recreation sites (17,590 acres) withdrawn from
locatable mineral entry (Map 3-7) would preclude future locatable mineral exploration and development
activities in these areas.

The Shirley Mountain SRMA (37,820 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA (1,600 acres), and Rawlins
Fishing SRMA (330 acres) would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry, which would eliminate any
future locatable mineral exploration and development activities in these areas.

The five WSAs (66,120 acres) would be closed to locatable mineral exploration and development
activities, thereby precluding any locatable mineral operations in these areas.

Rawlins RMP

4-109

Chapter 4-Minerals

Final EIS

Any project proposals in the Jep Canyon WHMA (13,810 acres). Shamrock Hills RCA (18,400 acres),
Chain Lakes WHMA (30,560 acres), Laramie Peak WHMA (18,940 acres). Blowout Penstemon ACEC
(17,050 acres), Pennock Mountain WHMA (7,770 acres), and Wick-Beumee WHMA (280 acres) would
require the submittal of a 43 CFR 3809 Plan of Operations for approval, which would potentially delay
locatable mineral exploration and development in these areas (Maps 2-9, 2-13, and 2-17).

Red Rim-Daley WHMA (11,100 acres) is open for metalliferous locatable minerals, but it is closed to
non- metalliferous locatable mineral entry.

The Cave Creek Cave ACEC (240 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes WHMA (1,600 acres). Sand Hills ACEC
and Potential JO Ranch Expansion (12,680 acres with expansion), and High Savery Dam area (530 acres)
would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry, which would eliminate any future locatable mineral
exploration and development activities in these areas.

VRM actions would be the same as those described in Alternative 1 except that the acreage would be
more (346,670 acres; Table 2-9 and Appendix 25).

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions and their associated impacts would be the same
as described under Alternative 1, except that water impoundments in the Upper Muddy Creek/Grizzly
WHMA (Map 2-13) that would result in water depletion to the Colorado River system of greater than 1
acre-foot per year would not be allowed. Limits imposed by administrative and regulatory requirements
could influence the location and viability of locatable mineral projects in areas where specific water
management restrictions apply.

Seasonal and other types of wildlife management restrictions, described in the previous section, would
apply only to locatable mineral projects that propose more than 5 acres of surface disturbance or that
involve some legislative mandates. Impacts to locatable minerals exploration and development activities
would primarily consist of project delays, but these impacts would be minimal because no major projects
are expected to be proposed during the life of the current RMP.

Salable Minerals

To protect cultural resources, surface disturbing activities would not be allowed within 1/4 mile of a
cultural property or the visual horizon, whichever is closer, if the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility.
This action would preclude salable minerals activities in these areas.

Lands and realty management actions for areas within 1/4 mile of incorporated boundaries of all
cities/towns (1,500 acres) would be unavailable for salable mineral disposals. About 46,230 acres of
BLM-administered isolated parcels that meet FLPMA disposal criteria would be available for
consideration for sale (Maps 2-26 through 2-29 and Appendix 6), thus potentially reducing the amount of
public lands available for future salable mineral development. In avoidance areas (Table 2-5 and Map 2-
33) where adequate mitigation could not be achieved, the material site would not be approved and an
alternative site would need to be found.

Potential paleontological resource areas would be subject to on-the-ground surveys, on a case-by-case
basis, prior to approval of surface disturbing activities where Class 4 and 5 geologic formations are
exposed. Monitoring during surface disturbing activities could also be required on a case-by-case basis,
and surveys and monitors could be required on a case-by-case basis following a paleontological discovery
in areas where Class 3 geological formations are exposed. These management requirements could
potentially preclude or delay salable mineral activities in areas where they apply.

4-110

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4- Minerals

Lands within 1/4 mile of developed and undeveloped recreation sites (17,590 acres) would be unavailable
for salable mineral activities (Map 3-7), thus precluding salable mineral exploration and development
activities in these areas.

The Shirley Mountain SRMA (37,820 acres), North Platte River SRMA (5,060 acres, including a 1/4-
mile buffer on both sides of the river), Jelm Mountain SRMA (18,100 acres), Pedro Mountain SRMA
(18,650 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA (1,600 acres), and Rawlins Fishing SRMA (330 acres)
would be closed to any salable mineral exploration and development activities.

The five WSAs (66,120 acres) would be unavailable for salable mineral exploration and development
activities, precluding any salable mineral operations in these areas.

The Sand Hills ACEC and Potential JO Ranch Expansion (12,680 acres with expansion), Stratton
Sagebrush Steppe Research Area (5,530 acres), Cave Creek Cave ACEC (240 acres), Laramie Plains
Lakes WHMA (1,600 acres), contributing portions of the Historic Trails area (fewer than 66,370 acres),
Blowout Penstemon ACEC (17,060 acres), Upper Muddy Creek/Grizzly WHMA (59,720 acres), Cow
Butte/Wild Cow Potential WHMA (49,570 acres), High Savery Dam area (530 acres), and Continental
Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA (600 acres) would be closed to any salable mineral exploration and
development activities.

VRM actions would be the same as those described in Alternative 1 except that the acreage would be
more (346,670 acres; Table 2-9 and Appendix 25).

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions and their associated impacts would be the same
as those described under Alternative 1, except that water impoundments in the Upper Muddy
Creek/Grizzly WHMA (Map 2-13) that would result in an annual water loss and/or storage of greater than
1 acre-foot per project in Muddy Creek would not be allowed. Limits imposed by administrative and
regulatory requirements would influence the location of any salable mineral disposal sites that might be
established.

Wildlife restrictions described in previous sections would apply to proposed mineral material sites (Table
2-1, Wildlife and Fisheries section). Where restrictions severely limit the ability to establish and operate
mineral material disposal sites, these activities would be precluded and alternate sites would need to be
established. Exceptions to seasonal restrictions might, in some cases, allow development activities to
occur at some locations (Appendix 9).

Summary

Leaseable Minerals

Management actions under this alternative would generally be less restrictive than those under
Alternative 3 but more restrictive than those under Alternatives 1 and 2. Approximately 73,230 acres
would be closed to new oil and gas leasing, thus precluding new oil and gas exploration and development
activities, and 218,750 acres would be subject to an NSO stipulation mandating the use of offsite facilities
and directional drilling. Implementation of distance and timing restrictions, as well as closures of areas to
surface disturbing activities, would lead to a decrease in oil and gas exploration and development
activities on the public lands. A slight decrease in the production of oil and gas resources is expected to
occur in comparison with Alternative 1. The Rawlins RFD scenario determined that from baseline (no
restrictions) conditions, (1) oil production would decrease by 25.1 percent; (2) conventional gas
production would decrease by 9.6 percent; (3) coalbed gas production would decrease by 15.2 percent;
and (4) total gas production would decrease by 12.7 percent.

Rawlins RMP

4-111

Chapter 4-Minerals

Final EIS

Approximately 8,822 wells, or 1 -percent fewer wells than in Alternative 1 , would be developed during the
planning period; of these, 5,1 1 1 would access private minerals. Approximately 3,71 1 federal wells would
disturb 22,100 acres out of a total estimated disturbance of 58,000 acres for all wells drilled in the
RMPPA.

Locatable Minerals

At least an additional 1 6,980 acres plus contributing segments of historic trail (NRHP) segments would
be closed to locatable mineral entry (Table 2-2 and Map 2-41). This would limit the amount of lands
available for locatable mineral exploration and development activities on the public lands. Exploration
activity would stay at current levels because the potential for locatable mineral development is considered
to be low.

Salable Minerals

Because the disposal of salable minerals under current legal mandates is completely discretionary on the
part of the BLM Authorized Officer, any protection measures deemed necessary for the protection of
various resource values would be implemented as required. Any resource in conflict with the
development of a salable mineral site can provide the basis for applying necessary mitigation measures or
denying a request for authorization to establish such a site. Each specific proposal must be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. In some situations, an alternative site can be found; however, this is not always
possible. In some areas, suitable replacement deposits may not be available because the deposits are
located many miles away. As a result of the long haul distances required from the source area to the use
area, utilization is too expensive.

Approximately 287,916 acres would be off-limits to salable mineral disposals. This would limit the
amount of lands available for salable mineral exploration and development activities on the public lands.

4-112

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-OHV

4.9 Off-Highway Vehicle Management

This section describes potential impacts to OHV management and use from management actions for other
resource programs. Existing conditions concerning recreation resources are described in Section 3.9.

Significance Criteria

Impacts to OHV management would be considered significant if either of the following were to occur:

• Management actions result in a long-term elimination of a substantial portion of recreational
OHV opportunities or a substantial reduction in the quality of OHV experiences available in the
RMPPA.

• Increases in OHV activity create substantial risks to public health and safety.

Methods of Analysis

Impact analysis and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of the RMPPA and
resources therein and review of existing literature. Effects are quantified where possible. In the absence of
quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes described using ranges of
potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate.

The analysis is based on the following assumptions:

• OHV use will continue to increase as the popularity and availability of OHVs increase.

• The incidence of resource damage and conflicts between OHVs and nonmotorized recreationists
will increase with increasing OHV use.

• Proliferation of unauthorized trails and associated resource degradation will continue to occur in
spite of BLM efforts at prevention and education.

• All restrictions apply to casual use, but not necessarily to all permitted activities.

• Reclamation will be done and roads closed where necessary to mitigate impacts.

• RFDs and RFAs can be found in Appendix 33.

4.9.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Air quality and wild horse management would have negligible impacts on OHV use.

Cultural resources attract recreational OHV users to the RMPPA. Actions to protect cultural resources,
such as fencing, signing, physical barriers, or other methods of restricting access to sensitive cultural
properties, would preclude OHV use in some areas. Such actions are rarely necessary; therefore, impacts
to OHV use would be minimal.

Historic trails attract recreation OHV users. This is evident from visitors interested in following the
historic trails and visiting historic sites associated with the trails. Historic trail use that would result in
adverse affects to the trail trace would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Where undue degradation is
identified, such as use during saturated soil conditions, closures would result that would preclude use of
the affected trail segment.

Rawlins RMP

4-113

Chapter 4-OHV

Final EIS

Wildland fire and fuels management treatments would temporarily close areas to OHV use and make
treated areas into visually less attractive and undesirable locations for OHV use until successful
rehabilitation and revegetation occurs. However, OHV use may increase because of new trails left by
suppression activities or from increased wildlife use of burned areas.

Forest management would benefit OHV by allowing harvest of minor wood products to reduce the
probability of catastrophic fires that would temporarily displace OHV users. Forest product removal
would create skid trails which would increase OHV access. Management of forests to meet forest health
and/or multiple-use objectives would help retain the quality of forest recreation opportunities for OHV
use in wooded areas.

Wind power development and new transportation and utility ROWs would create new visual intrusions
that would alter the scenic qualities and OHV settings in localized areas. These developments would also
potentially open new access to areas previously unavailable for OHV use, which would increase OHV
opportunities. However, OHV access within these developments may be limited because of mixed land
ownership patterns or road closures for public safety.

Lands and realty management actions would pursue land acquisitions within developed and non-
developed recreational destination areas, which would enhance OHV opportunities and activities. This
action would also alter the OHV settings by the additional visual intrusions from the new access roads
and vehicle routes.

