PRE-DECISIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND OBJECTION PURSUANT TO 36 C.F.R. PART 218

January 8, 2018

OBJECTORS Lead Objector Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association Sublette County Conservation District P.O. Box 335 P.O. Box 647 317 Price Todd Road 1625 W. Pine St. Daniel, WY 83115 Pinedale, WY 82941 P: (307) 360-7060 P: (307) 367-2257 Sublette County Commissioners Sommers Ranch, LLC P.O. Box 250 C/O Albert Sommers 21 S. Tyler 734 East Green River Road Pinedale, WY 82941 Pinedale, WY 82941 P: (307) 749-6154 P: (307) 360-7060 Wyoming Coalition of Local Governments 925 Sage Avenue, Suite 302 Kemmerer, WY 83101 P: (307) 877-2004

PROPOSED PROJECT Draft Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Upper Green River Area Rangeland Project United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service Pinedale Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL Rob Hoelscher, District Ranger, Pinedale Ranger District

REVIEWING OFFICER Patricia O’Connor, Forest Supervisor 340 N. Cache P.O. Box 1888 Jackson, Wyoming 83001 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...... iv

I. DESCRIPTION OF ASPECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT ADDRESSED BY THE OBJECTION...... 1

II. OBJECTION ISSUE 1: FORAGE UTILIZATION STANDARDS...... 1 A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto ...... 1 B. Connection Statement...... 2 C. ROD and FEIS Violate NFMA and the National Environmental Policy Act. . . . . 3 1. ROD Forces Reductions Without Analysis and Disclosure ...... 3 2. Forest Service Has Reduced Numbers and Denied Section 214 Review. . 4 3. ROD is Not Consistent With BT-LRMP...... 5 4. ROD Is Unlawful Amendment of BT-LRMP...... 6 5. FEIS Does Not Support the Decision to Decrease Utilization ...... 7 6. ROD Combines Range Readiness With Utilization Limits...... 7 7. Amphibian Breeding Season Does Not Support Utilization Limits...... 8 8. ROD Confuses Pasture and Allotment Utilization...... 8 D. Suggested Remedies To Resolve the Objection...... 9 E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider...... 9

III. OBJECTION ISSUE 2: 20% STREAM BANK ALTERATION STANDARD...... 10 A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto ...... 10 B. Connection Statement...... 10 C. Stream Bank Alteration Standards Inconsistent with BTLRMP and Adopted Without NEPA Compliance...... 10 1. BT-LRMP Does Not Contain Stream Bank Alteration Standards...... 10 2. Stream Bank Alteration Is Not A Management Standard...... 12 3. Flawed Methodology Without Disclosure and Analysis Violates NEPA ...... 13 D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection...... 14 E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider...... 14

IV. OBJECTION ISSUE 3: GROUND COVER OBJECTIVE...... 15 A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto ...... 15 B. Connection Statement...... 15 C. Ground Cover Objective Is Arbitrary and Capricious...... 16

~ i ~ 1. O’Brien Report Is Not Best Available Information On the Project Area ...... 16 2. ROD Does Not Adopt Conclusions of O’Brien Report...... 17 D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection...... 18 E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider...... 18

V. OBJECTION ISSUE 4: SPECIES COMPOSITION OBJECTIVE...... 19 A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto ...... 19 B. Connection Statement...... 19 C. Species Composition Objective Is Arbitrary and Capricious...... 19 1. FEIS Fails to Analyze and Disclose Impacts of Species Composition. . . 19 2. Forest Service Arbitrarily Defined Mid-Seral Plant Community...... 20 3. Mid-Seral Status As Management Trigger is Arbitrary and Capricious ...... 21 D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection...... 21 E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider...... 21

VI. OBJECTION ISSUE 5: TABLE 1 LIVESTOCK GRAZING STRATEGY FOR UPPER GREEN RIVER – MUD LAKE/FISH CREEK ROTATION...... 21 A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto ...... 21 B. Connection Statement...... 22 C. Environmental Analysis and ROD Violates Law, Regulations, and Policy. . . . . 22 D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection ...... 23 E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider...... 24

VII. OBJECTION ISSUE 6: UPPER GREEN ELK FEED GROUND STRAY CATTLE PRESCRIPTION ...... 24 A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto ...... 24 B. Connection Statement...... 24 C. Environmental Analysis and ROD Violates Law, Regulations, and Policy. . . . . 24 D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection...... 25 E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider...... 25

VIII. OBJECTION ISSUE 7: WAGON CREEK FOCUS AREA ELECTRIC FENCE...... 25 A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto ...... 25 B. Connection Statement...... 26 C. Environmental Analysis and ROD Violates Law, Regulations, and Policy. . . . . 26 D. Suggested Remedies To Resolve the Objection ...... 27 E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider...... 27

~ ii ~ IX. OBJECTION ISSUE 8: TEPEE CREEK PERMANENT FENCE...... 28 A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto ...... 28 B. Connection Statement...... 28 C. Environmental Analysis and ROD Violates Law, Regulations, and Policy . . . . . 29 D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection ...... 29 E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider...... 30

X. OBJECTION ISSUE 9: 270 AUM REDUCTION ...... 30 A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto ...... 30 B. Connection Statement...... 30 C. Environmental Analysis and ROD Violates Law, Regulations, and Policy. . . . . 31 1. ROD Is Inconsistent With Local Plans, Policies, and Forest Plan...... 31 2. Allotment is Meeting Objectives and Reduction Is Arbitrary and Capricious...... 32 D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection ...... 33

XI. OBJECTION ISSUE 10: WOLF AND GRIZZLY DEPREDATIONS ...... 33 A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto ...... 33 B. Connection Statement...... 33 C. Environmental Analysis and ROD Violates Law, Regulations, and Policy. . . . . 33 D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection...... 34

XII. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED...... 34

~ iii ~ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

FEDERAL CASES Alaska Ctr. For Environment v. U.S. Forest Service, 189 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 1999)...... 23 All. for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2017)...... 16 Balt. Gas and Elec. Company v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Incorporated, 462 U.S. 87 (1983)...... 20 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997)...... 13 Citizens’ Committee to Save Our Canyons v. U.S. Forest Service, 297 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2002)...... 12 Citizens’ Committee to Save Our Canyons v. Krieger, 513 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2008)...... 7 Ecology Ctr. v. Castaneda, 574 F.3d 652 (9th Cir.2009)...... 17 Greater Yellowstone Coalition., Incorporated v. Servheen, 665 F.3d 1015...... 11 Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983), vacated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)...... 27, 29 Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advert. Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977)...... 3 Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002)...... 3, 3, 8, 19, 20 Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir.2005)...... 13 Marble Mountain Audubon Society v. Rice, 914 F.2d 179 (9th Cir.1990)...... 29, 31, 31 McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. U.S. Department of the Air Force, 375 F.3d 1182 (D.C. Cir.2004)...... 29 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Association v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 463 U.S. 29 (1983)...... 12, 21, 25, 27, 32 Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 418 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2005)...... 11, 13 Organized Village of Kake v. U.S. Department of Agric., 795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2015)...... 29 Rocky Mountain Wild v. Vilsack, 843 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Colo. 2012)...... 17 Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Med. Ctr. v. Thompson, 362 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2005). . . . 21 Utah Envt’l Congressional v. Troyes, 479 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2007)...... 5, 6 Western Org. of Resources Councils v. Bureau of Land Management, 591 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Wyo. 2008), aff’d sub nom. BioDiversity Conservation All. v. Bureau of Land Management, 608 F.3d 709 (10th Cir. 2010)...... 3, 19 Western Watersheds Project v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 2015 WL 846548. . . . 23 Watersheds Project v. Leaverston, No. 2011 WL 2415546...... 23

~ iv ~ WildEarth Guardians v. United States Bureau of Land Management, 870 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2017)...... 20

FEDERAL STATUTES 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(a)...... 7 16 U.S.C. §1604(i)...... 5, 32

REGULATIONS 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(a)...... 5 36 C.F.R. § 219.15(d)...... 5, 10, 16 36 C.F.R. § 219.3...... 16 36 C.F.R. § 219.4(b)...... 32 36 C.F.R. § 219.7(e)...... 5 36 C.F.R. §218.5...... 3 36 C.F.R. §218.6(a)...... 1 36 C.F.R. §218.8(d)(5)...... 1 36 C.F.R. §218.8(d)(6)...... 1 36 C.F.R. §219.13...... 6, 11, 14 36 C.F.R. §219.13(b)(1)...... 6, 11, 14, 15 36 C.F.R. §219.15(c) (1)...... passim 36 C.F.R. 214.4(a)(1)...... 4 36 C.F.R. Part 214...... 4 36 C.F.R. Part 218...... 1 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16, 1508.8...... 3, 4, 19 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7...... 23 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24...... 20 40 C.F.R. § 1506.2(b)...... 32 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4...... 22

FOREST SERVICE HANDBOOKS FSH 2209.13, Chapter 10...... 33 FSH 2209.21, Ch. 20 at §22.1 (2005)...... 17

~ v ~ Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Part 218, Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association (“Cattlemen’s Association”), Sublette County Conservation District (“District” or “SCCD”), the Sublette County Commissioners (“County”), and Sommers Ranch, LLC (“Sommers Ranch”), the Wyoming Coalition of Local Governments (“Coalition”) (collectively “Objectors”) submit this objection to the Draft Record of Decision (“ROD”) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) for the Upper Green River Area Rangeland Project (“Proposed Project”). Notice was published in the Casper Star Tribune on November 22, 2017 with a 45 day objection period closing on January 6, 2018. Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. §218.6(a), the objection deadline is extended to January 8, 2018.

I. DESCRIPTION OF ASPECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT ADDRESSED BY THE OBJECTION

Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. §218.8(d)(5), the Objectors include the following:

1. A description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including specific issues related to the proposed project;

2. How the Objectors believe the environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy;

3. Suggested remedies that would resolve the objection;

4. Supporting reasons for the reviewing officer to consider.

Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. §218.8(d)(6) the Objectors will also provide a Connection Statement for each issue identified “that demonstrates the connection between prior specific written comments on the particular proposed project or activity and the content of the objection.” Issues will be identified and addressed in the order they appear in the ROD.

II. OBJECTION ISSUE 1: FORAGE UTILIZATION STANDARDS

A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto

The ROD provides that:

Page 1 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District The Noble Pastures Allotment will have a maximum forage utilization of 60% in uplands and 65% in riparian/meadow areas and all other allotments will incorporate a maximum of 50% forage utilization in the upland and riparian/meadow areas.

ROD at 5.

The 1990 Bridger-Teton Land and Resource Management Plan (“BT-LRMP”) as amended by the 2015 Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment (“2015 Amendment”) provides that forage utilization on upland range sites in satisfactory condition is a maximum of 60% and forage utilization on upland range sites in unsatisfactory condition is a maximum of 50%. Similarly, for riparian sites, utilization in satisfactory condition is 65% and sites in unsatisfactory condition is 55%. The ROD, therefore, places utilization limits on upland pastures that are in satisfactory condition as if they were in unsatisfactory condition and treats riparian areas in satisfactory condition as if they were worse than unsatisfactory.

According to the FEIS, every single allotment is meeting or making progress toward meeting objectives in the Project Area. See FEIS at 187-89. Of the 26 pastures in the Project Area, 24 pastures met ground cover and species composition objectives and every pasture met invasive species objectives. See FEIS at 184-185.1 The data and analysis in the FEIS do not demonstrate that the pastures in the allotments are in unsatisfactory condition and thus the ROD applies the incorrect standard to those pastures.

B. Connection Statement

The Objectors all commented on utilization standards found in the BTLRMP and that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) attempted to amend those standards contrary to the BTLRMP.2 See Attachment (Attach.) 1, Cattlemen’s Association Comments at 1 (September, 2016); Attach. 2, SCCD Comments at 2 (November 21, 2016); Attach. 3, Coalition Comments at 3

1 The fourth objective listed, shrub cover, is not used in the FEIS “[b]ecause shrub cover doesn't respond to grazing management once it's established (INT-GTR-134, 1982) (Winward 1991) and because it's not useful on a small scale such as key areas, it does not constitute a key issue with regard to rangeland vegetation.” FEIS at 187.

2The District, the Cattlemen’s Association, and Sommers Ranch submitted identical comments.

Page 2 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District (November 21, 2016)3 ; Attach. 4, County Comments at 2-3 (June 7, 2016). The Objectors also communicated this issue to the Responsible Official verbally during Cooperating Agency meetings. The Objectors also commented on various aspects of utilization including when utilization begins (i.e. range readiness) and utilization impacts on amphibian habitat and now carry those comments forward with this objection.