Livestock management actions would include the implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy
Rangelands (USDI, BLM 1997), which would maintain hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing
opportunities. The presence of livestock would alter the OHV user experiences and settings, which would
displace some users to alternative areas.

Minerals management and associated lands and realty management actions would open new areas to
OHV use that may previously have had limited access. Travel off existing roads for “necessary tasks”
associated with these and other programs could potentially generate new primitive routes creating new
access opportunities for OHV use, but would also affect the OHV setting. Hazards associated with road
use would be proportional to the amount of mineral activity in addition to the historic recreational use.

In areas with moderate to high oil and gas potential (Map 4-7), development activity would further alter
natural, social, and administrative settings and supplemental values important for OHV use such as scenic
quality. The industrialized character associated with oil and gas activity will introduce new contrasting
elements affecting the scenic quality, which would displace some OHV to other areas. The back- to
middle-country settings would be changed to an industrialized landscape setting, which would interfere
with OHV users’ experiences and displace them to other areas. Short-term effects to OHV from the
increase in oil and gas development would be improved access to areas otherwise unreachable and
additional OHV opportunities. However, in the long term, supplemental values and resources would be
altered and would interfere with OHV users’ experiences. Areas most likely to be heavily developed,
based on their oil and gas potential (approximately 748,000 acres rated “high potential” and 1,192,000
acres rated “moderate potential”) are concentrated in the Seminoe Reservoir area south of Coal Creek, the
area northwest of Hanna, the Atlantic Rim area east of Highway 789, and the expansive area west of
Highway 789 north and south of 1-80. Large portions of the other areas do not have legal public access
because of the checkerboard land pattern. However, the large blocks of public lands with high oil and gas
potential outside the checkerboard are likely to be heavily developed, which would displace most OHV
users from these areas.

4-114

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-OHV

Locatable and salable mineral development would have negligible impacts to OHV use because of the
limited scope of activity anticipated, limited acreage of resources available, and discretion to deny salable
mineral development permits.

Most OHV users would be satisfied with the abundance of vehicle routes available. OHV use on muddy
vehicle routes creates ruts that may be hazardous to other drivers. OHV use increases during hunting
season. Hunters often drive saturated roads and cause resource damage because of the limited duration of
the hunting seasons. Excessive damage could lead to temporary closure of these roads for rehabilitation,
which would cause short-term displacement of OHV users who would have to avoid these areas.
Excessive or unauthorized OHV or over-the-snow vehicle use would potentially result in closures or other
limitations on OHV opportunities. Increases in OHV use in certain areas could impact public safety.

Paleontological discoveries would potentially be protected by actions such as fencing, signing, physical
barriers, or other methods of restricting access. Acreage within these areas would be minimal, which
would be a negligible impact to OHV use.

Recreation management actions would potentially increase OHV use, because some recreation attractions
are inaccessible without the use of OH Vs. These actions could also reduce OHV opportunities in some
areas in order to maintain the specific recreational experience so as to avoid user conflicts and to protect
resources that create the specific recreational setting. For example, the Encampment River Trail (Map 2-
5) is closed to OHV use because OHV use would be in direct conflict with the primitive recreation
resource values along the trail.

Some SD/MAs are popular OHV destinations in the RMPPA, whereas others restrict OHV use, such as
High Savery Dam Reservoir area. The Pennock Mountain crucial elk winter range, Wick-Beumee
WHMA, and Encampment River Canyon crucial bighorn winter range would be closed seasonally. These
would preclude and displace OHV use from these areas. Most SD/MAs do not have additional seasonal
OHV restrictions (Map 2-10). OHV use would be limited to existing roads and vehicle routes and to
offroad use for “necessary tasks,” big game retrieval, and camp site access, which would potentially
create primitive routes, thus generating additional OHV accessibility and opportunities but reducing the
OHV setting.

Transportation and access management is intended to maintain an adequate road network across the
RMPPA. Any development of the transportation network within the RMPPA would alter OHV use
patterns. Road closures and restricted access would limit OHV use in some areas, while the construction
of new roads or the acquisition of easements across private lands would allow access into new areas for
OHV use as discussed above.

Vegetative manipulation projects would generate temporary OHV restrictions in localized areas
undergoing treatment. Management of riparian, wetland, and upland vegetation to meet the Wyoming
Standards for Healthy Rangelands would improve the quality of the OHV experience by improving
scenery and stabilizing soils.

Visual resources are an important determinant of the quality of OHV settings which would protect the
scenic qualities of the OHV settings within the areas managed as Class I, Class II, and, in some instances,
Class III. Some OHV users seek natural landscape settings and would be displaced from areas managed
as Class III and IV, whereas other users seek the experience and opportunities for OHV activity
regardless of setting.

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions that protect riparian areas and waterways would
protect and enhance OHV opportunities by preventing degradation of areas that are often focal points for

Rawlins RMP

4-115

Chapter 4-OHV

Final EIS

OHV users when pursuing related recreational activities such as picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting, or
fishing. Water quality, watershed, and soils management efforts to reclaim functionally compromised
reservoirs would improve the scenic quality of affected OHV settings. OHV routes would be closed if
unacceptable resource damage occurs. Intensive management of OHV use in contributing areas to
waterbodies listed as threatened or impaired on the 303d list and other identified watersheds with special
management would occur. This intensive management would likely include mitigation or BMPs for
managed OHV routes, but would likely not preclude OHV use in many areas (Appendix 13).

In some instances, soil characteristics such as high clay or sand content make areas particularly attractive
to OHV enthusiasts. Soil management actions to protect sensitive soils and reduce unacceptable erosion
levels may require seasonal restrictions or road closures, which would restrict OHV use in these areas.

Maintaining AMLs for wild horses would provide continued viewing opportunities to OHV users seeking
to see wild horses.

Seasonal closures for wildlife that prohibit human presence during specific time periods would limit OHV
opportunities and associated uses in some habitat management areas, crucial winter ranges, ACECs, and
in areas with potential mountain plover habitat.

4.9.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing
Management

Paleontology management and wild horse management would have little or no impact on OHV
management.

Cultural resources attract recreational OHV users to the RMPPA. Actions to protect cultural resources,
such as fencing, signing, physical barriers, or other methods of restricting access to sensitive cultural
properties, would preclude OHV use in some areas. Such actions are rarely necessary; therefore, impacts
to OHV use would be minimal.

Historic trails attract recreation OHV users. This is evident from visitors interested in following the
historic trails and visiting historic sites associated with the trails. Historic trail use that would result in
adverse affects to the trail trace would be evaluated case by case. Where undue degradation is identified,
such as use during saturated soil conditions, closures would result that would preclude use of the affected
trail segment. Such actions are rarely necessary; therefore, impacts to OHV use would be minimal.

Wildland fire for resource benefit would be used to protect, maintain, and enhance resources. This would
help retain the quality of the OHV setting over the long term because excessive fuel loads would be less
likely to build up and drive catastrophic fires that would sterilize soils and complicate reclamation. More
frequent, less intense fires serve to rejuvenate vegetation and enhance the OHV setting after revegetation
occurs. Impacts from fuels management would be the same as the impacts addressed in Impacts Common
to All Alternatives.

Forest management would create temporary roads for timber harvesting and similar activities that would
be available for OHV use until closed. OHV use would likely be temporarily suspended during logging
operations. Traffic hazards, dust, noise, and resource damage to roads and vegetation would occur during
logging operations. OHV use on logging roads would prevent natural reclamation of logging roads, thus
retaining them as OHV vehicle routes. Timber harvesting actions change the more natural setting that
many users seek by creating an expanded network of roads and vehicle routes and often patchy forest
communities. Harvested areas result in non-merchantable forest products that would be available for

4-116

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-OHV

firewood gathering by the public. This would increase OHV use on temporary roads and skid trails
associated with forest product removal.

Lands and realty actions would help preserve the quality of the OHV setting by closing some areas to
operation of the public land laws, including disposal, and mineral location under the mining laws in
SD/MAs. Avoidance areas for linear transportation facilities and wind farms would also protect desirable
settings sought by OHV users on the public lands.

Livestock management actions would include the implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy
Rangelands (USDI, BLM 1997), which would maintain hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing
opportunities. OHV user experiences and settings would be altered, which would possibly displace some
users in response to the presence of livestock. Livestock grazing would pose a potential hazard to OHV
users where bison are allowed to graze, particularly in larger blocks of public lands where OHV use
frequently occurs.

Minerals management actions would open new areas to OHV use that may previously have had no
vehicular access. Travel off existing roads for “necessary tasks” associated with these and other programs
may generate new two-tracks that could be perceived as existing routes by OHV users. Increased traffic
associated with mineral development would pose a hazard to OHV users, particularly on narrow roads
that may not accommodate passing vehicles. Facilities associated with oil and gas development convert
the area from a predominantly natural setting to a more industrialized setting, which would degrade the
localized scenic quality, resulting in avoidance by many OHV users. The presence of livestock would
alter the OHV user experiences and settings, which would displace some users to alternative areas.
However, these developed roads enhance access to otherwise difficult-to-reach locations.

Existing oil and gas development dominates the landscape in much of the western RMPPA. These lands
were once popular for OHV use and other dispersed recreation. In many areas of the Red Desert,
development has reached the point that OHV users have sought other places to visit in order to avoid the
industrialized setting. Thus mineral development has already had a significant impact on OHV use and
management because there has already been a substantial reduction in the quality of OHV experiences
available in the RMPPA.

Areas most likely to be heavily developed based on their oil and gas potential (approximately 748,000
acres rated “high potential” and 1,192,000 acres rated “moderate potential”; [Map 4-7]) are concentrated
in the Seminoe Reservoir area south of Coal Creek, the area northwest of Hanna, the area east of Highway
789, and the expansive area west of Highway 789 north and south of 1-80. OHV use has historically been
particularly popular in the blocked public land areas east of Highway 789. Large portions of the other
areas do not have legal public access because of the checkerboard land pattern and, therefore, would have
little impact on OHV opportunities. However, the large blocks of public lands with high oil and gas
potential outside the checkerboard are likely to be heavily developed, which would displace most OHV
users from these areas.

Locatable and salable mineral development would have negligible impacts to OHV use because of the
limited scope of activity anticipated, limited acreage of resources available, and discretion to deny salable
mineral development permits.

OHV actions would close approximately 23,020 acres to vehicles year round, and about 17,910 acres
would have seasonal closures, which would displace and preclude OHV use in those areas. The non-
vegetated portions of the Dune Ponds Cooperative Management Area (3,730 acres) would be open to
driving off roads and vehicle routes. Driving off road for camp site access and big game retrieval would
be allowed except in WSAs and specific SD/MAs. Proliferation of primitive routes would continue as a

Rawlins RMP

4-117

Chapter 4-OHV

Final EIS

result of unrestricted offroad travel for camping and big game retrieval. This would alter the OHV setting
as well as increase access opportunities for OHV use.