C. ROD and FEIS Violate NFMA and the National Environmental Policy Act

1. ROD Forces Reductions Without Analysis and Disclosure

NEPA requires the Forest Service to “consider the environmental impacts of their actions, disclose those impacts to the public, and then explain how their actions will address those impacts.” W. Org. of Res. Councils v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 591 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1228–29 (D. Wyo. 2008), aff'd sub nom. BioDiversity Conservation All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 608 F.3d 709 (10th Cir. 2010). An EIS must assess and disclose direct and indirect effects, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16, 1508.8, and consider “every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action. ” Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062, 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2002). The Forest Service must “articulate, publicly and in detail, the reasons for and likely effects of ... decisions, and to allow public comment on that articulation.” Id.

The ROD admits that “the issuance of grazing permits that will authorize a maximum of 8,819 head of livestock on the Upper Green project area.” ROD at 13. The FEIS states that Actual Use on the allotments range from 30% to 50% with an average number of animals at 6,192. FEIS at xii. If actual numbers are already reaching the maximum utilization limits to be imposed by the ROD (i.e. 50%) then the number of livestock to be permitted on the Upper Green will never exceed 6,192 animals – a 32% reduction. The ROD will force reductions that the FEIS never disclosed or analyzed, let alone documented as necessary. See ROD at 30 (admitting that Alternative 2 – current management – “would not result in maintaining or improving resource conditions in all locations.”). A reduction in permitted numbers or season of use by implementation of new standards and thresholds is not a minor defect in the NEPA analysis. The FEIS did not disclose this new reality and analyze the consequences and that failure is fatal. Kern v. Bureau of Land Management,

3Comments were also submitted by the Wyoming Coalition of Local Governments (“Coalition”) on behalf of Sublette County. The Coalition is the authorized representative of the County pursuant to 36 C.F.R. §218.5( c); Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advert. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977).

Page 3 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District 284 F.3d 1062, 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2002) (An EIS must assess and disclose direct and indirect effects, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16, 1508.8, and consider “every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action.”).

The ROD then provides that if the allotments are not meeting objectives two consequences will follow: (1) the maximum allowable use on key forage species will be reduced in increments of 10% in subsequent years to a maximum of 30% forage utilization; and/or (2) the minimum riparian stubble height threshold will increase from 4 inches to 6 inches. ROD at 6-7. In other words, if any indicator – ground cover, species composition, streambank alteration, etc. – is not being met, the ROD immediately triggers a 10% reduction in forage utilization and/or an increase in stubble height in riparian areas. ROD at 6 (“If livestock grazing is a substantial causal factor, the District Ranger will adjust the maximum allowable use on key forage species and adjust the minimum riparian stubble height after considering advice from the interdisciplinary team and the permittees.”). Once again, the FEIS did not disclose that AUMs would be cut by 10% each year if any objective is not met. See FEIS at 72 (generally disclosing only reduction in utilization and not the synergistic impact of that reduction to AUMs).

2. Forest Service Has Reduced Numbers and Denied Section 214 Review

The utilization rates enforced in the ROD are de facto reductions. Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Part 214, a decision by an authorized officer is appealable if it modifies, suspends, cancels, or denies reauthorization of a livestock grazing permit. 36 C.F.R. 214.4(a)(1)-(4). Reducing the authorized number of livestock to be grazed under a permit , or the length of time that those livestock may be grazed, is a material modification of the terms of a livestock grazing permit regardless of whether that modification is explicit or a product of new standards enforced by the authorized officer.

The ROD authorizes 8,819 head of livestock on the Upper Green project area but limits utilization to a maximum of 50%. ROD at 6. Current utilization on the allotments range between 30% and 50%. Permitees, therefore, would be unable to graze 8,819 animals for a full season without exceeding utilization limits under the terms of the ROD. This reduction is precisely the type of modification that is appealed under Section 214.

The Forest Service has amended the terms of every livestock grazing permit on the Project Area by reducing the utilization thresholds to a point where 8,819 animals would be forced off the allotments before the end of the season – a reduction in use. The Forest Service, however, has

Page 4 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District denied every single permitee on the Upper Green statutorily guaranteed rights to appeal a decision that modifies the terms of the permit under Part 214. By reducing numbers in a project subject to Section 218 objection processes, the Forest Service has denied permitees due process under Section 214.

3. ROD is Not Consistent With BT-LRMP

The Forest Service must adhere to the BT-LRMP when “approving or disapproving particular projects, each of which must comply with the applicable forest plan.” Utah Envt'l Cong. v. Troyer, 479 F.3d 1269, 1272 (10th Cir. 2007); see 16 U.S.C. §1604(i)(“ Resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans.” (Emphasis added)). The Forest Service regulations are clear – “[e]very project and activity must be consistent with the applicable plan components. 36 C.F.R. § 219.15(d).

Plan Components include standards such as forage utilization. See 36 C.F.R. § 219.7(e) (“A standard is a mandatory constraint on project and activity decisionmaking, established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.”); 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(a). Standards in a forest plan are a “mandatory constraint on project and activity decisionmaking” – the Forest Service may not ignore standards in the BTLRMP which are “established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.” 36 C.F.R. § 219.7(e). Unlike a forest guideline, a standard does not allow “departure from its terms...” Id. at § 219.7(e)(1)(iv).

The forage utilization standards in the ROD do not conform to the forage utilization standard in the BT-LRMP. According to the BT-LRMP, forage utilization on upland range sites in satisfactory condition can be a maximum of 60%. BT-LRMP at 177. The ROD, however, states that all allotments, excluding Noble Pastures, “will incorporate a maximum of 50% forage utilization in the upland [areas] ...” The FEIS shows that all of the allotments are meeting objectives and are therefore in “satisfactory condition.” The ROD, therefore, violates NFMA because the Forest Service has adopted a new standard on the Upper Green River that directly conflicts with the BT- LRMP – a site in satisfactory condition is now held to a standard explicitly reserved for sites in unsatisfactory condition.

Page 5 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District The Forest Service goes a step further with regard to riparian areas. The BT-LRMP provides that the utilization standard for riparian sites in unsatisfactory condition is 55% and yet the ROD provides that no matter the condition of the riparian sites, utilization may not exceed a standard below what is provided for in the BT-LRMP for unsatisfactory sites. The Forest Service has essentially re-characterized sites meeting objectives as “unsatisfactory” under the BT-LRMP – a de facto revision of the utilization standard required under the forest plan without disclosing it as a revision or complying with the necessary steps to complete a revision or an amendment.

4. ROD Is Unlawful Amendment of BT-LRMP

As just discussed, according to the plain language of NFMA, Forest Service regulations, and black letter law, all authorized uses and projects on the forest must be consistent with the existing land and resource management plan. 16 U.S.C. §1604(i); 36 C.F.R. §219.15(d); Troyer, 479 F.3d at 1272. If, however, the Forest Service desires to change a plan component, the Forest Service must amend the governing plan. 36 C.F.R. §219.13 (“Except as provided by paragraph (c) of this section, a plan amendment is required to add, modify, or remove one or more plan components, or to change how or where one or more plan components apply to all or part of the plan area (including management areas or geographic areas).”). Indeed, if the proposed project is not consistent with the forest plan, the responsible official must modify the decision document to make it consistent with the plan in place or amend the plan. 36 C.F.R. §219.15(c) (1)-(4).

According to the BT-LRMP, there are two forage utilization standards – one for sites in satisfactory condition and a completely separate standard for sites in unsatisfactory condition. BT- LRMP at 177. The ROD, however, requires satisfactory sites to meet the utilization standard for unsatisfactory sites. As clearly demonstrated by the FEIS, all of the allotments are in satisfactory condition. The ROD, therefore, eliminates the 60% standard for satisfactory sites as set out in the BT-LRMP.

To eliminate a utilization standard, the USFS must go through all of the necessary steps to complete a forest plan amendment – including an identification of the need to change the standards, providing public notice of the need to change those standards, and evaluating if any substantive requirements of USFS planning rules are indirectly impacted by changing the standards. See 36 C.F.R. §219.13(b)(1)-(6). The Forest Service has completed none of those steps with regard to the ROD. The ROD, therefore, violates binding Forest Service regulations, NFMA, and the corresponding case law.

Page 6 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District 5. FEIS Does Not Support the Decision to Decrease Utilization

Courts will set aside agency action if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(a). The duty of a court under this standard is to determine whether the Forest Service has demonstrated a rational connection between the facts found and the decision made. Citizens' Comm. to Save Our Canyons v. Krueger, 513 F.3d 1169, 1176 (10th Cir. 2008). The Upper Green ROD flatly contradicts the findings in the FEIS and is therefore without basis in law or fact.

The tabular data, narrative, and analysis of the FEIS clearly demonstrate that the Project Area allotments were meeting desired conditions and objectives with only localized exceptions. See FEIS at 8-10 (Table 1). According to the FEIS, every single allotment was meeting or making progress – exceptional and documented progress – toward objectives in the Project Area. See FEIS at 187-89. Of the 26 pastures in the Project Area, 24 pastures met ground cover and species composition objectives and every pasture met invasive species objectives. See FEIS at 184-185. The facts, therefore, do not demonstrate a rational connection between positive range conditions and reducing utilization in the Project Area and is therefore arbitrary and capricious.

6. ROD Combines Range Readiness With Utilization Limits

As just described, the ROD implements a rotational grazing system with utilization limits that decrease the amount of forage that can be utilized by livestock. ROD at 6-7. At the same time, the ROD provides that “[l]ivestock will not be allowed to enter the allotment prior to range readiness.” ROD at 15. Put another way, under the ROD, utilization begins as soon as the range is “ready.”

The established literature and basic rangeland management principles have abandoned range readiness as a viable concept in rotational grazing systems. See Attach. 5, Perryman, et al., Range Readiness Is an Obsolete Management Tool (2005). Range readiness was developed to ameliorate the impacts caused to vegetative resources as the result of season-long, continuous, grazing systems. Id. at 36. However, when rotational grazing patterns were developed – such as the one implemented in the Project Area – range readiness is often more detrimental to plant health. Id. at 39. For example – among many provided by the authors – range readiness “fails to recognize differential responses to grazing by different forage species.” Id.

Page 7 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District The FEIS, however, does not discuss range readiness or the rotational grazing system and how the concepts work together in the Project Area. Instead, the Forest Service blindly adopts a highly controversial and antiquated range management concept with literally no analysis or disclosure in the FEIS. Kern, 284 F.3d at 1073 (Agency must “articulate, publicly and in detail, the reasons for and likely effects of ... decisions, and to allow public comment on that articulation.”).

Adopting range readiness also indicates that the Forest Service has assumed that the Project Area would benefit from the practice. However, as the FEIS indicates, all of the allotments are meeting or making progress toward resource objectives without using range readiness as a management tool.

7. Amphibian Breeding Season Does Not Support Utilization Limits

Amphibian breeding season is May 1 to June 30. ROD at 17. The FEIS and the ROD state that part of the reason for decreased utilization limits is that “[l]ivestock grazing can affect amphibian habitat by destabilizing stream banks, increasing sedimentation, degrading water quality, reducing cover, crushing individuals, and discouraging beaver colonization.” ROD at 24.

No permittee will be on any pasture or allotment before June 14 of each year. See generally ROD App. A. Thus, livestock grazing will not occur on any riparian area for longer than 16 days of the amphibian breeding season. The FEIS, however, does not describe how grazing for 16 days or less on an unquantified amount of amphibian breeding habitat will impact amphibian breeding. Rather, the FEIS lumps together impacts from grazing for an entire season with those impacts from grazing for barely more than two weeks. Timing is an essential component of any grazing decision and the ROD concludes that any grazing will produce the same impacts regardless of time spent in the riparian areas. This is a fatal flaw in the decision.

8. ROD Confuses Pasture and Allotment Utilization

By the plain language of the ROD, permittees move through the Project Area according to on-off dates of the component pastures. See generally ROD at Table 2. The ROD also provides that “[i]f the allowable use is reached on key areas prior to the scheduled off-date, permittees are required to remove their livestock from the allotment earlier than scheduled.” ROD at 15 (emphasis added). The problem, therefore, is that the ROD is facially inconsistent and could be interpreted to force

Page 8 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District permittees off an allotment entirely when utilization levels on a pasture are exceeded. Instead, permittees should leave each pasture once utilization has been reached but not the entire allotment.

D. Suggested Remedies To Resolve the Objection

There is no rational explanation for the Forest Service’s decision to eliminate the 60% utilization standard for satisfactory upland sites, and the 65% utilization standard for satisfactory riparian area sites. To the contrary, the FEIS demonstrates that the ROD should, at a minimum, maintain existing utilization standards in the Project Area.

The appropriate remedy, therefore is to “[m]odify the proposed project or activity to make it consistent with the applicable plan components” by revising the ROD to include those utilization standards in the BT-LRMP. 36 C.F.R. §219.15(c)(1).

Finally, the ROD should be revised to remove range readiness since that concept is premised on season-long, continuous grazing that has not been implemented and will not be implemented in the Project Area.

E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider

The preferred action recommended in the Objector’s comments is precisely the same action that the BT-LRMP demands. Specifically, the BT-LMRP provides that “[d]uring AMP revision, the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team and livestock permitees will prescribe site-specific utilization levels needed to meet Forest Plan objectives.” BT-LRMP at 177. Adaptive management on a pasture-by- pasture scale will allow the authorizing officer to adjust utilization rates through the AMP or Annual Operating Instructions (“AOI”) process if objectives are not being met as demonstrated by cooperative monitoring data. Both the Objectors and the BT-LRMP recognize that adjusting utilization levels should be done at the AMP level to allow for seasonal differences, variable precipitation models, and fluctuating wildlife numbers – it is the Forest Service that “must be aware of actual use levels relative to allowable use standards.” ROD at 15 (stating the inverse).

The ROD states that it is a “modification of Alternative 3 that includes some elements of Alternative 2.” ROD at 5. This statement is patently incorrect. The FEIS identified two versions of Alternative 2: (A) Current Management; and (B) Grazing as Currently Permitted. FEIS at Table ES-2. The only element adopted from either version of Alternative 2 is utilization limits for Noble

Page 9 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District Pastures Allotment. Otherwise, the Forest Service selected every single element of Alternative 3, which cooperating agencies including the District, the County and the Permittees never once accepted as a reasonable alternative. The Objectors note that ground cover objectives of 80-95% and other project-wide standards appeared in comments submitted by Western Watersheds Project – a noted anti-grazing organization – which indicates a clear abdication of the Forest Service’s hard look duties under NEPA in favor of adopting WWP’s recommendation.

III. OBJECTION ISSUE 2: 20% STREAM BANK ALTERATION STANDARD

A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto

The ROD provides that “the maximum amount of stream bank alteration allowable for each season of use is 20%.” ROD at 5.4 The specific issues related to this aspect of the ROD: (1) the standard does not appear in the BT-LRMP; (2) the standard was never meant to be used as a standard; and (3) the standard is not repeatable and cannot be implemented.

B. Connection Statement

The Cattlemen’s Association and the District each commented on the stream bank alteration standard at the FEIS stage. See Attach. 1, Sommers Ranch & Cattlemen’s Association Cmnt. 19, 24; Attach. 2, SCCD Cmnt. 19, 24. The Objectors commented that not only is the 20% bank alteration standard not repeatable – and therefore not reliable – but that the standard was intended only to be an indicator rather than a stand-alone standard. Id.

C. Stream Bank Alteration Standards Inconsistent with BTLRMP and Adopted Without NEPA Compliance

1. BT-LRMP Does Not Contain Stream Bank Alteration Standards

The Forest Service regulations provide “[e]very project and activity must be consistent with the applicable plan components.” 36 C.F.R. § 219.15(d). More important here, the Forest Service may not enforce standards that have no basis in the forest plan. Standards – “mandatory constraints

4The Objectors note that Page 25 in the ROD does not include the stream bank alteration standard and thus the ROD is facially inconsistent.

Page 10 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District on project and activity decisionmaking” – are legally unenforceable if those standards are not present in the forest plan. Greater Yellowstone Coal., Inc. v. Servheen, 665 F.3d 1015, 1034, fn. 5 (9th Cir. 2011) (J. Thomas concurring) (finding that Grizzly Bear mortality standards were absent in forest plan and therefore could not be enforced by the Forest Service). Courts will set aside agency action that is contrary to the clear language of a forest plan. Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 418 F.3d 953, 962 (9th Cir. 2005) (“An agency's position that is contrary to the clear language of a Forest Plan is not entitled to deference.”).

The BT-LRMP provides that “[l]ivestock grazing in riparian areas will be managed to protect stream banks. This may be achieved through the use of gravel crossings, tree debris barriers, fencing, riparian pastures, development of alternate watering sites out of the riparian area, longer allotment rests, or improved livestock distribution.” BT-LRMP at 177-78. The BT-LRMP also includes a stream bank stability guideline which provides that “vegetation should be maintained to 80 percent of its potential natural condition or an HCI rating of 85 or greater.” Id. at 158. The BT-LRMP, however, does not contain either a standard or a guideline for a 20% stream bank alteration standard.5

The ROD, therefore, implements a mandatory constraint on livestock grazing across all of the allotments that is not found in the BT-LRMP. The Forest Service may not implement this standard without amending the BT-LRMP. 36 C.F.R. §219.13 (“Except as provided by paragraph (c) of this section, a plan amendment is required to add, modify, or remove one or more plan components, or to change how or where one or more plan components apply to all or part of the plan area (including management areas or geographic areas).”). Indeed, if the proposed project is not consistent with the forest plan, the responsible official must modify the decision document to make it consistent with the plan in place or amend the plan. 36 C.F.R. §219.15(c) (1)-(4).

The ROD, therefore, violates binding Forest Service regulations, NFMA, and the corresponding case law because it amends the controlling forest plan without following the necessary procedural steps. See 36 C.F.R. §219.13(b)(1)-(6) (USFS must identify the need to change the standards, provide public notice of the need to change those standards, and evaluate if any substantive requirements of USFS planning rules are indirectly impacted by changing the standards.).

5The BT-LRMP does provide that streambank stability and trampling are key indicators of health of aquatic ecosystems with regards to cutthroat trout, but, again, no numerical standard is adopted. BT-LRMP at 424.

Page 11 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District 2. Stream Bank Alteration Is Not A Management Standard

The Forest Service’s decision to implement a rangeland indicator as a project-wide standard runs counter to the evidence before the agency and demonstrates a fundamental failure to connect the facts found in the FEIS with the decision made in the ROD. Citizens' Comm. to Save Our Canyons v. U.S. Forest Serv., 297 F.3d 1012, 1035 (10th Cir. 2002).

According to the FEIS, the Forest Service evaluated stream bank alteration using methods identified in Streambank Stability Guideline: Streambank alteration measurement and implementation, (Simon, 2008) at sites selected pursuant to the Multiple Indicator Monitoring (“MIM”) protocol. The reason for evaluating stream bank alteration, according to the FEIS, is that studies have found that the “most widespread impact livestock have on riparian areas is trampling stream banks,” and “that bank alteration criteria were often met before stubble height criteria.” FEIS at 252. The Forest Service added a new project-wide standard in the ROD that limited “[t]he maximum amount of stream bank alteration allowable for each season of use is 20%.” ROD at 5, 16

The Forest Service’s analysis in the FEIS runs directly counter to the decision to adopt stream alteration as a project-wide standard. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (agency action that “runs counter to the evidence” before it is arbitrary and capricious). The Forest Service ignores the fact that stream bank alteration is an indicator and was never meant to be a project wide standard. Even a brief review of the MIM – the protocol used to measure streambank alterations and incorporated into the FEIS – reveals that “streambank alteration is an annual or short-term indicator of the effect of grazing impacts on long-term streambank stability.” MIM at 27 (emphasis added). The FEIS explicitly states that the “[l]evels of bank alteration should not be considered a riparian goal but should be used as a short-term indicator of use in riparian areas.” FEIS at 252. The Forest Service, however, has taken a single indicator and applied it as a project wide standard that will – by itself – trigger livestock removal from a particular pasture as soon as the 20% threshold is exceeded. See e.g. FEIS at 260 (“Implementing a 20 percent maximum alteration prescription would decrease the amount of time that livestock are allowed to graze within a riparian area . . .”).6 Neither the ROD, nor the FEIS, provide any explanation for why

6The Objectors appreciate that the FEIS only applies the streambank alteration standard under Alternative 3 to focus areas. See FEIS at 71 (“Prescriptions for focus areas include retaining 6-inch stubble height along the greenline, stream bank alternation limits, willow (continued...)

Page 12 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District the Forest Service has elected to use an indicator as a standard with a hard-wired management response.

3. Flawed Methodology Without Disclosure and Analysis Violates NEPA

During the comment period, Objectors informed the Forest Service that the Streambank Stability Guidelines will produce arbitrary results and that well regarded literature confirmed the Objector’s position. Specifically, the Objectors produced studies that showed stream bank alteration evaluations were affected by factors not directly related to grazing intensity. See Attach 6, Heitke, et al., Evaluating Livestock Grazing Use With Streambank Alteration Protocols: Challenges and Solutions (2008).7 The study produced by the Objectors demonstrates that while training of the proper methods used to evaluate stream banks reduced estimates of alteration, rapid assessments increased estimates of alteration as did estimates by seasonal technicians (as opposed to rangeland professionals). The study shows that regardless of the particular protocol selected, estimates of stream bank alteration will vary widely between sites, between evaluators, and without any relation to actual livestock grazing use.

The Forest Service did not change the Proposed Action, has elected to use a deeply-flawed methodology to measure stream bank alteration, and has not disclosed the shortcomings of using that methodology as required by NEPA. Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1032 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that NEPA requires “up-front disclosures of relevant shortcomings in the data or models” and that withholding such information violates NEPA). Instead, the Forest Service states that “consistent readings do not always occur” and then assumes that consistency will improve. FEIS at 653 (Response # 131). The Forest Service may not rely on assumptions to fulfill its obligation to take a hard look at the consequences of manufacturing a methodology that will inevitably lead to significant livestock grazing reductions. See Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 418

6(...continued) plantings, and/or fencing. Each focus area prescription is described in detail by allotment and is summarized in Table 6.”). The language of the ROD, however, controls in any conflict. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997) (The ROD is the “consummation” of the decision making process.). The streambank alteration is presented in the ROD as a stand-alone standard on page 5 and page 16 without any qualifying language that it only applies to focus areas.

7The MIM protocol relies almost exclusively on Heitke as the controlling literature on stream bank alteration. MIM at 27. Thus it is not only suspect, but improper, for the Forest Service to fail to discuss the conclusions therein as well as any contrary literature.

Page 13 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District F.3d 953, 964–65 (9th Cir.2005) (recognizing that the Forest Service's reliance on incorrect assumptions violated NFMA and did not meet the agency's obligation to take a “hard look” under NEPA).

D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection

The appropriate remedy is to “[m]odify the proposed project or activity to make it consistent with the applicable plan components” by revising the ROD to eliminate streambank alteration standards that have no basis in the BT-LRMP. 36 C.F.R. §219.15(c)(1).

If, however, the Forest Service decides to create a new plan component, the Forest Service must amend the forest plan. 36 C.F.R. §219.13 (“Except as provided by paragraph (c) of this section, a plan amendment is required to add, modify, or remove one or more plan components, or to change how or where one or more plan components apply to all or part of the plan area (including management areas or geographic areas).”).

To adopt a new standard, the USFS complete all of the necessary steps for a forest plan amendment – including an identification of the need to change the standards, providing public notice of the need to change those standards, and evaluating if any substantive requirements of USFS planning rules are indirectly impacted by changing the standards. See 36 C.F.R. §219.13(b)(1)-(6).

E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider

The BT-LRMP provides that – much like forage utilization – standards for “ground cover, plant vigor, soil disturbance, [and] streambank stability” will be developed by the ID Team to achieve site-specific objectives. BT-LRMP at 177. The ID Team will develop these site-specific standards at the AMP level. Id. Thus, it makes no sense – indeed, directly contradicts the BT-LRMP – to implement a one-size-fits-all standard when site-specific objectives may demand a different response altogether.

To determine whether a site is meeting or making progress towards meeting a stream bank alteration standard, long-term monitoring data is the only reliable source of information that should be used. Long-term monitoring data usually spans 10 or more years. Monitoring data compiled every five 5 years can vary widely, see FEIS at 226-27, and no trend will result. Thus, the Forest Service has adopted a new long-term standard on the basis of short-term monitoring data (e.g. 2009-

Page 14 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District 2012). The variability in the data shows that the ROD is not supported by the facts in the record and is therefore arbitrary and capricious.

Early in the ROD, it appears that stream bank alteration will be applied per season, ROD at 5, but later in the ROD it appears that stream bank alteration will be monitored once every two years at Tosi Creek and Fish Creek areas. The application of the standard, therefore, is facially inconsistent.