Recreation sites protected with an NSO restriction on oil and gas leasing, intensive management of
surface disturbing activities within 1/4 mile surrounding the sites, and closure to locatable mineral entry,
mineral material disposal, and operation of the public land laws, including sale, would protect recreational
settings at destinations that are frequently visited by OHV users.

Some SD/MA management actions would affect OHV users. The Ferris Mountains WSA (21,880 acres;
Map 2-5), High Savery Dam and Reservoir area, and WSRs would be closed to OHV use. The Pennock
Mountain crucial elk winter range, Wick-Beumee WHMA, and Encampment River Canyon crucial
bighorn winter range would be closed seasonally. Closures would preclude and displace OHV use from
these areas. Most SD/MAs do not have additional seasonal OHV restrictions (Map 2-10), and OHV use
would be limited to existing roads and vehicle routes. These actions would preserve or enhance the OHV
settings and opportunities. SD/MAs that would allow offroad travel for “necessary tasks” and for big
game retrieval and camp site access would potentially create primitive routes creating additional OHV
accessibility and opportunities but reducing the OHV setting. Motorized use on existing roads and vehicle
routes would be allowed in the Encampment River Canyon WSA, Prospect Mountain WSA, and the
Bennett Mountains WSA, whereas the Adobe Town WSA will restrict motorized use on designated roads
and vehicle routes. This action would provide for additional access and opportunities for OHV users, but
would also affect the WSAs’ naturalness and remoteness.

Transportation and access management actions would not restrict road densities, which would benefit
OHV opportunities through increased access into previously inaccessible areas. This action would also
alter the scenic quality of the OHV settings by the addition of new contrasting linear visual elements to
the landscape.

Vegetative manipulation projects would generate temporary OHV restrictions in localized areas
undergoing treatment. Management of riparian, wetland, and upland vegetation to meet the Wyoming
Standards for Healthy Rangelands would improve the quality of the OHV experience by improving
scenery and stabilizing soils.

Vegetation actions to eliminate new infestations and control large infestations of noxious and invasive
weeds would not eliminate noxious and invasive species that decrease the desirability of OHV settings.
Some of these species would continue to degrade the quality of OHV settings.

Visual resources are an important determinant of the quality of OHV settings. VRM would protect the
scenic qualities of the OHV settings within the areas managed as Class I, Class II, and, in some instances.
Class III. However, the existing Class II VRM in the checkerboard is difficult to manage because BLM
has no control over development on private surface, and hence cannot prevent degradation of the visual
resources on adjacent private or state lands. This situation would result in degradation of the OHV setting
desired by most OHV users. An example of this is the Seminoe Road Coalbed Natural Gas Project, in the
checkerboard, where BLM mitigates development on public lands but has little control over development
on adjacent private lands. Some OHV users seek natural landscape settings and would be displaced from
areas managed as Class III and IV, whereas other users seek the experience and opportunities for OHV
activity regardless of setting. Refer to Table 2-9 for VRM classifications and acreages.

Water quality, watershed, and soils management actions that protect riparian areas and waterways would
protect and enhance OHV opportunities by preventing degradation of areas that are often focal points for
OHV users when pursuing related recreational activities such as picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting, or
fishing. Water quality, watershed, and soils management efforts to reclaim functionally compromised

4-118

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-OHV

reservoirs would improve the scenic quality of affected OHV settings. Vehicle routes would be closed if
unacceptable resource damage occurs. Intensive management of OHV use in contributing areas to
waterbodies listed as threatened or impaired on the 303d list and other identified watersheds with special
management would occur. This intensive management would likely include mitigation or BMPs for
managed OHV routes, but would likely not preclude OHV use in many areas (Appendix 13). OHV use
would be displaced or delayed until appropriate mitigation is completed.

Development on private and state lands would potentially have significant visual impacts such as facilities
on ridgelines, bright coloration, and roads built straight up hillsides. These visual impacts would reduce
the quality of OHV experiences by degrading the recreational setting.

Other areas where VRM Class II public lands are intermingled with nonfederal lands include the Laramie
Mountains, Shirley Mountains, Sierra Madre Mountains, and Snowy Range. Impacts on private lands
adjacent to public lands such as road construction, logging, home construction, and mining in these areas
would degrade the quality of the OHV setting.

Wildlife and fisheries actions that retain or improve the health of wildlife enhance would in some cases
restrict OHV use in managed areas but would also maintain or enhance the quality of OHV opportunities,
settings, and experiences.

Summary

Mineral development has already had a significant impact on OHV use and management because there
has already been a substantial reduction in the quality of OHV experiences available in the RMPPA. Oil
and gas development would continue to create a setting undesirable for some OHV use and users. Over
the long term, OHV opportunities are likely to increase, although the quality of these opportunities would
significantly decline within areas of heavy resource development, such as those areas with high and
moderate oil and gas potential. Most OHV users in these industrialized areas would be displaced to other
areas to recreate, so this development would be a significant impact on OHV use. However, these
developed roads enhance access to otherwise difficult-to-reach locations.

Proliferation of primitive routes would continue as a result of unrestricted offroad travel for camp site
access and big game retrieval and “necessary tasks.” This would alter the OHV setting as well as increase
access opportunities for OHV use.

Transportation and access management actions would not consider road densities. Additional degradation
of OHV settings from visual the impacts of road construction would be likely. Long-term impacts
reducing OHV opportunities would likely occur in areas with sensitive resources as a result of protective
road closures and OHV restrictions.

4.9.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of
Resources

Impacts from cultural and historic trails; livestock grazing; OHV; recreation resources; transportation and
access; vegetation; VRM, water quality, watershed, and soils; wild horses; and wildlife and fisheries
management actions would be similar to those identified in Alternative 1. Paleontology would have
impacts similar to those described in the Impacts Common to All Alternatives section.

Impacts from wildland fire and fuels management would be fewer than those of Alternative 1 in the short
term because all wildfires would be actively suppressed rather than allowed to bum when in prescription.
Although fewer acres are likely to be burned and therefore avoided by OHV users, the long-term health of

Rawlins RMP

4-119

Chapter 4-OHV

Final EIS

the vegetation in OHV settings is likely to decline because wildland fire would not be used for resource
benefit.

A considerable increase in forest management activities would potentially increase the change and
opportunities of the current OHV setting more than in Alternative 1 . The increase in forest management
activities would create temporary roads for timber harvesting and similar activities that would be
available for OHV use until closed. OHV use would likely be temporarily suspended during logging
operations. Traffic hazards, dust, noise, and resource damage to roads and vegetation would occur during
logging operations. OHV use on logging roads would prevent natural reclamation of logging roads, thus
retaining them as OHV vehicle routes. Timber harvesting actions change the more natural setting that
many users seek by creating an expanded network of roads and vehicle routes and often patchy forest
communities. Harvested areas result in non-merchantable forest products that would be available for
firewood gathering by the public. This would increase OHV use on temporary roads and skid trails
associated with forest product removal.

Development activities associated with lands and realty actions would include wind energy development,
utility/transportation systems development, and communication site development. Areas with important
resources, such as existing and proposed recreation sites and SD/MAs that contain important
supplemental values, would be avoided to reduce the impacts of these types of developments where
possible (Map 2-31). These facilities would still potentially affect OHV settings within avoidance areas
because of the height and size of the facilities, the noise they make, and the visual intrusion that is visible
from great distances. Developments of this size would alter the typical middle-country OHV settings in
the RMPPA by creating contrasting elements to the existing settings that would alter OHV opportunities
and activities in the area.

The impacts from oil and gas development would be similar to those identified under Alternative 1,
except that the increase in leasing and drilling activities, along with the decrease in restrictions on surface
disturbing and disruptive activities, would increase the acreage undesirable for OHV use by
industrializing settings in areas that were historically used for OHV activities.

SD/MA management actions would be the same as in Alternative 1, with the exception of the
development of OHV SRMAs, which would provide OHV education through communicating riding
ethics and regulations and designate open areas for OHV practice and skill development. This would
provide additional OHV opportunities and experiences. All eligible waterway segments would be
determined to be non-suitable for inclusion in the National WSR system. All segments would be released
from further consideration for WSR. No special protections would be afforded to these segments resulting
from WSR management actions, so OHV use would be allowed within 1/4 mile of segments that had
been tentatively classified as wild, if not prohibited by other program constraints. These areas open for
use would provide for more OHV opportunities and experiences. However, the OHV settings would be
diminished by primitive routes created from use associated with “necessary tasks,” offroad use for big
game retrieval, and camp site access.

Summary

Mineral development has already had a significant impact on OHV use and management because there
has already been a substantial reduction in the quality of OHV experiences available in the RMPPA. Oil
and gas development would continue to create a setting undesirable for some OHV use and users. Most
OHV users would be displaced to other areas.

4-120

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-OHV

4.9.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of
Resources

Cultural; wildland fire and fuels; water quality, watershed, and soils; and wild horse management impacts
to OHV would be similar to or the same as impacts described in Alternative 1. Paleontology impacts
would not differ from those described in the Impacts Common to All Alternatives section.

An emphasis placed on the achievement of forest health through natural processes would minimize the
possibility of conflicts between timber harvest activities and OHV users. There would be no commercial
logging, so there would be more decadent timber stands and greater potential for wildland fire resulting
from the natural buildup of fuels. In the long term, these actions would result in reduced OHV
opportunities and altered OHV settings.

Lands and realty management actions would create large avoidance area acreages in SRMAs and
exclusion areas in ACECs that would modify or restrict wind power development. These facilities would
still potentially affect OHV settings within and outside avoidance areas because of the height and size of
the turbines, roads and road closures, noise, and visual intrusions that would be visible over great
distances. Therefore, even though avoidance areas would be closed to wind power development, some
OHV users would still potentially be displaced from areas surrounding these developments.

Livestock grazing actions to maintain or enhance wildlife, watershed, and riparian values would enhance
OHV settings by improving vegetative cover and soil stability. Changes in class of livestock in HMAs
that would benefit wild horses would also enhance the public’s wild horse viewing opportunities that are
most often experienced using OHVs. Bison would not be allowed in areas of blocked federal surface land
ownership (Map 2-34), which would eliminate danger to OHV users from bison impacts.

The impacts from oil and gas development would be similar to those identified under Alternative 1,
except that the impacts would be reduced by NSO restrictions, closures to leasing, and closures to
locatable mineral entry. These protections would reduce the acreage undesirable for OHV use from
mineral development.

Impacts resulting from OHV management would be similar to those identified in Alternative 1 . However,
OHV use to retrieve big game kills and to access camping sites would be limited to designated or existing
roads and vehicle routes, which would reduce proliferation of new two-tracks and maintain the OHV
setting. The entire Dune Ponds Cooperative Management Area would be closed to OHV use, which
would interfere with the goals and opportunities of OHV users and displace OHV users to other areas
open for OHV use. Access to once-reachable areas would be more difficult or impossible for some users,
resulting in negative impacts such as goal interference and loss of opportunities.

The recreation management actions would have the same impacts as in Alternative 1, in addition to the
following:

• Four new SRMAs — Jelm Mountain, Pedro Mountains, Rawlins Fishing, and Laramie Plains
Lakes (38,680 acres) — would limit OHV use to designated roads and vehicle routes within their
boundaries.