IV. OBJECTION ISSUE 3: GROUND COVER OBJECTIVE

A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto

The ROD provides that “[m]inimum ground cover objectives vary from 85 to 90 percent according to vegetation type in the allotments except in the River Bottom pasture the minimum is 60%.” ROD at 6. The FEIS supports these objectives by stating that “[g]round cover thresholds that are more reflective of the conditions and capabilities in the project area were developed by O’Brien et al. (2003). Rangeland in the project area is capable of supporting higher ground cover when compared to other parts of the intermountain region.” FEIS at 184.

The O’Brien study is premised on the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program which “is a national program that conducts inventories for large-scale planning and monitoring on all forest land in the United States, including both public and private ownerships.” Attach. 7, O’Brien et al., Indicators of rangeland health and functionality in the Intermountain West. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station (2003). According to that study, [t]he ground cover threshold values for watershed protection used in this study were derived from baseline material collected throughout the Intermountain Region from healthy and functional rangelands (appendix B). The data were averaged across the Intermountain Region, modified for the Bridger-Teton, and summarized in Johnson and Elsbernd (1997).” Id. at 2.

B. Connection Statement

The District and the Cattlemen’s Association commented that “80-95% cover isn’t related to [Ecological Site Description] or other peer reviewed data.” Attach. 1, Sommers Ranch &

Page 15 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District Cattlemen’s Association Cmnt. 5; Attach. 2, SCCD Cmnt. 5. The Objectors encouraged the Forest Service to utilize current science with scientific justification for its use. Id.

C. Ground Cover Objective Is Arbitrary and Capricious

1. O’Brien Report Is Not Best Available Information On the Project Area

NFMA's implementing regulations require the Forest Service to “use the best available scientific information” in the forest planning process. 36 C.F.R. § 219.3 (imposing this standard on “the planning process required by [36 C.F.R. § 219] for assessment”); id. § 219.15(d) (requiring that “[a] project or activity approval document must describe how the project or activity is consistent with applicable plan components”). Thus, the Forest Service must use the best available science in approving a decision such as the Upper Green project. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211, 1221 (9th Cir. 2017).

The FEIS admits that the Forest Service selected ground cover objectives identified by the O’Brien report because,

[r]angeland in the project area is capable of supporting higher ground cover when compared to other parts of the intermountain region. These higher thresholds for ground cover were used to establish desired conditions and ground cover objectives for rangeland vegetation in the project area.

FEIS at 184.

The O’Brien report, however, is a desk-top review of literature, loosely based on the FIA program that “conducts inventories for large-scale planning and monitoring on all forest land in the United States.” Attach. 7, O’Brien Report at 2. As the O'Brien report admits, the data gathered was not site specific and was performed from a desktop – the O'Brien report is a literature review. Id. at Appendix B (listing literature reviewed). The O,Brien report states that the indicators (i.e. ground cover) can be used “for the purpose of determining rangeland health and functionality was demonstrated at the National Forest scale.” Id. at 9. The O'Brien report does not conclude that the indicators should be used at the site specific scale and is, therefore, not the best available information on which to base the decisions in the ROD.

Page 16 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District Nor does the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.21 recommend the levels adopted by O’Brien. FSH 2209.21 adopts ground cover percentages from 65% for Tall Forbs to 90% for Alpine Herblands. FEIS at 184. Moreover, the Handbook states that those thresholds should be revised “for site-specificity for rangeland project analysis . . .” FSH 2209.21, Ch. 20 at §22.1 (2005). Throughout the FEIS, the Forest Service treats this Handbook as binding direction. See e.g., FEIS at 150 (stating that range analysis handbook “directs” current management). Because it is incorporated into the EIS and “treated by the agency as binding, it is arbitrary and capricious to violate provisions of the handbook.” Rocky Mountain Wild v. Vilsack, 843 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1196 (D. Colo. 2012) (discussing Region 2 incorporating Soil Management Handbook in an Environmental Assessment by discussing what that handbook “directs”); see also, Ecology Ctr. v. Castaneda, 574 F.3d 652, 660 (9th Cir.2009). The Forest Service, therefore, may not use binding agency policy as it sees fit or ignore its direction for other less reliable information in favor of another anti-grazing standard.

2. ROD Does Not Adopt Conclusions of O’Brien Report

As mentioned above, the ROD purports to adopt thresholds identified by the O’Brien report. FEIS at 184. The Forest Service, however, has misused this report as it does not support the proposition for which it is cited.

Initially, the report provides that “[t]he minimum ground cover needed for proper functioning sustainable watersheds for the four Bridger-Teton cover types used in this pilot are:

Cover Type Percent Ground Cover Aspen 95 Alpine 90 Mountain big sagebrush 85 Tall forb 80

Attach. 7, O’Brien Report at 2. Immediately after the table, the authors state that “[t]he ground cover threshold values for watershed protection used in this study were derived from baseline material collected throughout the Intermountain Region from healthy and functional rangelands (appendix B).” Id. In other words, the authors did not conclude that these thresholds should be implemented. Instead, the authors estimated whether the Bridger-Teton National Forest would rise to these thresholds based on a review of data produced by the FIA program.

Page 17 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District The O’Brien report unequivocally concludes that the Bridger-Teton will not rise to these thresholds. In the Results and Discussion section, the O’Brien report compares the “thresholds” in the ROD with the actual FIA data on the forest Id. at 4. The O’Brien report then compares its findings with the thresholds set out at the beginning of the report. Id. The O’Brien report concludes that those estimates were significantly less than the “thresholds” derived from the baseline material identified in Appendix B. A brief review of Figure 3 shows that the O’Brien estimates never reach the threshold levels on the Bridger-Teton. Id. at 6. Moreover, even the estimates produced by O’Brien et al. vary by as much as 20%. Id. For example, the O’Brien authors conclude that “[t]he estimated average ground cover for the tall forb type is 67 percent, plus or minus 6, compared to the threshold value of 80.” Id. at 4,6 (potential error of 12%).

The O’Brien report, therefore, does not support the proposition for which it is used – that the forage cover thresholds on the Upper Green should exceed those of the Forest Service handbook for Region 4. To the contrary, the O’Brien report actually shows that no site on the Bridger-Teton will rise to these levels. Thus, the Forest Service’s choice to implement these thresholds is directly contradicted by the studies it cites, is not supported by the facts, strays from binding agency direction, and is a prototypical example of arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking.

D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection

The appropriate remedy is to adopt the ground cover objectives set out in the Forest Service Handbook as supported by the O’Brien report as follows:

Cover Type Percent Ground Cover Aspen >80% Alpine >90% Mountain big sagebrush >70% Tall forb >65%

E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider

Again, The BT-LRMP provides that standards for “ground cover, plant vigor, soil disturbance, [and] streambank stability” will be developed by the ID Team to achieve site-specific

Page 18 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District objectives. BT-LRMP at 177. The ID Team will develop these site-specific standards at the AMP level. Id. Thus, it makes no sense – indeed, directly contradicts the BT-LRMP – to implement a one-size-fits-all standard when site-specific objectives may demand a different response altogether.

V. OBJECTION ISSUE 4: SPECIES COMPOSITION OBJECTIVE

A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto

The ROD provides that “[t]he species composition objective for the project area is plant communities in mid-seral or later ecological status with stable or upward ecologic trend in plant species composition.” ROD at 6. The ROD also provides that “[t]he consequence of failing to meet long-term objectives will be either to implement adaptive management, or to require management changes that are determined by an interdisciplinary team and are likely to result in improvement.” Id. at 20. The ROD does not specify the scale at which species composition will be measured and when this objective will trigger management changes.

B. Connection Statement

This management objective was not included in any of the alternatives in the DEIS stage and thus the Objectors could not comment. While Forest Service rules attempt to limit objections to issues raised during public comment, the ROD varies significantly from the DEIS. The Forest Service may not ambush the public with a dramatically different decision.

C. Species Composition Objective Is Arbitrary and Capricious

1. FEIS Fails to Analyze and Disclose Impacts of Species Composition Objective

NEPA requires the Forest Service to “consider the environmental impacts of their actions, disclose those impacts to the public, and then explain how their actions will address those impacts.” W. Org. of Res. Councils v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 591 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1228–29 (D. Wyo. 2008), aff'd sub nom. BioDiversity Conservation All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 608 F.3d 709 (10th Cir. 2010). An EIS must assess and disclose direct and indirect effects, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16, 1508.8, and consider “every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action. ” Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062, 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2002).

Page 19 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District Neither the DEIS nor the FEIS analyze and disclose the impacts of the resulting management if the species composition objective is not met at a particular site. The ROD provides that “[t]he consequence of failing to meet long-term objectives will be either to implement adaptive management, or to require management changes that are determined by an interdisciplinary team and are likely to result in improvement.” Id. at 20. The FEIS, however, does not state whether data from a single site will trigger a change for the pasture or the allotment or otherwise and, therefore, has not disclosed the direct impact of the objective included in the ROD. Kern, 284 F.3d at 1073 (NEPA requires agencies to “articulate, publicly and in detail, the reasons for and likely effects of ... decisions, and to allow public comment on that articulation.”).

2. Forest Service Arbitrarily Defined Mid-Seral Plant Community

Failing to disclose critical data upon which the agency relies in reaching a decision is antithetical to NEPA’s twin aims. WildEarth Guardians v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 870 F.3d 1222, 1237 (10th Cir. 2017). Not only must an agency consider every significant aspect of a proposed action, but it must inform the public that it has indeed considered the impacts of the action. Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). The Forest Service has failed on both accounts.

In the DEIS, the Forest Service states that “[m]id-seral is defined as a 50 percent similarity in plant species to a potential natural community.” DEIS at 13. In response to a public comment, the Forest Service states “[t]he EIS has been corrected to described [sic] “mid-seral” as 26-50% of the Potential Natural Condition.” FEIS at 645. The mid-seral ecological status is a “threshold” that triggers a mandatory management response. See DEIS at 199; ROD at 20.

The DEIS, the FEIS, and Rangeland Specialist Report, however, do not describe the methods the Forest Service used to identify the upper and lower limits of the mid-seral ecological status despite being obligated to do so under CEQ regulations. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24 (agencies “shall identify any methodologies used”). As such, the Forest Service failed to “articulate, publicly and in detail, the reasons for and likely effects of ... decisions, and to allow public comment on that articulation.” Kern, 284 F.3d at 1073. The Objectors could not review any data, studies, or other information that the Forest Service used to reach its decision. WildEarth Guardians, 870 F.3d at 1237. The Forest Service’s analysis is, therefore, fatally deficient – lacking in all material respects essential to NEPA’s twin aims of analysis and disclosure.

Page 20 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District 3. Mid-Seral Status As Management Trigger is Arbitrary and Capricious

The Forest Service must provide a reasonable path of its decisionmaking process, tracing the facts to the Forest Service’s considerations and ultimately the decision it has reached. Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke's Med. Ctr. v. Thompson, 362 F. Supp. 2d 25, 32 (D.D.C. 2005). If the facts do not support the decision, the ROD will be set aside. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 463 U.S. at 43.

The FEIS states that of the 26 pastures in the Project Area, 24 pastures were meeting the species composition objective. FEIS at 184-185. The FEIS documents that the allotments in the Project Area are meeting objectives. See FEIS at 187-89. The BT-LRMP does not include a mid- seral standard for plant species. Thus, the need for such a standard is clearly inconsistent with both the existing analysis and the controlling forest plan. Without direction from the land use plan and any analysis of how plant species objectives are not being met, the rationale for the objective in the ROD is manufactured from facts that have not been disclosed and analyzed.

D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection

The appropriate remedy is to “[m]odify the proposed project or activity to make it consistent with the applicable plan components” by revising the ROD to eliminate species composition as a management trigger that is not contemplated by the BT-LRMP. 36 C.F.R. §219.15(c)(1).

E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider

The BT-LRMP provides that “ID Teams will prescribe other proper-use standards to achieve site-specific objectives for the rangeland being managed.” BTLRMP at 177. The ID Team will develop these site-specific standards at the AMP level. Id. Thus, it makes no sense – indeed, directly contradicts the BT-LRMP – to implement a one-size-fits-all objective as a management trigger for all allotments when site-specific objectives may demand a different response altogether for a different allotment.

VI. OBJECTION ISSUE 5: TABLE 1 LIVESTOCK GRAZING STRATEGY FOR UPPER GREEN RIVER – MUD LAKE/FISH CREEK ROTATION

A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto

Page 21 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District Table 1 in the ROD describes the grazing strategy for each of the pastures and allotments in the Project Area. ROD at 8-12. The Table describes the grazing system, allowable use, improvements and other specifications by pasture and allotment.

For the Mud Lake / Fish Creek rotation, the ROD provides:

Relocate fence to move Crow Creek into Mud Lake West pasture and consider development of up to two water sources one from Crow Creek and/or a spring within three full field seasons of project decision.

ROD at 10. The Forest Service directs that a fence be moved before the water sources are analyzed.