The SD/MA management actions would have the same impacts as in Alternative 1, in addition to the
following:

• Historic trails would be managed as an ACEC with more restrictions on surface disturbing
activities. However, impacts to OHV would be minimal.

Rawlins RMP

4-121

Chapter 4-OHV

Final EIS

• The Adobe Town (approximately 32,650 acres), Prospect Mountain (1,140 acres), Encampment
River Canyon (4,500 acres), and Bennett Mountains (5,950 acres) WSAs would be closed to all
types of motorized vehicle use. This would impact OHV use because of reduced OHY
opportunities in these areas. None of the routes extends more than 3/4 mile into the WSA, and
thus does not provide a substantial OHV experience. Closure of these four WSAs would
collectively be a reduction of approximately 5 miles of vehicle routes in the RMPPA.

• Land tenure adjustments associated with actions specific to each SD/MA, including acquisition of
lands, easements, or exchange, would provide improved access where federal land is acquired.

• Seasonal closures would be implemented as necessary in the Sand Hills ACEC and the JO Ranch
Expansion (12,680 acres), which would result in a minor reduction in OHV use because of a loss
of OHV opportunities in this area.

• The Sand Hills ACEC and JO Ranch (12,680 acres) and the Jep Canyon WHMA (13,810 acres)
would be closed to over-the-snow vehicles, which would reduce opportunities for recreational
winter OHV use in this area.

• Closures of specific roads and vehicle routes within the Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly
ACEC (59,720 acres) and White-Tailed Prairie Dog ACEC (undeterminable acreage located
within eight specific complexes) would reduce the number of roads and vehicle routes available
for OHV use in this area.

• Seasonal closures to motor vehicles would be implemented as needed in the Upper Muddy Creek
Watershed ACEC, which would cause temporary impacts to OHV use from a loss of
opportunities during seasonal closures.

• OHV use for “necessary tasks,” big game retrieval, and camp site access is not permitted in the
Como Bluffs NNL, Sand Hills and JO Ranch Expansion ACEC, Jep Canyon WHMA, Shamrock
Hills RCA, Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area ACEC, Chain Lakes ACEC, Laramie Peak
ACEC, Red Rim-Daley ACEC, Pennock Mountain WHMA, Wick-Beumee WHMA, Cave Creek
Cave ACEC, Laramie Plains Lakes ACEC, Blowout Penstemon ACEC, Upper Muddy Creek
Watershed/Grizzly ACEC, and Cow Butte/Wild Cow WHMA. The closure to offroad OHV use
would maintain the OHV setting.

Transportation and access management actions would not allow BLM road densities to achieve levels that
would diminish or adversely affect other resources or resource values. This would maintain the OHV
setting and opportunities available in the RMPPA.

Vegetation actions to attain native, weed-free plant communities would enhance OHV opportunities by
eliminating non-native thistles and other noxious and invasive weed species that decrease the desirability
of OHV settings.

VRM designations would be similar to those of Alternative 1, except for the addition of some VRM Class
II in areas where it is desirable to improve the quality of visual resources. These areas include the
foothills of the Ferris Mountains, several areas abutting Adobe Town WSA, the JO Ranch area, and the
North Platte River SRMA between Bennett Peak and Saratoga. This additional VRM Class II would help
preserve the visual quality of these OHV settings.

Seasonal OHV and over-the-snow vehicle use would be prohibited in specific big game crucial winter
range to reduce conflicts between OHV use and maintenance of wildlife habitat values. This would
reduce winter OHV opportunities in localized areas.

4-122

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-OHV

Summary

Mineral development has already had a significant impact on OHV use and management because there
has already been a substantial reduction in the quality of OHV experiences available in the RMPPA.
Minerals management impacts would be reduced by NSO restrictions, closures to leasing, and closures to
locatable mineral entry. These protections would reduce the acreage made undesirable for OHV use by
mineral development.

This alternative provides the greatest protection to resources that enhance OHV settings. However,
because of these protections, many areas would restrict or preclude OHV use, limiting OHV opportunities
and displacing users. Impacts would occur to OHV users seeking open, unconfined OHV opportunities
under this alternative because there would be no open offroad opportunities in the RMPPA. Exclusion of
offroad travel for camping and big game retrieval, closure of WSAs to vehicles, creation of new ACECs
with OHV restrictions, and limiting of travel to designated roads and vehicle routes in various SD/MAs
would reduce the quantity of OHV opportunities. These exclusions would also potentially reduce the
creation of primitive routes and retain the quality of OHV settings. Overall, these impacts are expected to
be minor.

4.9.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan

Cultural and historic trails; wildland fire and fuels; forest; lands and realty; water quality, watershed, and
soils; wild horses; and wildlife and fish management impacts would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1 . Paleontology impacts would be similar to those described in the Impacts Common to All
Alternatives section.

Livestock management actions would have the same impacts as in Alternative 3.

Minerals management actions would have similar impacts as in Alternative 1; however, there would be
slightly fewer oil and gas wells and facilities developed.

OHV management actions would range from being similar to more restrictive than those identified in
Alternative 1. Restricting offroad driving to retrieve downed big game animals and to access camp sites
(limited to 300 feet off established roads and vehicle routes) would reduce proliferation of new two-
tracks, while still providing for limited game retrieval and camping opportunities.

The recreation management actions would have the same impacts as in Alternative 1, in addition to the
following:

• Four new SRMAs — Jelm Mountain, Pedro Mountains, Rawlins Fishing, and Laramie Plains
Lakes (38,680 acres) — would limit OHV use to designated roads and vehicle routes within their
boundaries.

The SD/MA management actions would have the same impacts as in Alternative 1, in addition to the
following:

The Prospect Mountain, Encampment River Canyon, Bennett Mountains, and Adobe Town WSAs
(44,240 acres total) would be closed to all types of motorized vehicle use. Closure of these four WSAs
would cumulatively be a reduction of approximately 5 miles of vehicle routes. This would result in a
negligible reduction in OHV opportunities in the RMPPA. Motor vehicle travel in the Ferris Mountains
WSA would be limited to designated roads and vehicle routes. When implemented, motor vehicle travel
would be allowed only on roads designated as open to such travel. All other roads in the area would

Rawlins RMP

4-123

Chapter 4-OHV

Final EIS

remain closed to motor vehicle use. This action would enhance OHV opportunities to access primitive
camp sites once inaccessible to motorized vehicles, but would also potentially affect the WSAs’ settings
of naturalness, solitude, and remoteness. However, management under the IMP would ensure that these
wilderness characteristics are not compromised to the level of non-designation of wilderness.

These actions are in response to the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review so
as to maintain or enhance the wilderness characters of the WSAs. This would be an interim designation,
pending Congressional action on WSAs. If WSAs were designated as Wilderness,” motorized roads and
vehicle routes within the boundary would be managed according to direction provided by the enabling
legislation.

• Land tenure adjustments associated with actions specific to each SD/MA, including acquisition of
lands, easements, or exchange, would impact OHV use by providing improved access where
federal land is acquired.

• Seasonal closures would be implemented in the Sand Hills and JO Ranch Expansion ACEC
(12,680 acres), which would cause a minimal, short-term loss of OHV opportunity in this area.

• The Sand Hills ACEC and proposed JO expansion (12,680 acres) and the Jep Canyon WHMA
(13,810 acres) would be closed to over-the-snow vehicles, thus reducing opportunities for winter
OHV use in this area.

• Closures of specific roads and vehicle routes within the Upper Muddy Creek WHMA (59,720
acres) would cause a minimal loss of OHV opportunities in this area.

• The Encampment River would be determined to be suitable for inclusion in the WSR system.
There are no vehicle routes within 1/4 mile of the river along this segment, so this determination
would have no impact on OHV opportunities. The remainder of the waterway segments would be
determined to be nonsuitable and released from further consideration for WSR. No special
protections would be afforded to these nonsuitable segments.

• Four new SRMAs — Jelm Mountain, Pedro Mountains, Rawlins Fishing, and Laramie Plains
Lakes (38,680 acres) — would limit OHV use to designated roads and vehicle routes within their
boundaries.

• OHV use for “necessary tasks” and big game retrieval and camp site access is not permitted in the
Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area, Laramie Peak WHMA, Laramie Plains Lakes WHMA,
and Blowout Penstemon ACEC. This would maintain the OHV setting.

Transportation and access management actions would consider BLM road densities during analysis and
authorization of surface disturbing activities. Transportation and access management impacts to OHV
would be the same as in Alternative 3.

Vegetation actions to eliminate new infestations and control large infestations of noxious and invasive
weeds would not eliminate invasive and noxious species that decrease the desirability of OHV settings.
Some of these species would continue to degrade the quality of OHV settings.

VRM designations would be similar to those of Alternative 1, except that VRM Class II and Class III
areas would be adjusted. Areas would be designated Class II where it is desirable to improve the quality
of visual resources. These areas include the foothills of the Ferris Mountains, the Pedro Mountains,
portions of the Seminoe Mountains, and the JO Ranch area. This additional VRM Class II would help
preserve the visual quality of these OHV settings.

4-124

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-OHV

Checkerboard areas, where BLM cannot influence development on adjacent private and state lands,
would be designated as VRM Class III. The lack of legal public access in the checkerboard limits OHV
opportunities. The Shirley Mountains, where forest management and intermingled private lands make
Class II management impractical, would be designated as VRM Class III. This would not impact the
overall quality of OHV settings.

Seasonal OHV and over-the-snow vehicle use would be prohibited in specific big game crucial winter
range to reduce conflicts between OHV use and maintenance of wildlife habitat values. This would
reduce winter OHV opportunities in localized areas.

Summary

Mineral development has already had a significant impact on OHV use and management because there
has already been a substantial reduction in the quality of OHV experiences available in the RMPPA. Oil
and gas development would continue to create a setting undesirable for some OHV use and users. Over
the long term, OHV opportunities are likely to increase, although the quality of these opportunities would
significantly decline within areas of heavy resource development, such as those areas with high and
moderate oil and gas potential. Most OHV users in these industrialized areas would be displaced to other
areas to recreate, so this development would be a significant impact on OHV. However, these developed
roads enhance access to otherwise difficult-to-reach locations.

OHV, SD/MA, and wildlife management actions would limit or preclude OHV use in some areas to
preserve important resource values, which would preserve or improve the OHV setting and still allow
access opportunities. However, impacts would be goal interference and displacement of users who enjoy
OHV experiences. Designating roads in the Ferns Mountain WSA will provide access to the WSA for
OHV users, which would enhance OHV opportunities, activities, and experiences. This action would
potentially affect the OHV settings of naturalness and solitude with the additional presence of OH Vs in
the WSA.

Rawlins RMP

4-125

Chapter 4- Paleontology

Final EIS

4.10 Paleontology

This section presents potential impacts to paleontological resources and their management from
management actions of other resource programs. Existing conditions regarding paleontology are
described in Section 3.10.

Significance Criteria

Impacts to paleontological resources would be considered significant if the following were to occur:

• An action or development causes substantial direct or indirect damage or destruction to important
paleontological resources.

Methods of Analysis

The analysis of environmental impacts is based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources and the
project area, review of existing literature, spatial analysis using ArcGIS software, and information
provided by other agencies and institutions. Effects are quantified where possible. In cases where
quantitative data are not readily available, best professional judgment is used to describe impacts. Impacts
are sometimes described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate.

The analysis is based on the following assumptions:

• Significant fossils may be expected throughout the Cretaceous and Tertiary units exposed in the
RMPPA. Significant fossils may occasionally be found in older or younger units but are less
common.

• Inventories required prior to surface disturbance in high-probability areas would result in the
identification and evaluation of previously undiscovered resources, which BLM would then
manage accordingly.

• Surface disturbing and other disruptive activities could dislocate or damage paleontological
resources that were not discovered prior to surface disturbance (i.e., unanticipated discoveries).
Destruction of these resources would result in a loss of scientific information and preclude
interpretation of the resource values to the public.

4.10.1 Impacts Common to AIS Alternatives

Air quality, cultural resource, forest, socioeconomics, VRM, and wild horse management actions would
have little or no impact to paleontological resources.

Impacts to fossil resources would occur from wildland fire suppression and rehabilitation activities (e.g.,
construction of fire lines, bulldozing of access roads, and general movement of heavy equipment) and
post-fire rehabilitation activities. Displacement of paleontological resources adversely affects the
potential to understand the context of the site and limits the ability to extrapolate data. Because of the
unplanned nature of wildland fires, impacts to paleontological resources from wildland fires and
suppression activities are generally assessed and mitigated subsequent to the fire.

Surface disturbing and other disruptive activities resulting from lands and realty, livestock grazing,
minerals, OHV, recreation resources, vegetation, and wildlife and fisheries management actions would
have the potential to directly impact paleontological resources not identified prior to the activity.

4-126

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Paleontology

Unanticipated subsurface discoveries (paleontological resources discovered during ground disturbing
activities) would occur from surface disturbing and other disruptive activities. Unanticipated discoveries
would result in displacement or loss (either complete or partial) of the paleontological resource involved.
Displacement of paleontological resources adversely affects the potential to understand the context of the
site and limits the ability to extrapolate data. However, mitigation of impacts from discoveries is often
accomplished through data recovery excavations. The number of unanticipated discoveries would be
minor but potentially concentrated in areas with geological formations that are known to have a high
fossil yield class. Potential impacts to paleontological resources identified in a discovery situation would
be greater than impacts to resources that were previously identified (and thereby avoided or subjected to
mitigation measures) because damage to discovered sites occurs prior to their recordation and evaluation,
thereby complicating mitigation procedures.

Lands and realty management actions not associated with minerals development would disturb
approximately 5,794 acres over the 20-year planning period under all alternatives. These actions would
potentially affect paleontological resources. Required paleontological inventory, recordation, and
mitigation procedures conducted in conjunction with ROW actions would serve to protect most
paleontological resources from significant damage and increase the database of known paleontology sites.
A small but proportional number of these sites would be adversely impacted as a result of unanticipated
discoveries, potentially resulting in significant impacts. Paleontological resources would be protected
from surface disturbing activities associated with locatable mineral entry on 935,530 acres of existing
withdrawn lands.

Implementing the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (USDI, BLM 1997) would maintain or
improve soil stability and vegetation cover, thereby indirectly protecting paleontological resources.
Overuse of an area by livestock, wildlife, and wild horses would potentially accelerate soil erosion, which
would potentially lead to the indirect exposure and destruction of paleontological resources. Animal
trampling and wallowing directly impacts fossils on or just below the surface through breakage and
scattering. Long-term impacts from grazing would potentially occur from repeated trampling on
paleontological sites over time, especially along fence lines, near water sources, and in sheltered or
shaded areas. Proper construction of water developments and range improvements as well as proper
placement of salt and mineral supplements would help minimize adverse impacts to paleontological
resources. Areas would be inventoried and evaluated for paleontological resources prior to the
construction of fences, water developments, and other range improvements, and appropriate mitigation
measures would be implemented if needed.

Identification and mitigation measures conducted in conjunction with vegetation treatments would protect
sensitive paleontological resources from significant damage. Protection for threatened, endangered,
proposed, and candidate species would provide protection for paleontological resources.

Activities associated with leaseable minerals management have the greatest potential to directly and
indirectly impact paleontological resources because of the amount of disturbance proposed for the life of
the plan. Unlike many of the other resource management actions, the proposed disturbance from minerals
management would be limited to specific areas within the RMPPA (Map 4-7, Oil and Gas Project Areas
and High and Moderate Potential Areas). Approximately 25 percent of the Class 5 fossil yield formations
lie within high and moderate oil and gas potential areas.

Based on information collected from Shoup (2006), paleontological resources would only be impacted by
vibroseis exploration operations if a vibroseis buggy were to travel or lower the shaker plate directly over
a site. Paleontological field surveys completed prior to conducting exploration operations would
significantly reduce the potential for impacts to paleontological resources. If proposed routes and energy

Rawlins RMP

4-127

Chapter 4-Paleontology

Final EIS

source points were determined to directly intersect paleontological sites, those routes and source points
would be realigned prior to the operation commencing to eliminate any potential impacts to those sites.

Locatable mineral activity requires that a notice be submitted for surface disturbing activities of 5 acres or
fewer and a Plan of Operations for more than 5 acres. Both require the operator to cease operations
immediately and notify the Authorized Officer if paleontological resources are encountered. Because of
these provisions, impacts are anticipated to be minimal.

Mineral material permits are discretionary. In areas of high potential, a paleontological survey is required
prior to beginning surface disturbing activity. If paleontological resources are identified, mitigation is
developed or the pennit is denied. Impacts from mineral materials management are anticipated to be
negligible.

OHV use on improved roads would have negligible effects on paleontological resources. However, the
majority of unimproved two-track roads and vehicle routes within the RMPPA have not been inventoried
for paleontological resources, increasing the potential for unmitigated impacts. OHV use of these roads
and vehicle routes would disturb or displace paleontological resources located within the roadways.
Inappropriate use of unimproved roads and vehicle routes by OH Vs would accelerate erosion and thus
indirectly disturb deposits that contain paleontological resources. Where impacts to paleontological
resources from OHV use are identified, closures to motorized vehicle use may occur to protect sensitive
paleontological resources. Impacts to paleontological resources from offroad OHV use for “necessary
tasks” would be negligible.

Management actions associated with paleontological resources would provide direct protection to
paleontological sites from restrictions placed on surface disturbing and other disruptive activities. These
protective measures are required by law prior to any surface disturbing and other disruptive activity and
include measures such as paleontological inventory and mitigation of potential effects, generally through
avoidance. In those areas where inventory, evaluation, and avoidance are not considered adequate to
preserve paleontological resources, mitigation measures would be prescribed on a case-by-case basis,
depending upon the nature of the action and the type of paleontological resource involved. Mitigation
measures would ensure that any potential impact from the proposed action would not result in significant
effects to known paleontological sites. These management actions would apply to any proposed actions
that have the potential to impact paleontological resources.

Paleontological resource inventory, recordation, evaluation, and data recovery excavation would increase
the site database and further our understanding of fauna and flora from geologic times. This increased
knowledge would allow for the implementation of revised and more appropriate practices to manage
future undertakings. Data recovery excavations would remove all or a portion of in situ paleontological
materials at sites, but would require an approved research design to minimize future data loss should new
data recovery and analysis techniques be developed.

Allowing dispersed recreation throughout the entire field office would potentially increase the amount of
incidental or purposeful disturbance of paleontological resources. Unauthorized disturbance would result
in displacement or loss (either complete or partial) of the paleontological resource involved. Displacement
of paleontological resources adversely affects the potential to understand the context of the site and limits
the ability to extrapolate data.

SRMA management would encourage recreation and development of facilities, which could result in
damage to paleontological resources through ground disturbing activities and indirectly through the larger
presence of human activity. Paleontological surveys and appropriate mitigation would be completed
before any new facilities were constructed within high fossil yield formations.

4-128

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Paleontology

Protections afforded to SD/MAs (i.e., intensive management of surface disturbing and other disruptive
activities) would indirectly protect paleontological resources located in these areas by reducing the
potential for unanticipated discoveries and subsequent loss of data. ROW exclusion requirements and
NSO stipulations would provide the greatest level of protection by prohibiting surface disturbing
activities.

Transportation and access management would impact paleontological resources by pursuing new access
areas (Table 2-8) and consolidating public lands to increase recreational opportunities in these new areas,
which would increase the potential for incidental or purposeful disturbance of paleontological resources.
Facilitating use of these areas would result in increased surface disturbing and other disruptive
recreational activity and loss of vegetative cover, which would increase the potential for exposure and
destruction of paleontological resources.

Actions designed to maintain vegetation resources would indirectly protect paleontological resources by
managing surface disturbance and minimizing soil erosion, which would help prevent the degradation of
soils that may contain paleontological resources. Achieving the Wyoming Standards for Healthy
Rangelands (USDI, BLM 1997) would maintain or improve environmental conditions, soil stability, and
vegetation cover, thereby protecting paleontological resources from exposure, deterioration, and loss.
Vegetation treatments would reduce cover in the short term, allowing otherwise undetected
paleontological materials to be identified and recorded. However, vegetation treatments would also likely
increase soil erosion in the short term and potentially result in indirect displacement and/or loss of
paleontological resources. Displacement of paleontological resources adversely affects the potential to
understand the context of the site and limits the ability to extrapolate data. BMPs and conservation
measures designed to protect vegetation communities through avoidance or by limiting surface
disturbance would indirectly protect paleontological resources in these areas.

Requiring that surface disturbing and other disruptive activities avoid identified 100-year floodplains;
areas within 500 feet of perennial waters, springs, and wetland/riparian areas; and areas within 100 feet of
the inner gorge of ephemeral channels would provide additional protection to paleontological resources
located in these areas by reducing the potential for such activities to adversely affect paleontological
resources through displacement or loss.

Controlling or preventing surface disturbing and other disruptive activities in wetland/riparian areas
would protect paleontological resources in these areas by reducing the potential for unanticipated
discoveries. Soils management would provide long-term indirect benefits to paleontological resources by
minimizing soil erosion, thereby preserving paleontological properties. Surface disturbing activities
associated with water quality, watershed, and soils management would require standard inventory and
mitigation measures to minimize impacts on paleontological resources.

Restrictions on surface disturbing and other disruptive activities as a result of wildlife and fisheries
management actions and compliance with the ESA would provide indirect protections for paleontological
resources. Intensive management of surface disturbing and other disruptive activities in all RCAs would
potentially restrict the amount and size of surface disturbance, decreasing the potential to adversely affect
paleontological deposits located in these areas. In addition, minimizing construction disturbance would
indirectly protect paleontological resources by limiting the area of disturbance.

4.10.2 Impacts Under Alternative 1 : Continuation of Existing
Management

Air quality, cultural resource, forest, socioeconomics, VRM, and wild horse management actions would
have little or no impact to paleontological resources.

Rawlins RMP

4-129

Chapter 4-Paleontology

Final EIS

Wildland fire suppression activities would be managed for AMR, which would consider protection of
natural and cultural resources. This would help reduce damage to paleontological resources caused by
suppression activities by considering these resources when determining the degree and location of
suppression activities.