B. Connection Statement

In its comments to the DEIS, Sommers Ranch, the Cattlemen’s Association, and the District requested that the Forest Service “meet with permittees regarding the Mud Lake pasture fence realignment along Crow Creek. The Creek is armored and provides good water to the pasture which was the original intent according to the permittees. Realigning the fence would put increased pressure on the Green River which may not be a desired outcome.” Attach. 1, Cmnt. 33; Attach. 2, Cmnt. 33.

C. Environmental Analysis and ROD Violates Law, Regulations, and Policy

The FEIS states that the Forest Service “would relocate approximately 0.2 mile of fence in the southwest corner of Mud Lake East Pasture uphill to the east. This would remove Crow Creek from the Mud Lake East Pasture and place it in the Mud Lake West Pasture.” FEIS at 93. Replacement water for the Mud Lake East Pasture is not identified in the FEIS or the ROD. Instead, the FEIS states that “[t]he Forest Service would consider water development(s) from up to two water sources in the Mud Lake East Pasture, a water source from Crow Creek and/or a spring to the east of Crow Creek. The proposal to implement water developments would be scoped pursuant to Forest Service Handbook 1909.15.31.3 and analyzed under NEPA in a separate document.” Id. (Emphasis added).

If a proposed action fits within a categorical exclusion, NEPA review is not required unless there are “extraordinary circumstances” related to the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4; Forest

Page 22 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District Service Handbook, 1909.15.31.1. Extraordinary circumstances are those circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have significant environmental effect. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4. The scoping process is used to determine “the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action.” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7. The Forest Service conducts scoping for “all proposed actions, including those that would appear to be categorically excluded.” Forest Service Handbook, 1909.15.31.3. If the Forest Service determines there are no extraordinary circumstances, “[t]he agency must supply a convincing statement of reasons why potential effects are insignificant.” Alaska Ctr. For Env't v. U.S. Forest Serv., 189 F.3d 851, 859 (9th Cir. 1999).

The Forest Service does not provide a convincing statement for why relocating the fence to move Crow Creek into Mud Lake West pasture will not produce significant impacts to those pastures. Id. To the contrary, the Forest Service has elected to move a fence that will fundamentally change the use of two pastures. Moreover, without a new source of water that is currently analyzed and implemented in this ROD, the livestock will have to drop approximately 300 vertical feet to get water from the Green River and will not likely return up the ridge – but will continue on down the river. Once on the river, there is no fencing to limit their travel. So, the addition of one fence would require construction of further range improvements. None of these impacts are disclosed.

Moreover, the ROD ensures that Western Watersheds Project will object and appeal the decision with the argument that changes in distribution and sources of water will also entail changes in grazing patterns that have not been analyzed in the FEIS. See e.g., BLM 191 IBLA 144, 247 (Sept. 2017) (WWP arguing impacts from new water troughs were not considered); W. Watersheds Project v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 2015 WL 846548, at *7 (D. Ariz. Feb. 26, 2015) (same); Watersheds Project v. Leaverston, No. 2011 WL 2415546, at *9 (D. Colo. June 16, 2011) (same).

D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection

The Forest Service has not properly analyzed the impacts of the proposed action and the appropriate remedy is to revise the ROD to allow the fence to stay where it is until a new source of water is analyzed.

Page 23 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider

It is a fundamental tenant of range management that location of water dictates what pastures are used and when. It makes little sense to move a fence on the premise that new water sources will be analyzed and developed after the pasture, rotation, and other grazing prescriptions are determined because the addition of water may completely change the use.

VII. OBJECTION ISSUE 6: UPPER GREEN ELK FEED GROUND STRAY CATTLE PRESCRIPTION

A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto

The ROD provides that on the Upper Green Elk Feedground “ [n]o salting would be allowed and livestock would not intentionally be placed here. Any stray cattle would be actively herded away.” ROD at 10. Later in the ROD, the Forest Service only states that livestock “will not be intentionally placed at the feedground.” ROD at 17. Livestock will also be actively herded away from Dollar Lake.

B. Connection Statement

In its comments to the DEIS, SCCD, Sommers Ranch, and the Cattlemen’s Association commented that the Forest Service has provided no rationale for the decision to actively herd cattle away from the feedground in the fall. Attach. 1, Cmnt. 23; Attach. 2, Cmnt. 23.

C. Environmental Analysis and ROD Violates Law, Regulations, and Policy

The purpose of the Upper Green River elk feedground is to provide “supplemental” feed for wintering elk. See BT-LRMP at 34. Supplemental feed is that forage above what is produced by the land. Id. at 19. Approximately 1,089 elk winter on the Upper Green and Black Butte feedgrounds. FEIS at 19-20. Assuming the supplemental feeding continues, there “is sufficient herbaceous forage available for livestock, elk, mule deer, moose, and pronghorn.” Id. at 20. Without supplemental forage, however, there is no forage at those feedgrounds to support elk. As the Objectors commented during the DEIS phase, “[t]he feedground doesn’t provide any winter feed for elk due to the plant community that is present as a result of feeding elk over the years.” Attach. 1, Cmnt. 23; Attach. 2 at Cmnt. 23.

Page 24 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District If there is no supplemental feed at the feedgrounds, then there is no forage for elk, and, therefore, there is no reason to “actively herd away” livestock. Livestock will not be in competition with elk and there is no need – indeed no rationale explanation – for requiring the permittees to spend additional time and resources riding the allotments to implement a management prescription that has no benefit to elk or the range resources. The FEIS is devoid of any facts that support the Forest Service’s position that “active herding” is necessary – or even reasonable. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 463 U.S. at 43 (1983) (agency action that “runs counter to the evidence” before it is arbitrary and capricious).

The ROD also provides that “cattle will continue to be actively herded away from . . . Dollar Lake.” ROD at 16. This is an incorrect statement because the permittees have never been required to actively herd livestock away from this area and there appears no rationale for starting to do so now since Dollar Lake is meeting resource objectives.

D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection

The Objectors have no issue with not intentionally placing livestock on the feedground but the imposition of active herding of stray animals is unreasonable and should be struck from the ROD. Moreover, the Objectors believe Dollar Lake should be removed from the active herding prescription.

E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider

Year-to-year variability in the number of elk on the feedground and the duration of their time on the feedground heavily weigh against a blanket prescription against any additional measures other than an intentional avoidance of livestock in those areas. Supplemental feeding varies in both amount and timing and thus the Forest Service should work with permittees on preventing animals from straying to the feedgrounds as necessary.

VIII. OBJECTION ISSUE 7: WAGON CREEK FOCUS AREA ELECTRIC FENCE

A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto

The ROD provides that for the Wagon Creek Focus Area an “[e]lectric fence is in place at existing exclosure when cattle are using the pasture. Implement 6” stubble height outside exclosure

Page 25 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District within the focus area boundary.” ROD at 11. In Appendix A, the ROD states that “[t]he permittees will maintain an existing electric fence exclosure (0.7 miles) when the cattle are using the pasture.” ROD at A-19 (emphasis added). The FEIS uses similar language to describe this prescription. FEIS at 255. Moreover, the permittees may not use an electric fence in riparian areas – electric tape is now mandatory in these areas. ROD at 17.

The Permittees originated the practice, developed it to its current use, and have always voluntarily maintained the fence. Never has an electric fence been mandatory or implemented without reference to obtaining resource objectives. Never has electric tape been required or necessary to avoid impacts to wildlife.

B. Connection Statement

In its comments to the DEIS, SCCD, Sommers Ranch, and the Cattlemen’s Association inquired of the Forest Service whether Wagon Creek would be fenced in perpetuity or if the fencing would be tethered to resource objectives since the language of the ROD indicates that the electric fence will be used forever. Attach. 1, Cmnt. 25; Attach. 2, Cmnt. 25.

The Forest Service responded to the Objectors concern by stating that:

The Wagon Creek Exclosure was fenced by the permittees as a management tool to avoid overuse of this small area that is very attractive to livestock. In the action alternatives, the Wagon Creek Exclosure is proposed to continue to be fenced to allow the area to continue to move towards desired condition. Desired condition for this stream segment is to have a healthy functioning riparian system. Specific site objectives and thresholds for this small exclosure are not necessary for this effort, as none of the alternatives would cause additional environmental effects beyond what are described for the entire pasture under each alternative.

FEIS at 628 (emphasis added).

C. Environmental Analysis and ROD Violates Law, Regulations, and Policy

The FEIS states that the Wagon Creek focus area is too small to develop site specific objectives for the implementation of an electric fence. FEIS at 628. Indeed, the site is so small that

Page 26 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District “none of the alternatives would cause additional environmental effects beyond what are described for the entire pasture under each alternative.” Id.

Despite the lack of any identified impacts – i.e. any management need – the ROD implements a mandatory electric fence without any limitation to its use other than the presence of livestock. By the terms of the ROD, the permittees would be unable to use any other management practice – if any were even necessary. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 471 (1983) (recognizing that the word “will,” like “shall” and “must,” is “of an unmistakably mandatory character”), vacated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Without any need, and without any reference to well defined resource objectives served by the fence, the new prescription lacks support in the record and appears purely punitive in nature.

Similarly, the FEIS includes literally zero discussion of the Forest Service’s choice to require electric tape in riparian areas over other more viable options including fence markers. There is no data – no published literature – that demonstrates that electric tape works better to deter bird and fowl strikes than markers traditionally used for sage-grouse and other birds. Lacking an explanation, the choice appears arbitrary and capricious.

D. Suggested Remedies To Resolve the Objection

The Objectors would request that the ROD be amended to provide that an electric fence may be used if resource conditions indicate that objectives will benefit from use of an electric fence and that the fence is used for a finite amount of time as referenced by discrete and quantifiable resource conditions. The permittees have always removed the fence as soon as the resources reached objective – that is precisely what should continue through this ROD.

E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider

As explained above, the BT-LRMP provides that “ID Teams will prescribe other proper-use standards to achieve site-specific objectives for the rangeland being managed.” BT-LRMP at 177. The ID Team will develop these site-specific standards at the AMP level. Id. Thus, it makes no sense – indeed, directly contradicts the BT-LRMP – to implement a mandatory management action when the practice has worked smoothly without requirement by an agency document.

Page 27 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District IX. OBJECTION ISSUE 8: TEPEE CREEK PERMANENT FENCE

A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto

The ROD provides that in the Tepee Creek Allotment the Permitees will “[c]onstruct [a] permanent fence along Tepee Creek from downstream of the bridge to the change in gradient with water gap and hardened crossing.” Id. at 12.

Cooperative data developed by the Forest Service and the District demonstrate that current management, including a range rider, have significantly improved the condition of the stream banks on Tepee Creek from 1982 forward and there is no indication that this trend will not continue. Similarly, the Forest Service cites to no data that would support the position that electric tape should be used in riparian areas.

B. Connection Statement

In its comments to the DEIS, SCCD, Sommers Ranch, and the Cattlemen’s Association stated that “cooperative data shows huge gains in the health of Tepee Creek in a cooperative report showing photos from 1982 through 2002 of the focus area.” why build the fence if data shows otherwise?” Attach. 1, Cmnt. 38; Attach. 2, Cmnt. 38.

The Forest Service responded to the Objectors concern by stating that:

Livestock exclusion of areas of known bank stability concern on Tepee Creek would meet the Forest Plan Livestock Grazing of Riparian Area Standard. The Forest Service is aware that the exclosure could result in heavier use in areas outside the exclosure as livestock trail around the exclosure, but the overall stream condition of Tepee Creek is expected to improve at a faster rate than it would without the exclosure.

FEIS at 634 (emphasis added).

Page 28 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District C. Environmental Analysis and ROD Violates Law, Regulations, and Policy

According to the BT-LRMP, the Forest Service goal on the Project Area is to “improve overall range, soils, water, wildlife, and recreation values and experiences.” BT-LRMP at 150. To do so, the BT-LRMP sets an objective of “[r]etain[ing] or enhanc[ing] riparian vegetation, stream-channel stability, sensitive soils, and water quality where livestock are present.” Id. The guideline for stream bank stability is “vegetation should be maintained to 80 percent of its potential natural condition or an HCI rating of 85 or greater.” Id. at 156. And, finally, the standard for stream bank stability provides that “[l]ivestock grazing in riparian areas will be managed to protect stream banks.” Id. at 177.

Neither the BT-LRMP nor the forest service regulations require the Forest Service to meet any goal, objective, or standard “at a faster rate” than the existing management that is currently – and historically – trending upward. FEIS at 634 (quoted above). As Figure 61 demonstrates, stream banks in 1982 lacked vegetation and banks were sloughing considerably compared to photographs taken in 2009. Id. at 241. Under current management, the permittees have herded livestock away from the stream banks, id. at 58, and as the FEIS acknowledges, stream bank stability has been trending upward. Id. at 240.