Approximately 63,460 acres would be considered for disposal under the lands and realty management
program. Land disposal would place undiscovered paleontological resources outside of federal
jurisdiction and thereby eliminate protection under federal management policies. Inventories and
evaluations for paleontological resources are required before land disposal, which would ensure adequate
data recovery and documentation of paleontological resources discovered during inventories. BLM may
retain lands containing scientifically significant paleontological resources, providing protection under
federal management policies. However, the potential exists to dispose of lands containing paleontological
resources that were not discovered during inventories.

Withdrawals would be pursued on approximately 63,670 acres, which would result in closure of these
areas to locatable mineral entry and future land disposal actions. This would provide additional protection
to paleontological resources located in these areas by reducing surface disturbing and other disruptive
activities and eliminating the possibility of placing undiscovered paleontological resources outside of
federal jurisdiction. Requiring that construction of new facilities and routes avoid areas with important
resource values would also serve to lessen the impacts from surface disturbance.

Development activities associated with lands and realty actions would include wind energy development,
utility/transportation systems development, and communication site development. Because of the large-
scale nature of these types of developments, there would be the potential to adversely affect
paleontological sites. Areas with important resource values such as significant paleontological resources
would be avoided where possible to reduce the impacts from these types of developments (Map 2-30).
Where it becomes necessary to place the developments within the avoidance areas, the effects would be
intensively managed to reduce the impacts. In addition, oil and gas leasing, locatable mineral entry, and
mineral material disposals within 1/4 mile of the incorporated boundaries of cities and towns (1,500 total
acres) would be intensively managed. Intensive management would potentially restrict the amount and
size of surface disturbance, decreasing the potential to adversely affect paleontological deposits within
these areas.

Construction of livestock range improvements would impact approximately 900 acres over the 20-year
planning period, which could damage or dislocate paleontological resources in these areas that were not
discovered prior to surface disturbance. Standard inventory and mitigation procedures within high fossil
yield areas conducted in conjunction with range improvement actions would protect most paleontological
resources from significant damage and would increase the database of known paleontological sites. A
small but proportional number of these sites would be adversely impacted as a result of unanticipated
discoveries but would be mitigated through standard treatment measures. Designing livestock grazing
systems to improve or maintain desired range conditions would maintain vegetative cover and soil
stability and thereby prevent the indirect exposure and deterioration of paleontological resources.

It is anticipated that 8,945 oil and gas wells would be drilled, disturbing approximately 61,900 acres of
land (including all related facilities and pipelines). This would result in surface disturbance and potential
damage to paleontological resources that were not discovered prior to surface disturbance. Destruction of
these resources would result in a loss of scientific information and preclude interpretation of the resource
values to the public. Standard identification and mitigation measures conducted in conjunction with
mineral development would protect most paleontological resources from significant damage and would
increase the database of known paleontological sites. A small but proportional number of these sites
would be adversely impacted as a result of unanticipated discoveries and trespass violations but would be

4-130

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Paleontology

mitigated through standard treatment measures. In addition, special stipulations would be added to new
oil and gas leases where specific paleontological resource values have been identified. Locatable mineral
activity requires that a Notice be submitted for surface disturbing activities of 5 acres or fewer and a Plan
of Operations for more than 5 acres. Both require the operator to cease operations immediately and notify
the Authorized Officer if paleontological resources are encountered. Because of these provisions, impacts
are anticipated to be minimal.

Mineral material permits are discretionary; in areas of high potential, a paleontological survey is required
prior to beginning surface disturbing activity. If paleontological resources are identified, mitigation is
developed or the permit is denied. Impacts from mineral materials management are anticipated to be
negligible.

Management actions associated with paleontological resources would provide direct protection to
paleontological properties from restrictions placed on surface disturbing and other disruptive activities.
These protective measures are required by law prior to any surface disturbing and other disruptive activity
and include measures such as paleontological resource inventory, application of BMPs, and mitigation of
potential effects, generally through avoidance. In those areas where inventory, evaluation, and avoidance
are not considered adequate to preserve paleontological resources, mitigation measures would be
prescribed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the action and the type of paleontological
resource involved. Mitigation measures would ensure that any potential impact from the proposed action
would not result in significant effects to paleontological resources.

Although impacts to paleontological resources could occur from recreation activities, certain recreation
areas would be managed to limit surface disturbance. Implementing an NSO stipulation for oil and gas
development activities in developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres) and intensively
managing such activity within 1/4 mile of these sites (7,930 acres) would limit surface disturbance and
thereby help prevent damage to paleontological resources located in these areas. Closing developed
recreation sites (5,560 acres) to locatable mineral entries and mineral material disposals would provide
further protection from surface disturbing and other disruptive activities. In addition, surface disturbing
and other disruptive activities would be intensively managed in the west end of the Ferris Mountains and
the Adobe Town fringe areas, which would reduce the potential for dislocation and damage of
paleontological resources in these areas.

The Shirley Mountain SRMA (24,400 acres) and North Platte River SRMA (5,060 acres, including 1/4
mile on either side of the river) would require intensive management of surface disturbing and other
disruptive activities. Intensive management would potentially restrict the amount and size of surface
disturbance, indirectly decreasing the potential to disturb buried paleontological deposits located within
the SRMAs.

Impacts to paleontological resources from management actions associated with the Shirley Mountain
area, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail area, OHV areas, Jelm Mountain area, Pedro Mountains
area, Laramie Plains Lakes area, and Rawlins Fishing area SRMAs would be negligible.

Impacts to paleontological resources from management actions associated with the Shamrock Hills area,
Laramie Peak area, Red Rim-Daley area, Pennock Mountain area, Shirley Mountain area, Blowout
Penstemon area, White-Tailed Prairie Dog area, and High Savery Dam and Reservoir area SD/MAs
would be negligible.

Surface use restrictions associated with management of SD/MAs would indirectly protect paleontological
resources located in these areas by reducing the potential for unanticipated discoveries and subsequent
loss of paleontological information. The Como Bluff area (1,690 acres). Sand Hills area (7,960 acres), Jep

Rawlins RMP

4-131

Chapter 4-Paleontology

Final EIS

Canyon area (13,810 acres), Chain Lakes area (30,560 acres), Wick-Beumee area (280 acres), Shirley
Mountain and Cave Creek Cave area (24,440 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes area (1,600 acres), Historic
Trails area (no special designation acres), Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly area (26,850 acres),
Cow Butte/Wild Cow area (no special designation acres), and North Platte River area (5,060 acres) would
require intensive management of surface disturbing and other disruptive activities. The Sand Hills Area
ACEC (7,960 acres), Jep Canyon ACEC (13,810 acres), Chain Lakes WHMA (30,560 acres), Wick-
Beumee WHMA (280 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes area (1,600 acres), Upper Muddy Creek
Watershed/Grizzly area (26,850 acres), and White-Tailed Prairie Dog area would require intensive
management of surface disturbing and other disruptive activities. Intensive management would potentially
restrict the amount and size of surface disturbance, indirectly decreasing the potential to disturb buried
paleontological deposits located within the SD/MAs.

All surface disturbing and other disruptive activities within WSAs (66,120 acres) and within 1/4 mile of
the Encampment River WSR (Map 2-19) and surface disturbance associated with new leases within the
Stratton Sagebrush Steppe Research Area ACEC (5,530 acres) would be prohibited, thereby providing the
greatest level of protection to paleontological resources.

Vegetation and weed treatments would impact approximately 106,000 acres in the RMPPA over the next
20 years. Identification and mitigation measures conducted in conjunction with vegetation treatments
would serve to protect sensitive paleontological resources from significant damage.

Protections afforded Special Status Plant Species and habitat would indirectly protect paleontological
resources by restricting the amount and size of disturbances that would potentially adversely affect
paleontological resources through displacement or loss. Activities associated with oil and gas leasing
would be intensively managed in areas of occupied habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, and
candidate plant species. All surface disturbing activities would be intensively managed in blowout
penstemon habitat. Recreational sites would not be authorized in Colorado butterfly plant habitat or in Ute
ladies’ -tresses plant habitat.

Erosion caused by surface discharge of produced water in the Colorado River Basin, the North Platte
River Basin, and the Great Divide Basin would potentially cause indirect adverse affects to
paleontological resources located near the stream channel through displacement or loss.

Surface use restrictions associated with management of wildlife and fisheries would indirectly protect
paleontological resources located in specific areas by reducing the potential for unanticipated discoveries
and subsequent loss of cultural information. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be
intensively managed in RCAs, neotropical and other migratory bird habitats, upland game bird habitats,
amphibian habitats, reptile habitats, and crucial habitat for other sensitive species. Intensive management
would potentially restrict the amount and size of surface disturbance, indirectly decreasing the potential to
adversely affect paleontological deposits located within these areas. In addition, well locations, roads,
ancillary facilities, and other surface structures requiring a repeated human presence would not be
allowed within 825 feet of active raptor nests (1,200 feet for ferruginous hawks), and surface disturbing
and disruptive activities would be avoided within white-tailed and black-tailed prairie dog towns.
Paleontological resources located within these areas would be indirectly protected from displacement or
loss.

Summary

An anticipated 98,340 acres would be disturbed as a result of lands and realty management, livestock
management, and minerals management activities. This disturbance would potentially result in

4-132

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Paieontology

dislocation, damage, or destruction of paleontological resources that were not discovered prior to surface
disturbance (i.e., unanticipated discoveries).

As a result of WSAs, SD/MAs, and NSO stipulations, 319,410 acres would be protected from surface
disturbing and other disruptive activities. These management actions would provide the greatest indirect
protection to paleontological resources by eliminating the potential for surface disturbing and other
disruptive activities in these areas. In addition, actions associated with water quality, watershed, and soils
management and with wildlife and fisheries management would provide indirect protection to
paleontological resources through avoidance and intensive mitigation of surface disturbing and other
disruptive activities.

It is anticipated that adverse impacts to paleontological resources would occur, but, with the proper
application of mitigation measures, impacts are expected to be minimal. As discussed above, any surface
disturbance has the potential to damage and/or destroy paleontological sites through unanticipated
discoveries (i.e., paleontological resources discovered during ground disturbing activities). Unanticipated
discoveries would result in the loss of some or occasionally all of the paleontological resource involved.
Standard inventory and mitigation procedures conducted in conjunction with surface disturbing and other
disruptive activities would protect most paleontological resources from significant damage. The potential
for significant impacts would be directly proportional to the amount of surface disturbance.

4.10.3 Impacts Under Alternative 2: Emphasis on Development of
Resources

Air quality, cultural resource, forest, socioeconomics, VRM, and wild horse management actions would
have little or no impact to paleontological resources.

Impacts from locatable and minerals material management are anticipated to be similar to those in
Alternative 1.

The impacts to paleontological resources from lands and realty actions excluding withdrawals and
disposals; paleontology; recreation; and water quality, watershed, and soils management would be the
same as those identified in Alternative 1 .

Impacts to paleontological resources from fire and fuels management would be similar to those identified
in Alternative 1, except that more wildland fires would be suppressed. Increased suppression would
increase the potential for catastrophic fires in the long term through the buildup of flammable materials
that would damage a wider range of paleontological resource types.