The Objectors worked in earnest with the Forest Service for more than two decades, improved the condition of the range, and now the Forest Service states that precisely the same management actions that are currently improving the range are insufficient. This, the agency may not do – “unexplained conflicting findings about the environmental impacts of a proposed agency action violate the APA.” Organized Vill. of Kake v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 795 F.3d 956, 969 (9th Cir. 2015). The Forest Service has ignored the relevant data, offered a rationale for improving stream bank conditions that is not supported by the controlling land and resource plan, and concludes that improvement under the current management is insufficient. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, 375 F.3d 1182, 1187 (D.C.Cir.2004)(courts will not defer to an agency’s unsupported and conclusory assertions); Marble Mountain Audubon Society v. Rice, 914 F.2d 179, 182 (9th Cir.1990). Alone, this is a fatal flaw to the FEIS.

D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection

There is no reason that the Forest Service must implement a permanent fence when the available evidence demonstrates that a range rider and other voluntary measures taken by permitees

Page 29 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District are improving stream bank stability. The Objectors would respectfully request that the ROD be amended to remove the prescription for a permanent fence. Instead the ROD should provide for voluntary measures including range riding or other measures that the Permitees and the Forest Service may come up with at the AMP stage.

E. Supporting Reasons for the Reviewing Officer to Consider

The FEIS admits that “[b]y removing this portion of stream from the available area to graze on Tepee, this may just push the effects of livestock use on the riparian area from one portion of the stream to another within this pasture so while alteration may be eliminated in one segment of Tepee Creek, it could increase on another segment of the stream channel.” FEIS at 264 (emphasis added).

A similar concentration of impacts would not occur using the current management. Range riders are able to adapt to the conditions on the ground in real time. On Day 1, livestock could be moved 200 feet up with river while on Day 2, livestock could be moved 200 feet south. A permanent fence cannot adjust to new circumstances and will not continue the improving trend.

X. OBJECTION ISSUE 9: 270 AUM REDUCTION

A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto

The ROD provides that “[t]his decision reduces the number of cattle previously authorized in the Mosquito Lake rotation in the Upper Green River Allotment by 15% or 270 head of cattle.” ROD at 13. The rationale for the reduction is that the ROD would reflect “inactive or expired permits which would remain unallocated.” FEIS at 136.

The reduction is inconsistent with direction in the BTLRMP and County and District plans and policies.

B. Connection Statement

The District, Sommers Ranch, and the Cattlemen’s Association commented that “the 270 head reduction in the permitted use goes against SCCD’s Public Land Use Policy of no net loss of AUM’s.” Attach. 1, Cmnt. 13; Attach. 2, Cmnt. 13. The County also noted that the proposed action

Page 30 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District would not be consistent with county plans and policies and the BT-LRMP. Attach. 3 at pp. 3-4; Attach. 4 at pp 1-2.

C. Environmental Analysis and ROD Violates Law, Regulations, and Policy

1. ROD Is Inconsistent With Local Plans, Policies, and Forest Plan

The FEIS acknowledges that the ROD conflicts with the County Plan, the County Policy, the District Policies. FEIS at 624. In another response to comment, the Forest Service states that “[o]ne grazing Permit was cancelled because the Permittee chose not to graze livestock, and chose not to waive grazing privileges in favor of anyone else. This provided a unique opportunity to reduce the authorized number of livestock in one of the rotations to address identified resource issues, without affecting the authorized use of any current Permittee.” Id. at 629. The FEIS explicitly states, however, that this allotment is meeting objectives related to rangeland vegetation. Id. at 189. The 270 AUM reduction, therefore, is not based on resource conditions or any “identified resource issues” other than the agency’s antipathy toward grazing.

As a result, the reduction directly conflicts with County plans and policies. The Sublette County Federal and State Land Use Policy (2009) (“County Policy”) declares the Forest Service “will not adjust animal unit months” without a scientifically based justification. Attach. 8, County Policy at 24; see also Attach. 9, Sublette County Comprehensive Plan, at 19, 61 (2005) (“County Plan”). Retirement of AUMs is expressly prohibited. Attach. 8, County Policy at 24. Any suspended or unissued AUMs must be returned when conditions improve. Id.

The reduction also conflicts with the District’s policies. It is the District’s formal position that“forage for livestock may not be reduced for allocation to other uses,” and that “the amount of domestic livestock forage, expressed in animal unit months, for permitted, active use as well as wildlife forage, be no less than the maximum number of animal unit months sustainable by range conditions in grazing allotments and districts, based on an on-the-ground and scientific analysis.” Attach. 10, Sublette County Conservation District Public Land Use Policies at 16-17. The district opposes relinquishment, retirement, or suspension of AUMs without a rational and scientific explanation. Id. at 17-18.

Finally, the BT-LRMP requires that the Forest Service “[p]rovide forage for about 260,000 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of livestock grazing annually.” BT-LRMP at 141. The BT-LRMP

Page 31 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District also recognizes that the majority of “the local ranches [are] dependent on the National Forest for summer forage” – “[t]he social and economic structure of Western Wyoming is tied directly to ranching.” Id. at 38. According to the BT-LRMP, all livestock grazing is to be managed pursuant to the terms of Allotment Management Plans, id. at 176, and it is presumed that vacant allotments or pastures should be restocked or incorporated into adjacent allotments unless there is a benefit to other resources. Id. Thus, the ROD not only drops the AUMs issued in direct conflict with the BT- LRMP but it fails to reissue those AUMs since it is clear that the allotment in question is meeting objectives.

Due to the conflict with each of these controlling documents, the ROD has violated the longstanding rule that all actions must be consistent with the controlling forest plan, 16 U.S.C. 1604(i), and local government plans and policies. 36 C.F.R. § 219.4(b). Moreover, the Forest Service has completely failed to heed the Objector’s oral and written comments and generally cast away its responsibility to cooperate to the maximum extent possible. 40 C.F.R. § 1506.2(b) (“[a]gencies shall cooperate with State and local agencies to the fullest extent possible . . .”).

2. Allotment is Meeting Objectives and Reduction Is Arbitrary and Capricious

As mentioned above, the FEIS states that the reduction in AUMs is due to the fact that a grazing permittee chose not to graze livestock and thus the permit was cancelled. FEIS at 624. The FEIS also briefly mentions “resource issues” but concludes that this particular allotment is meeting resources objectives. Id. at 189. The ROD, therefore, authorizes a reduction in AUMs despite the fact that the FEIS concluded that the allotment was meeting objectives.

The Forest Service must provide a reasoned and thorough explanation for that decision. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 463 U.S. at 43. Nowhere, however, has the Forest Service explained why the reduction of 270 AUMs is necessary when the Upper Green River Allotment – of which the Mosquito Rotation is a part – is meeting resource objectives. As the Objectors stated to the Forest Service both in comment and verbally, the 270 AUMs could be allocated in a variety of different ways. There is no rule that states waiver requires cancellation. Lacking the requisite connection between the facts found and the decision made, this aspect of the ROD will be set aside on appeal.

Page 32 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District D. Suggested Remedies That Would Resolve the Objection

The Objectors would encourage the Forest Service to reissue the AUMs to another permittee in the allotment or spread the AUMs across several permittees to disperse the AUMs across the landscape as outlined in FSH 2209.13, Chapter 10.

XI. OBJECTION ISSUE 10: WOLF AND GRIZZLY DEPREDATIONS

A. Description of Aspects of Proposed Project and Specific Issues Related Thereto

At pages 17 through 18, the ROD provides a list of management measures for grizzly bears which includes conservation measures from the U.S. Forest Service Biological Assessment and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion (2014). The ROD states that “Permittees and the Forest Service will continue to identify and implement opportunities that reduce the potential for grizzly bear conflicts.” ROD at 18. The ROD does not specify what constitutes an opportunity.

B. Connection Statement

The Objectors stated in the comments to the DEIS that “[h]aving the ability to move pastures in response to large carnivores is essential along with actual use standards, weather, and other triggers.” Attach. 1, Cmnt. 12; Attach. 2, Cmnt. 12.

C. Environmental Analysis and ROD Violates Law, Regulations, and Policy

In 2014 permittees on TePee Creek requested that they be granted the ability to move from summer pasture to lower grazing grounds due to increased depredation by grizzlies. Larkspur, a plant that is lethal to cattle if ingested, was in full bloom and causing significant losses in the summer pasture. Because that pasture was in wilderness, the permittees could not move the carcasses and the carcasses attracted several bears. In turn, those grizzlies began killing calves and several range riders could not keep the cattle on that particular pasture. The permittees then suggested to the Forest Service that a new rotation may reduce the conflict. Forest Service allowed the permittee to move to lower pasture and come back after the larkspur was no longer in bloom. The new management scheme worked and the ROD adopts this new management scheme.

The ROD does not, however, specify that Forest Service may grant changes in rotation or allow other changes as to how permittees may move throughout the pastures or allotments in the

Page 33 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen’s Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District Project Area. As is clear from example set by TePee Creek, permittees need flexibility to respond to a host of changing circumstances by staying mobile and being able to move throughout the pash.1res.

' . ~ - D. Suggested Remedies That Wo lJ;ld Resolve tlze Objection

The Objectors would suggest that the ROD be revised slightly to· specify changes to the rotation to reduce conflicts to predation.

XII. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

The Objectors respectfully request that the Forest Service revise the ROD to conform to the BT-LRMP, adopt standards and objectives that are based in cooperative data, and allow the pem1ittees to graze on the Project Area with flexible, responsive, and reliable methods according to all of the objections herein.

The Objectors also request that the Forest Service notify the District, the County, the Cattlemen' s Association, and Sommers Ranch of any and all hearings regarding objections submitted to the Forest Service.

Finally, the Objectors expressly request a meeting with the Forest Service and all other Cooperating Agencies to discuss the issues in this Objection and those identified by the Wyoming Department of Agriculture and any objections raised by other Objectors.

Resp~ 8'" Day of January, 201 ~ ~~

Andrew G. Nelson, Chairman Coke Landers, Chairman Sublette County Commissioners Sublette County Conservation District >- Albert Sommers, President Albeti Sommers Upper Green River Cattlemen's Association Sommers Ranch, LLC

Page 34 Objections of Upper Green River Cattlemen's Association, Sommers Ranch, Sublette County, Sublette County Conservation District

ATTACHMENT 1

Upper Green River Area Rangeland Project DEIS September 2016 Albert Sommers Comments

My name is Albert Sommers, and I am President of the Upper Green River Cattle Association. These comments represent the Sommers Ranch, LLC’s comments and the Association’s comments to the Upper Green River Area Rangeland Project DEIS. This association was formed at the request of the Forest Service, 100 years ago this year. My family has a livestock grazing permit on the Upper Green River Cattle Allotment, and our cattle have grazed the Upper Green since around 1900. Livestock grazing was occurring in the Upper Green prior to my family’s arrival in the valley. Certainly, there is at least a 125 year livestock grazing history in the project area, and the area continues to have some of the greatest diversity of wildlife of any forest in Wyoming. In fact, the project area is home to at least three endangered species, and prominent sensitive species like Boreal Toad and Greater Sage Grouse. The DEIS states on Page vii of the executive summary that actual livestock numbers are 68% of permitted. However, livestock numbers have been closer to permitted numbers in the not so distant past, and on Page v of the executive summary the DEIS states “The existing conditions in the 170,643 acre project area encompassing the six allotments predominantly meets the resource objectives and the desired conditions. Limited areas of concern have been identified…” With 125 years of grazing and limited areas of concern, we support Alternative 2, Grazing as Currently Permitted and Current Management. The Forest Service has always had the ability to address areas of concern, and we have a long history of working closely with the Forest Service. The Upper Green River Cattle Association members were some of the first permittees to initiate a Cooperative Permittee Monitoring program at the Forest’s request. We began this cooperative monitoring program in 1996, and we now have 20 years of data showing a stable or upward trend, see attached papers by Glenn Owings titled “Quantifying Influences on Line Point Intercept Estimates of Plant Cover” and “Trend Summary by Pasture.”