Impacts to paleontological resources from lands and realty management would be similar to those
identified in Alternative 1, except that 57,270 fewer acres would be pursued for withdrawal. This would
result in closure of these areas to locatable mineral entry and future disposal actions, thereby reducing the
level of protection to paleontological resources located in these areas by increasing surface disturbing and
other disruptive activities. Furthermore, an additional 14,780 acres would be precluded from disposal
actions. This would further reduce the amount of land that could be removed from federal jurisdiction and
therefore the number of paleontological resources that could be exempt from federal management
policies.

It is anticipated that 1,140 acres would be disturbed through construction of livestock range
improvements. Although the increase in surface disturbance is minimal (240 acres) compared to that of
Alternative 1 , it would slightly increase the potential for damage to undocumented resources.

Rawlins RMP

4-133

Chapter 4-Paleontology

Final EIS

Impacts to paleontological resources from oil and gas management would be similar to those impacts
identified in Alternative 1, except that more acreage would be open to oil and gas leasing with fewer
restrictions from other programs. Areas closed to leasing or otherwise restricted from development,
surface disturbing and other disruptive activities, or surface occupancy would be reduced. Overall,
approximately 9,198 wells would be drilled over the next 20 years disturbing approximately 63,650 acres
(including all related facilities and pipelines). The increase in disturbed acres would slightly increase the
potential for inadvertent damage to previously unknown resources as well as the potential for
identification of paleontological resources. However, a greater number of paleontological resource
inventories and site mitigations (e.g., excavations) would be required, which would expand the
paleontological resource database.

As needs are identified, OHV areas would be developed to allow use and promote education. Unrestricted
use would potentially promote soil erosion, disturbing or displacing paleontological resources.
Identification and mitigation measures would ensure that any potential impact associated with OHV
would be reduced to the extent possible.

Impacts to paleontological resources from SD/MAs would be similar to those impacts identified in
Alternative 1, except that the NSO stipulation on new leases within the Stratton Sagebrush Steppe
Research Area ACEC (5,530 acres) would not be required. Instead, operators would be required to submit
a management plan to describe how activities would affect research objectives, which would lead to the
implementation of BMPs and necessary mitigation measures. As a result, surface disturbance associated
with new leases would likely occur within the ACEC, thereby increasing the potential for unanticipated
discoveries of paleontological resources.

Impacts from vegetation management actions on paleontological resources would be similar to those
identified in Alternative 1, except that vegetation and weed treatments would be increased to
approximately 1,003,720 acres over the next 20 years. No additional protections would be afforded BLM
state sensitive plant species under this alternative; therefore, there would be no indirect protections for
paleontological resources in these areas.

Summary

Under Alternative 2, impacts to paleontological resources would be similar to those impacts identified in
Alternative 1 . However, a slightly greater number of acres would be disturbed, potentially impacting an
increased number of paleontological resources. It is anticipated that 98,793 acres would be disturbed as a
result of lands and realty management, livestock management, and minerals management activities. This
disturbance would potentially result in dislocation, damage, or destruction of paleontological resources
that were not discovered prior to surface disturbance.

Approximately 224,420 acres would be protected from surface disturbing and other disruptive activities
as a result of WSAs, SD/MAs, and NSO stipulations. These management actions would provide the
greatest indirect protection to paleontological resources by eliminating the potential for surface disturbing
activities in these areas. In addition, there would be less indirect protection to paleontological resources
because of the reduction of restrictions included in management actions for other resource programs.

It is anticipated that significant impacts to paleontological resources would occur. As discussed in the
above analysis, any surface disturbance has the potential to damage and/or destroy paleontological
properties through unanticipated discoveries (i.e., paleontological resources discovered during ground
disturbing activities). Unanticipated discoveries result in the loss of some or occasionally all of the
paleontological resource involved. Standard inventory and mitigation procedures conducted in
conjunction with surface disturbing and other disruptive activities would protect most paleontological

4-134

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Paleontology

resources from significant damage. Because disturbance of more surface acres is anticipated, the potential
for significant impacts would increase as compared with Alternative 1 .

4.10.4 Impacts Under Alternative 3: Emphasis on Protection of
Resources

Air quality, cultural resource management, forest management, socioeconomics, VRM, and wild horse
management actions would have little or no impact on paleontological resources.

Impacts from locatable and minerals material management are anticipated to be similar to those in
Alternative 1.

Fewer wildland fires would be suppressed under this alternative than under Alternative 1. Wildland fires
would likely increase in intensity, which would result in increased soil erosion, greater loss of vegetation,
slower recovery of plant communities, and consequential indirect deterioration of paleontological
properties. However, the potential for damage to paleontological resources from fire suppression activities
would be decreased from Alternative 1, because there would be fewer ground-disturbing suppression
activities.

Impacts to paleontological resources from lands and realty management would decrease, as compared to
Alternative 1. Under Alternative 3, no lands would be available for disposal, and approximately 271,110
acres would be withdrawn from mineral location. Retaining all lands under federal jurisdiction would
maintain protections associated with federal management policies. The withdrawal of 271,110 acres
would result in closure of these areas to locatable mineral development and future disposal actions. This
would provide additional protection to paleontological resources located in these areas by reducing
surface disturbing and other disruptive activities and eliminate the possibility of placing undiscovered
paleontological resources outside of federal jurisdiction.

Adverse impacts to paleontological resources from development activities associated with lands and
realty actions would be greatly reduced under Alternative 3. Areas with important resource values would
be closed to new wind energy development, utility/transportation systems, and communication sites
(384,030 acres — Map 2-32). Closure of these areas would offer the greatest protection to paleontological
resources from these types of surface disturbing activities. The area within 1/2 mile of the incorporated
boundaries of cities and towns (4,500 total acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO
stipulation and closed to locatable mineral entry and mineral material disposals. These restrictions would
preclude surface disturbing and disruptive activities associated with minerals development and would
indirectly protect paleontological resources in these areas.

Impacts to paleontological resources from livestock grazing management would decrease, as compared to
Alternative 1 . The emphasis on fence modification as opposed to new fence construction and emphasis on
small-scale as opposed to large-scale water developments would result in the disturbance of 480 fewer
acres over the planning period. The decrease in disturbed acres would decrease the potential for
inadvertent damage to previously unknown resources. However, as a result, there would be fewer
paleontological resource inventories, reducing the potential to increase the site database.

Impacts to paleontological resources from oil and gas development would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that less acreage would be open to oil and gas leasing along with greater constraints
from other programs. Areas closed to leasing or otherwise restricted from development, surface disturbing
activities, or surface occupancy would be increased. Paleontological resources occurring in these areas
would therefore be subjected to fewer impacts. Overall, approximately 8,632 wells would be drilled over
the next 20 years, disturbing approximately 56,500 acres (including all related facilities and pipelines).

Rawlins RMP

4-135

Chapter 4-Paleontology

Final EIS

The decrease in disturbed acres would decrease the potential for inadvertent damage to previously
unknown resources, as well as the potential for identification of paleontological resources. The decrease
in development would decrease the potential for adverse impacts from unanticipated subsurface
discoveries and trespass violations. However, fewer paleontological inventories and site mitigations (e.g.,
excavations) would be required, which serve to expand the paleontological resource database.

Impacts from paleontology management would provide additional protections to paleontological sites
over Alternative 1. Development of interpretive facilities at select locations with high paleontological
values and designation of hobby collection areas would provide information and education on the
importance of preserving paleontological resources. This would potentially increase community
awareness of these resources and reduce the potential for incidental or purposeful disturbance of
paleontological resources. Monitoring surface disturbing activities within Class 4 and Class 5 fossil-
bearing formations would ensure that adverse effects to paleontological resources from discovery or
trespass situations would be minimized.

Impacts to paleontological resources from recreation management would be similar to Alternative 1,
except developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres) and the surrounding 1 /2-mile area
(12,750 acres) would be subject to NSO stipulations. These actions would serve to reduce the potential for
damage to paleontological resources in these areas by limiting the level of surface disturbing and other
disruptive activities.

Those areas open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation and closed to locatable mineral entry and
mineral material disposals would also preclude surface disturbing and disruptive activities that could
potentially adversely affect paleontological resources. These restrictions would be included in the Shirley
Mountains area (37,820 acres). Historic Trails area (66,370 acres), North Platte River area (12,740 acres),
Jelm Mountain area (18,100 acres), Pedro Mountains area (18,650 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes area
(1,600 acres), and Rawlins Fishing area (330 acres).

Impacts to paleontological resources from S D/M As would be similar to those impacts identified in
Alternative 1, except management of surface disturbing and disruptive activities within the SD/MAs
would be more restrictive. Those areas closed to new oil and gas leasing and closed to locatable mineral
entry and mineral material disposal would offer the greatest protection for paleontological resources
because surface disturbing and disruptive activities associated with mineral development would not be
allowed. These restrictions would be included in the Sand Hills ACEC and JO Ranch Expansion area
(12,680 acres), Jep Canyon area (13,810 acres), Chain Lakes area (30,560 acres), Wick-Beumee area (280
acres), Cave Creek Cave area (520 acres), Laramie Plains Lakes area (1,600 acres), Upper Muddy Creek
Watershed/Grizzly area (59,720 acres), and Cow Butte/Wild Cow area (49,570 acres) SD/MAs.

Those areas open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation and closed to locatable mineral entry and
mineral material disposals would also preclude surface disturbing and disruptive activities that could
potentially adversely affect paleontological resources. These restrictions would be included in the Como
Bluff area (1,690 acres).

Those areas open to oil and gas leasing with intensive management of surface disturbing and disruptive
activities would potentially restrict the amount and size of surface disturbance, decreasing the potential to
adversely affect paleontological deposits located within the SD/MAs. This restriction would be included
in the Shamrock Hills area (18,400 acres), Laramie Peak area (18,940 acres), Red Rim-Daley area
(11,100 acres), Pennock Mountain area (7,770 acres), Blowout Penstemon area (17,050 acres), White-
Tailed Prairie Dog areas (109,650 acres), High Savery Dam area (530 acres), and Continental Divide
National Scenic Trail (600 acres) SD/MAs. These areas would also be closed to locatable mineral entry

4-136

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Paleontology

and mineral material disposals which would preclude surface disturbing and disruptive activities that
could potentially adversely affect paleontological resources.

Other restrictions associated with the SD/MAs would also provide additional protections to
paleontological resources from surface disturbing activities not associated with minerals development.
Surface disturbing activities would not be allowed within 1/4 mile of the Historic Trails. Surface
disturbing and disruptive activities would be restricted or prohibited in aspen communities in the Upper
Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly and Jep Canyon areas, in aspen and mountain shrub communities within
the Cow Butte/Wild Cow area, and within 50 meters (164 feet) of prairie dog towns within the White-
Tailed Prairie Dog SD/MA. In addition, no new fences would be allowed within the Cow Butte/Wild
Cow area.

Where impacts from transportation and access to paleontological resources are identified, road densities
would not be allowed to exceed levels that diminish or adversely impact these resources. This would
reduce the disturbance to paleontological resources from road proliferation, and limit illicit activities in
areas that are difficult to access.

Impacts from vegetation management actions on paleontological resources would be similar to those
identified in Alternative 1, except that vegetation and weed treatments would be increased to 806,840
acres over the next 20 years. Inventory and mitigation procedures conducted in conjunction with
vegetation treatments would protect paleontological resources from significant damage. Managing for
DPC would reduce the potential for impacts to paleontological resources by enhancing specific plant
communities that improve soil stability. However, management for DPC would potentially result in
increased herbaceous cover, which would reduce the potential for locating previously unidentified
paleontological resources. In addition, occupied habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, and
candidate species would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation. This would provide
additional protection to paleontological resources in these areas by restricting surface disturbing activities
that would potentially adversely affect paleontological resources.

Impacts to paleontological resources from water quality, watershed, and soils management would be
similar to those identified in Alternative 1 . However, prohibiting the surface discharge of produced water
from CBNG activities in the Colorado River Basin would eliminate the potential for such discharges to
expose and damage paleontological resources in stream channels. Under this alternative, water
impoundments in the Muddy Creek Watershed (Map 2-20) that result in an annual water loss and/or
storage of greater than 1 acre-foot per project in Muddy Creek would not be allowed. This management
action would provide additional protection to paleontological resources located in these areas by limiting
surface disturbance, inundation, and associated damage to undocumented resources from water
impoundments.

Impacts to paleontological resources from wildlife and fisheries management would be similar to those
impacts identified in Alternative 1, except that restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities
would increase in sensitive wildlife habitat areas. Well locations, roads, ancillary facilities, and other
surface structures requiring a repeated human presence would not be allowed within 1/4 mile of active
raptor nests; and surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be prohibited in identified crucial
habitat for sensitive species, within 50 meters of identified white-tailed and black-tailed prairie dog
towns, and within 1/4 mile of the perimeter of occupied greater sage-grouse and shaip-tailed grouse leks.
In addition, high-profile structures would be prohibited within 1 mile of active greater sage-grouse and
sharp-tailed grouse leks. These restrictions would offer the greatest protection for paleontological
resources because surface disturbing and disruptive activities with the potential for disturbing or
displacing paleontological resources would not be allowed.

Rawlins RMP

4-137

Chapter 4- Paleontology

Final EIS

No new fences would be allowed in big game migration corridors, and water developments for livestock
and wild horse use would not be allowed in crucial winter range. Paleontological resources would be
protected from disturbance and displacement caused by animal concentration and trailing in these areas.
In addition, RCAs would be closed to new oil and gas leasing, which would also provide indirect
protections to paleontological resources from disturbance associated with mineral developments.

Summary

Impacts to paleontological resources would be similar to those impacts identified in Alternative 1.
However, fewer acres would be disturbed, potentially impacting fewer paleontological resources. It is
anticipated that 92,719 acres would be disturbed as a result of lands and realty management, livestock
management, and minerals management activities. This disturbance would potentially result in
dislocation, damage, or destruction of paleontological resources that were not discovered prior to surface
disturbance.

As a result of WSAs, SD/MAs, and NSO stipulations, 415,840 acres would be protected from surface
disturbing and other disruptive activities. These management actions would provide the greatest indirect
protection to paleontological resources by eliminating the potential for surface disturbing and other
disruptive activities in these areas. In addition, there would be more indirect protection to paleontological
resources from the increase of restrictions included in management actions for other resource programs.

It is anticipated that adverse impacts to paleontological resources would occur, but with the proper
application of mitigation measures impacts are expected to be minimal. As discussed in the analysis
above, any surface disturbance has the potential to damage and/or destroy paleontological sites through
unanticipated discoveries (i.e., paleontological resources discovered during ground-disturbing activities).
Unanticipated discoveries result in the loss of some or occasionally all of the paleontological resource
involved. Standard inventory and mitigation procedures conducted in conjunction with surface disturbing
activities would protect most paleontological resources from significant damage. Paleontological
monitoring in Class 4 and Class 5 formations would reduce the potential for significant impacts resulting
from discovery situations. Because disturbance of fewer surface acres is anticipated, the potential for
significant impacts would decrease as compared to Alternative 1 .

4.10.5 Impacts Under Alternative 4: Proposed Plan

Air quality, cultural resource management, forest management, socioeconomics, VRM, and wild horse
management actions would have little or no impact on paleontological resources.

Impacts from locatable and minerals material management are anticipated to be similar to those in
Alternative 1.

Impacts to paleontological resources from fire and fuels management; livestock grazing management; and
water quality, watershed, and soils management would be the same as those identified in Alternative 1 .

Impacts to paleontological resources from lands and realty management would be similar to those
identified in Alternative 1, except 46,690 fewer acres would be pursued for withdrawal. This would
reduce the level of protection to paleontological resources by increasing the amount of land that would be
available for locatable mineral development and increasing the potential for placing undiscovered
paleontological resources outside of federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, an additional 14,780 acres would
be precluded from disposal actions. This would further reduce the amount of land that could be removed
from federal jurisdiction and therefore the number of paleontological resources that could be exempt from
federal management policies. The area within 1/4 mile of the incorporated boundaries of cities and towns

4-138

Rawlins RMP

Final EIS

Chapter 4-Paieontology

(1,500 total acres) would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation and closed to locatable
mineral entry and mineral material disposals. These restrictions would preclude surface disturbing and
disruptive activities associated with minerals development, and would indirectly protect paleontological
resources in these areas.

Impacts to paleontological resources from oil and gas development would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except that less acreage would be open to oil and gas leasing with greater constraints from
other programs. Areas closed to leasing or otherwise restricted from development, surface disturbing and
other disruptive activities, or surface occupancy would be increased. Paleontological resources occurring
in these areas would therefore be subjected to fewer impacts. Overall, approximately 8,822 wells would
be drilled over the next 20 years, disturbing approximately 57,820 acres (including all related facilities
and pipelines). The decrease in development would lower the potential for adverse impacts from
unanticipated subsurface discoveries and trespass violations. However, fewer paleontological resource
inventories and site mitigations (e.g., excavations) would be required, which serve to expand the
paleontological database.

Impacts to paleontological resources from recreation management would be similar to those identified in
Alternative 1, except developed and undeveloped recreation sites (9,660 acres) and the surrounding 1/4-
mile area (7,930 acres) would be subject to NSO stipulations. Surface disturbing and other disruptive
activities within the Adobe Town fringe areas (31,510 acres) would also be intensively managed. These
actions would reduce the potential for damage to paleontological resources in these areas by limiting the
level of surface disturbing and other disruptive activities.

Impacts to paleontological resources from management actions associated with the Shirley Mountain
SRMA (37,820 acres), Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA (600 acres), North Platte River
SRMA (5,060 acres), Jelm Mountain SRMA (18,100 acres), Pedro Mountains SRMA (18,650 acres),
Laramie Plains Lakes SRMA (1,600 acres), and the Rawlins Fishing SRMA (330 acres) would be the
same as those identified in Alternative 3, except the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SRMA,
North Platte River SRMA, Jelm Mountain SRMA, and Pedro Mountains SRMA would not be closed to
locatable mineral entry, which would increase the potential for adverse effects to paleontological
resources in these areas by allowing for surface disturbing activities associated with locatable mineral
development.

Impacts to paleontological resources from management actions associated with the Como Bluff NNL
(1,690 acres), Sand Hills and JO Ranch Expansion ACEC (12,680 acres), Jep Canyon WHMA (13,810
acres), Shamrock Hills RCA (18,400 acres), Chain Lakes WHMA (30,560 acres), Laramie Peak WHMA
(18,940 acres). Red Rim-Daley WHMA (11,100 acres), Pennock Mountain WHMA (7,770 acres), Wick-
Beumee WHMA (280 acres), and the White-Tailed Prairie Dog area would be similar to Alternative 1,
except that surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided in aspen communities within the
Jep Canyon WHMA, and intensively managed in the Chain Lakes WHMA. This would provide
additional protection from adverse effects to paleontological resources in these areas by limiting the
potential for discovery situations.

Impacts to paleontological resources from management actions associated with the Blowout Penstemon
ACEC (17,050 acres), Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly WHMA (59,720 acres), Cow Butte/Wild
Cow WHMA (49,570 acres), and High Savery Dam area (530 acres) would be similar to those identified
in Alternative 3, except the Blowout Penstemon ACEC, Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly WHMA,
and Cow Butte/Wild Cow WHMA would not be closed to locatable mineral entry, which would increase
the potential for adverse effects to paleontological resources in these areas by allowing for surface
disturbing activities associated with locatable mineral development. Furthermore, surface disturbing and
disruptive activities would be avoided in aspen communities and near riparian and wetland areas within

Rawlins RMP

4-139

Chapter 4-Paleontology

Final EIS

the Upper Muddy Creek Watershed/Grizzly WHMA, and avoided in aspen and mountain shrub
communities within the Cow Butte/Wild Cow WHMA. This would provide additional protection from
adverse effects to paleontological resources in these areas by limiting the potential for discovery
situations.

Impacts to paleontological resources from vegetation management would be similar to those impacts
identified in Alternative 3, except that vegetation and weed treatments would be increased to include
828,460 acres over the next 20 years. Inventory and mitigation procedures conducted in conjunction with
vegetation treatments would protect sensitive paleontological resources from significant damage.

Impacts to paleontological resources from wildlife and fisheries management would be similar to those
impacts identified in Alternative 1, except that surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be
prohibited within 1/4 mile of the perimeter of occupied greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse leks.
Paleontological resources in these areas would be protected from activities with the potential for
disturbing or displacing cultural resources.

Summary

Impacts to paleontological resources would be similar to those impacts identified in Alternative 1.
However, fewer acres would be disturbed, potentially impacting fewer paleontological resources. It is
anticipated that 87,583 acres would be disturbed as a result of lands and realty management, and minerals
management activities. This disturbance would potentially result in dislocation, damage, or destruction of
paleontological resources that were not discovered prior to surface disturbance.

As a result of WSAs, SD/MAs, and NSO stipulations, 336,700 acres would be protected from surface
disturbing and other disruptive activities. These management actions would provide the greatest indirect
protection to paleontological resources by eliminating the potential for surface disturbing and other
disruptive activities in these areas. In addition, there would be more indirect protection to paleontological
resources from the increase of restrictions included in management actions for other resource programs.

It is anticipated that adverse impacts to paleontological resources would occur, but with the proper
application of mitigation measures impacts are expected to be minimal. As discussed in the analysis
above, any surface disturbance has the potential to damage and/or destroy paleontological sites through
unanticipated discoveries (i.e., paleontological resources discovered during ground-disturbing activities).
Unanticipated discoveries result in the loss of some or occasionally all of the paleontological resource
involved. Standard inventory and mitigation procedures conducted in conjunction with surface disturbing
and other disruptive activities would protect most paleontological resources from significant damage.
Paleontological monitoring in sensitive areas would reduce the potential for significant impacts resulting
from discovery situations. Because disturbance of fewer surface acres is anticipated, the potential for
significant impacts would decrease compared to Alternative 1 .

4-140

Rawlins RMP