The DEIS does not provide adequate and scientific documentation that would show current permitted use and management, Alternative 2, in the Upper Green River Cattle Allotment would lead to objectives not being met. The analysis seems to hinge on the assumption that under Alternative 2 maximum utilization standards in the Bridger- Teton Forest Plan would be realized on the landscape, thus resulting in range degradation. The forest plan standard in the uplands is 60% utilization for range in satisfactory condition and 50% for range in unsatisfactory condition. The standard for riparian areas is 65% utilization for riparian areas in satisfactory and 55% for those in unsatisfactory. Pages 203 and 204 of the DEIS try to make the case that the B-T Forest Plan utilization standards are not appropriate, and in fact it states “…effects of 60 percent forage utilization on key forage species in the Upper Green River project area is expected to result in a decreased ability for palatable plants to maintain themselves, resulting in decreases in ground cover and a downward trend in species composition.” The DEIS cites Holechek 2004, which was a study conducted in arid landscapes, not the moister more resilient landscape of the Upper Green. The DEIS further states that 50% utilization rates will result in “stable ground cover and species composition.” The DEIS should say if the pasture is in satisfactory condition then graze to forest plan standards. If the current utilization requirements in the B-T Forest Plan are not adequate, then the forest plan should be amended. However, the forest service should not use the Upper Green grazing EIS as a vehicle to amend the forest plan. Forest Plan amendments are held to higher bar, and the forest service appears to be using this EIS to set a precedent for the whole forest. This is occurring not just with utilization rates, but also with retention objectives for amphibians, see page v of the executive summary. One hundred and twenty five years of Alternative 2 has resulted in a landscape teeming with plant and animal diversity, not the degradation suggested in this DEIS if current permitted use were to continue. Actual livestock numbers on the Upper Green River Cattle Allotment

1 have been trending downward, and there is no reason to believe that scenario will change. However, the allotment ran at full cattle numbers for decades, and the range is still in good condition. The Forest Service has adequate regulatory control to alter grazing when problems are identified, or they have been lying to us for many years. By splitting Alternative 2 into two scenarios, permitted numbers with projected impacts from maximum number and current actual use impacts, the forest service has went down an unscientific path. It is common in EISs to have a current management alternative, but because the impacts by our current management was inconsequential, the DEIS created a fantasy world of impacts in the permitted number split out.

The DEIS uses these baseless assumptions on utilization impacts for Alternative 2, in the wildlife section, to conclude negative trends toward listing species under the Endangered Species. This speculation culminates in the absurd prediction on page 415 in the Greater Sage Grouse section, that Alternative 2, Grazing as Currently Permitted, “will impact individuals or habitat with consequence that the action will contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.” The sage grouse in the Upper Green are at the very fringe of the grouse’s range, and in fact you can often find sage grouse within a quarter mile of blue grouse. Sage grouse cannot sustain themselves in the Upper Green, and must travel nearly 50 miles to winter areas due to deep snow. These birds have multiple subdivisions to cross prior to even getting to the Upper Green. The Upper Green grouse are not included in Wyoming’s core population, and even if they were extirpated from the Upper Green their loss would not cause a loss of viability of the species or a trend toward federal listing.

The DEIS also speculates that Alternative 2 “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect grizzly bears”. The way this is written it suggests that the population would be adversely affected, not just individual bears. Most experts agree that the current livestock management in the Upper Green is NOT creating a population sink, so what is the forest service implying with this statement?

The DEIS speculates that Alternative 2 “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the Canada Lynx”. Does this mean that current management would adversely affect the species itself? The assumptions made on page 348 about the effects of grazing as currently permitted on the Upper Green Allotment on snow shoe hare habitat is totally unfounded. 125 years of grazing, under all kinds of utilization scenarios, has not resulted in large scale detrimental effects to snow shoe hare habitat. Has snow shoe hare habitat been mapped or assessed in the project area?

The DEIS states that Alternative 2 “will likely result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability”, of Boreal Toads. The paragraph before this statement on Page 388 has a sentence which states, “As stated above, grazing is not considered a primary cause of boreal population declines in most areas of the western United States.” There is no scientific documentation that suggests our 125 years of grazing has resulted in Boreal Toad declines in the area, and in fact they still persist in the project area.

In regard to great gray owls, the DEIS states on Page 443, “In the Western United States, pocket gophers can provide a buffer, as alternative prey that allow great gray owls to remain locally, although they may experience limited reproduction. Voles are generally adversely impacted by livestock grazing because they prefer tall, dense herbaceous cover and in some cases have disappeared from areas grazed by livestock (DeLong, D. 2009).” Pocket Gophers winter in areas where there is a heavy forb concentration, I have seen that my whole lifetime, and heavy livestock grazing can actually promote forb communities. The notion that current permitted grazing is impacting vole populations is entirely unsubstantiated, and the reference to (DeLong, D. 2009) is also part of a larger fault in the DEIS. I would ask for the supporting scientific information that linked vole declines to livestock grazing. Voles live very happily

2 within our heavily grazed hay meadows, and seem to have no problem subsisting. The DeLong cite follows a multitude of other cites in the DEIS referencing white papers produced by forest service personnel, and they include DeLong, O’Brien, Clay&Webster, among others. These papers are not peer reviewed publications, and at times they are used in this document for purposes that the author does not support. I have a peer reviewed document cited in this DEIS, and I would bet that these forest service white papers have not gone through that rigorous process of peer review. In fact, I have heard that virtually no peer review occurs with these types of papers.

The DEIS description of the Driveway does not include the driveway below Jim Creek residing on forest service land. The section of the driveway below Jim Creek is integral to our allotment. By not placing this portion of the Driveway in the analysis it seems to leave it in limbo, and then begs the question why the driveway section to the north of Highway 352 is included in the analysis. Either it should all be in, or all out. Page xi of the executive summary provides for a standard of 60% ground cover in the “Driveway”. The Driveway, as defined by the DEIS is a 200 ft. area either side of a heavily travelled forest service road. I assume the Driveway would include the road of about 35 ft., which means that a monitoring transect across the Driveway would include a stretch of completely bare ground road. I question whether 60% ground cover is an appropriate standard for this driveway, and this standard would be very difficult to meet on certain very narrow stretches of the Driveway south of Jim Creek.

The Upper Green River Cattle Association would ask for further consideration of an allotment boundary adjustment between the Kinky Creek pastures and the old Bacon Creek Allotment. The DEIS states on page 98, “North Kinky Creek Pasture serves as a contingency pasture with variable use by livestock. Conditions under which this pasture would be used include 1) to shorten the duration of livestock grazing in any of the other four pastures, 2) to alleviate predator problems, poisonous plant problems or to allow for rest of a pasture recovering from a wildfire or prescribed fire, and/or 3) to implement a rest rotation system. Livestock would be allowed to graze in this pasture for a maximum of 21 days within the same season of use for this rotation.” We had never discussed these options in a meeting with the forest service before this DEIS came out, but we had discussed the possibility of fencing off what is now called the South Kinky Creek Pasture. We also discussed with the forest service about the possibility of trading the North Kinky Creek Pasture for a like number of acres in the retired Bacon Creek Allotment, in a portion of that allotment which is bordered on two sides by our pastures. An EIS would be the perfect opportunity to facilitate this allotment boundary adjustment. The ground our allotment would gain is more open and would be better cattle country than the North Kinky Creek Pasture, which is better wildlife habitat. We hope the forest service will amend the DEIS and make this boundary adjustment as part of the ROD.

Historically, our Association, The Drift, has been allowed flexibility to move into the Upper Green Allotment, up to a week early, based upon range readiness on the forest and feed availability on our BLM permits to the south. Every year is a little different climatically, and occasionally, when we have an early dry spring, we find it necessary to move off of these southern BLM allotments and start our migration to the forest allotment a bit early. Typically, when it’s hot and dry early on the BLM, then those same weather patterns hasten the green up on the mountain. In the past, the Forest Service has allowed us to move onto the allotment up to a week early, usually only a couple of days early, when circumstances warrant it. We were told this flexibility would be written into the DEIS, but on Page 67 only the Gypsum Creek Pasture in our allotment was given that flexibility. The Gypsum Creek Pasture is the last pasture system we fill, because it is relatively high in elevation, requiring extra time to mature the grass. So, the DEIS gave flexibility in the only pasture system that we didn’t need it in, or would be desired in. The allotment is never filled in one day, and typically we start filling the pasture systems

3 starting about June 18th and culminating with the final cow drive into Gyp after July 1st. We have done this for decades. We need flexibility in turn on dates in the Tepee Creek, Mosquito Lake, and Mud Lake Pastures.

Further we would like the DEIS to reflect our new reality of moving through and back into pastures to avoid predation by large carnivores. Rotations have to change at times, depending upon the level of pressure from grizzlies and wolves. In fact, we want to try more movement of cattle, in an attempt to reduce large carnivore/livestock conflicts. We would request that verbiage be included in the DEIS to allow movements among pastures, with forest service consultation, to reduce conflict and address drought years.

The Socio-Economic analysis in this DEIS is wholly inadequate, and does not even attempt to evaluate the effects to livestock permittees in the project area of proposed changes in management required of Alternative 3 and 4. In fact, the DEIS basically states that elimination of grazing in Alternative 1 would have no socio-economic effect to Sublette County. The DEIS states, “This alternative would not cause changes in the local economy that will result in losses that render the economy unable to recover because the relative contribution of the project to the total economy is small. In addition, there exists a potential for increased recreational use by visitors who do not approve of cattle grazing in the Forest. The traditional uses, custom, and culture of Sublette County may be affected by implementing this alternative, but the effect would not result in the loss of those values.” The DEIS further states, “Approximately 19.2 percent of the private property in Sublette County is owned and managed as ranches.” This statement has to be false, as the vast majority of private land in Sublette County is active ranch land. While agriculture provides a small percentage of the tax base, it provides a consistent source of dollars to Sublette County’s communities, especially in the winter when stability is needed. Ranching is the glue that holds this county together, and those private lands are essential to the wildlife that exist in this county. Sublette County is home to some of the world’s largest ungulate migration corridors in the world, and they thread through private land used for ranching, including those who graze in the Upper Green. The Drift (our Association) has been recognized as one of the most unique cultural historic properties ever added to the National Register of Historic Places. To suggest that the loss of the Drift would not affect the custom and culture of Sublette County is insulting and inaccurate. How many pounds of beef do the ranchers in the project area provide to the people of this country? The loss of grazing in the project area would certainly affect the economics of individual ranchers, and likely drive most of them out of business. What are the effects on those families and traditions?

The socio-economic effects on permittees of implementing grazing guidelines in Alternative 3 and 4 are absent. The sage grouse guidelines alone could eliminate grazing in the Upper Green. The DEIS states on Page 419, “However, the 4-inch residual grass height post nesting season in the nesting habitat would be more difficult to maintain at 50 percent forage utilization in the upland and riparian/meadow areas.” Using 20 years of cooperative monitoring data the average un-grazed height for Idaho Fescue (dominant bunch grass in the Upper Green) is 5.3 inches. Calculating 50% utilization, using the USFS utilization wheel, would result in a ave. stubble height of about 7/8". To maintain a 4 inch post nesting stubble height in the uplands, the average use would be 2-3%. We feel that if the permittees are held to 2% use within 5.3 miles of the potential Big Bend lek, within nesting habitat, then grazing in the nesting habitat within the project area would cease to exist. This alone would eliminate our ability to utilize the Upper Green River Cattle Allotment. The DEIS has not been honest in its representation of the range of impacts that could occur to permittees from the management changes which are proposed. In fact, they just don’t cite any impacts to individual ranchers.

4

The Upper Green River Area Rangeland Project DEIS has been an ongoing effort for about 16 or 17 years. I doubt there is anyone left in the Pinedale District Office or the Bridger-Teton Supervisor’s office that was there when this EIS was initiated. The fact that a grazing EIS would require 700+ pages is inconceivable. The DEIS is inaccurate, lacks coherence, and lacks consistency often in the same paragraph. Simply, this is the poorest written EIS I have ever read, and I have read my fair share. Three alternatives in this document could eliminate the Drift from existence, and the framers of this document don’t even acknowledge the impacts to ranching families. The Upper Green River Cattle Association, at the request of the forest service, initiated a Cooperative Monitoring program on this allotment 20 years ago. We collectively, have more data on this allotment than most allotments put together in Wyoming, and yet the forest service barely recognizes that collective effort. This effort included cooperatively establishing objectives by pasture and site. The forest service could have changed objectives at any time, and on some sites and pastures we have cooperatively reacted to concerns. This is barely mentioned. We had one of the most productive, collaborative range management systems implemented in the West, and yet the DEIS ignores it and seems to indicate the sky is falling, while in the same paragraph it will say everything is good. There are few concrete vegetative objectives in this document. What do we need to manage for to maintain the appropriate species composition? Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) are how rangelands are managed today, not by basing analysis on misapplied metrics provided by a non-peer reviewed white paper by O’Brien. Our association has been the best partner the forest service has likely had in the entire West. We have been proactive range managers, including efforts to reduce large carnivore predation. I am attaching a set of paragraph specific comments that I and the Sublette County Conservation District developed together. I am also attaching trend analysis done by a former employee of the District.

Sincerely,

Albert Sommers President of the Upper Green River Cattle Association

5

ABC D 1 Comment Number Page Number Paragraph Number Comment 1ix1 2 60% cover in the driveway is not an attainable objective when the driveway is defined as 200 feet either side of a forest service road. No mention of the ecological site potential if 7 inches is unattainable. Also no mention of the percentage of nesting habitat that needs 2 7 #13 3 to meet this objective within the project area.

SCCD would like the Forest to justify how they came to the conclusion that 70% retention is a science based number that is a benefit to 3 7 #14 the amphibian population within the project area. SCCD has done a review of the Delong paper and found several flaws in the use of the current scientfic literature in regards to the Boreal Toad and the Columbia Spotted frog. SCCD would encourage the Forest to stick with 4 peer reviewed liturature and avoid using non peer reviewed papers in this document.

4215Putting the standard for areas meeting resource objectives at 50 percent utilization and putting a 4 inch stubble height standard on the 5 greenline is essentially amending the forest plan on areas that are meeting objectives without amending the forest plan.

512380‐95% cover isn't related to ESD or other peer reviewed data.SCCD strongly encourages the Forest to utilize the current science when 6 picking standards or objectives. The 80‐95 percent ground cover objective doesn't appear to have any scientific backing. 7 6132SCCD would like clarification on what data was used to support the sites not meeting objectives. Permittees are unaware of the site on wagon creek in the nw pasture that is not meeting desired conditions. With the cooperative 7183monitoring program in place since 1996, communication on area of concern is vital to permittees so they can try to address areas not 8 meeting objectives. The adaptaive management tool prescribed in this document is to reduce use in order to shift species composition. In a state and 8221transition model reducing use won't shift species composition across a threshold without significant inputs outside of reduced livestock 9 grazing. The methodology used to calculate the suitable acres for grazing came up with 61,331 acres. According to the permittees this number 9521 10 seems extremely low. 11 10 52 4 SCCD believes that the USFS has the ability to reduce use through their AOI or other permit action if conditions warrant 12 11 56 1 Same as comment #9 on suitable grazing acres determination. Having the ability to move pastures in response to large carnivores is essential along with actual use standards, weather, and other 12 13 triggers. 14 13 66 4 The 270 head reduction in the permitted use goes against SCCD's Public Land Use Policy of no net loss of AUM's 14 67 6 15 The 270 head reduction should be taken out over the entire allotment and shouldn’t be taken out of the Mosquito Lake pasture system. 16 15 67 5 The shift of 7 days to either end of the grazing season is very important to having flexibility and adaptive management Then by putting a restriction on which pasture systems the Forest allows the 7 day shift takes away all flexability and adaptative 16 67 5 17 management. It should be in every allotment and pasture system analyzed under this EIS. SCCD believes in adapative management but when you give a 5 year average and then say 1 year can't exceed 50% utilization. This goes 17 71 3 18 against adaptive management.

18 73 1 SCCD doesn't correlate how increasing greenline standards will change species composition on the uplands to meet objectives. SCCD 19 encourages the Forest to address the issues in the uplands in the uplands not through the riparian management. SCCD believes that the 20% bank alteration standard isn't as repeatable and reliable of a method as stubble height and was never 19 73 2 20 designed to be used as a move on use standard just an indicator. 21 20 73 3 If livestock haven't been determined the causal factor then why start putting unwarranted standards on the permittees SCCD is unaware of amphiban breeding zones that have been delinated using some approved protocol. Also breeding dates haven't 21 74 3 been made available to the cooperating agencies or permittees to even know if livestock are present on the allotment when breeding 22 occurs. ABC D 23 22 73 5 Salting should be added to the list of activities that can be allowed occasionaly with motorized vehicles

23 78 Table 6 What reasoning does the Forest have for requiring active herding of cattle away from the feedground in the fall. The feedground doesn't 24 provide any winter feed for elk due to the plant community that is present as a result of feeding elk over the years. SCCD thinks that the standard of 20% bank alteration along with the 6 inch stubble height is over kill. SCCD believes that bank alteration 24 78 Table 6 25 is highly variable between readers, and is not a good standard for this project area. 26 25 79 Table 6 Is Wagon Creek going to be fenced for eternity or until objectives are met? And what are the site specific objectives 27 26 79 Table 6 Same as comment #17 28 27 81 Table 6 same as comment #1 The driveway on USFS property from the end of the pavement to Jim Creek is a part of what allotment if its not analyzed in this 28 General General 29 document? This document puts a standard on the Tosi area of 20 percent alteration and 6 inch stubble height based on what data. Beavers actively 29 87 1 30 use this area and most of the concerns are when dams fail. On raspberry creek what is the problem that would require identification of alternative trails. SCCD is unaware of an issue that would 30 92 4 31 trigger this. The Fish Creek focus areas are on top of dispersed campgrounds used by the public and how does the Forest plan to discern the 31 93 2 and 3 32 difference between cattle and recreational impacts to the area.

32 93 6 SCCD would ask the Forest to address in this document all the cooperative monitoring sites established in the Upper Green for trend. If 33 there is a need for more sites it hasn't been communicated to the permittees or cooperating agencies.

SCCD would request that the Forest meets with the permittees regarding the Mud Lake pasture fence realignment along Crow Creek. 33 93 5 The creek is armored and provides good water to that pasture which was the original intent according to the permittees. Realigning the 34 fence would put increased pressure on the Green River which may not be a desired outcome. 35 34 95 2 Same as comment #17

35 95 2 Depending on the goal for species composition and the departure from that goal, increasing utilization standards may or may not work. 36 Without knowing what the goal is, then how can the cooperating agencies and the permittees know if this is a viable option? SCCD disagrees with the Forest going away from several monitoring sites within each pasture that is currently cooperatively monitored 36 95 2 on an annual basis for utilization, to one site per pasture to establish use. One site in this large of a landscape doesn't give the Forest a 37 reliable answer to what the average utilization in the pasture is. SCCD feels that the Forest is putting conditions on the Kinky Creek pasture that can be used is eliminating adapative management if 37 98 2 options/needs in the future arise. Also SCCD is aware that the permittees have proposed exchanging the Kinky for some of the old 38 Bacon Creek allotment, which hasn't been analyzed in this document and should be. Cooperative data shows huge gains in the health of Teepee Creek in a cooperative report showing photos from 1982 through 2002 of the 38 98 4 39 focus area, so why build the fence if the data shows otherwise? SCCD found no where in the document that explains when or if grazing precriptions on the focus areas would change if goals and 39 General General objectives are being met. If the intent of the Forest is to never change the grazing precriptions then SCCD feels that this is the wrong 40 approach to adaptive management.

40 103 1 The statement about Gypsum Creek cattle not using the River Bottom pasture doesn’t reflect the current management on the ground 41 and SCCD feels that the document should reflect current management of livestock within the project area.

41 103 2 The definition of the driveway doesn't accurately depict whats on the ground and how does the Forest expect to maintain 60% ground 42 cover 200 feet either side of a forest system road with all the other uses and impacts that the road adds to the stock driveway. 43 42 General General Alternative 4 contradicts the current forest plan for areas meeting resource objectives ABC D Ground cover through cooperative monitoring has shown upward trend under current management. SCCD would encourage the Forest 43 158 Table 18 44 to review the data that they currently have in their files. The Forest assumes riparian function under Alternative 2 current permitted use would degrade condition. To SCCD's knowledge the 44 160 Table 19 45 forest has no data to support these claims. 45 162 Table 19 46 The statement that grazing in Alternative 2 would impact lynx is incorrect when the majority of their habitat doesn't overlap. The Forest is assuming 3 inch stubble in Alternative 2 and high use would cause listing with no data to support this statement. Some 46 163 Table 19 current data in regards to toad research is showing areas with cattle grazing is successfully allowing toads to shed the cytrid fungus, 47 which contradicts this statement. SCCD strongly disagrees with the statement that in Alternative 2 permitted use would result in a trend to federal listing. The Upper 47 165 Table 19 Green population isn't the last place sage grouse exist in the intermountain west, nor is it a core population according to the State of 48 Wyoming. The statement the Forest makes that grazing would reduce vole habitat is purely speculative as SCCD is unaware of any studies that 48 165 Table 19 49 show this correlation. SCCD encourages the Forest to not speculate and use current peer reviewed science when making statments. In Table 19 the Forest 49 General Table 19 50 makes lots of statements without any backing of peer reviewed science. 51 50 170 Table 19 Social and economic impact seems backwards, wording change is needed. Feasibilty of the implementation won't be known until its attempted on the ground. The Forest is making a large assumption without 51 171 Table 19 52 consultation with the permittees. SCCD is unaware of the definition for environmental productivity and would encourage the Forest to include it in the glossary of this 52 171 Table 19 53 document. SCCD believes that the Forest has the authority to change the allotments in the project area from seaon long grazing to conform with the 53 172 Table 20 54 Forest Plan, and in the case of the Noble Pastures this is already occurring. 55 54 177 1 Misuse of the word "key". Key areas are represntative areas not the most sensitive areas on the landscape Why are key wildlife areas not suitable for livestock grazing when wildlife needs and wildlife AUMs were taken into account when the 55 182 bullet 56 forage allocation was calculated? SCCD is discouraged that the Forest chose to ignore cooperatively collected data and chose to use data from a method based on ocular 56 184 4 data collection, and then tried to repeat this collection at sites that weren't permenantly monumented. SCCD questions the validity of 57 this data set. SCCD is discouraged that there is no mention of all the cooperative data collected, and the key sites that have been developed over the 57 185 2,3,4,5 58 years in conjunction with several Forest staff and permittees. SCCD encourages the Forest to not base ground cover objectives on a single species. Shrubby Cinquifoil is not a stand alone indicator of 58 186 3 59 a riparian site and a lot more information is needed for example hydrology and soils.

SCCD is disappointed that the Forest isnt recognizing throughout this document all the data and key sites that are cooperatively 59 191 9 monitored every year with the Forest staff. They state that the last time species composition was monitored was 2014 in Mud Lake East when it was read in 2016 using the line point intercept method. Instead the cooperative monitoring is mentioned sparatically but not to 60 the extent it deserves as that is the most complete data set for vegetation the Forest has. SCCD is encouraged to see the document talk about coop data and how the Forest discussed the results of the data and how that site is 60 192 6 61 trending upward. This is a picture of the SE pasture and the discussion is of the NW pasture. The figure needs moved to the right area or the figure needs 61 193 Figure 40 62 to show the NW pasture. SCCD encourages the Forest to list historical uses that impacted Teepee Creek (roads and culverts placement associated with timber 62 194 7 63 activity). ABC D

63 85 1 SCCD feels that removing the flexibility of three time over grazing goes against the theme of this document which is adaptive 64 management. Removal can hinder addressing climatic conditions of any given year in the Noble Pastures since they are irrigated. In consultation with the permittee SCCD doesn’t feel that the rotation as presented has been worked out with the Forest range staff and 64 85 Table ? the permittee. SCCD encourages communication between the District Range staff and the permittee be reflected in this document so 65 there is no suprises like this occurring in the document.

65 85 1 SCCD encourages the Forest not to use a standard on the irrigated land that was developed for rangeland situations. SCCD is willing to 66 work with the Forest and the permittee to form goals and objectives that are for man made irrigated pastures. SCCD is discouraged that the document is citing a non peer reviewed white paper that draws a correlation between stubble height and 66 204 2 utilization without developing a height weight curve for that species in the project area. Climatic conditions have large impacts to 67 utlization and this paper doesn't account for that. SCCD encourages the Forest to amend the Forest Plan if the Forest feels the grazing objectives are incorrect. Changing them in this 67 203 4 68 document is not the right avenue. 69 68 209 3 Same as comments #67

69 209 6 SCCD, in consultation with the permittees, wants to point out that current mangement isn't as stated in this EIS and needs corrected to 70 show what currently happens. Current management is a rest rotation system changing the pasture they enter annually. This document doesn't mention that if livestock have been deemed the causal factor then that triggers adapative management 70 215 2 measures. SCCD strongly encourages the Forest to put laguage in this document that livestock have to be deemed as the causal factor 71 before adapative management triggers are made. SCCD encourages the Forest to revisit their MIM sites within the project area. There has been updates to the protocol and they need to 71 224 4 be utilized. SCCD strongly encourages the Forest not to utilize data that was collected at a "critical" DMA which shows impacts from 72 several uses to make decisions on livestock grazing. SCCD's experience in using the MIM protocol is that in a 3 year time frame you don't see a +/‐ 35‐40% change in stream bank stability. 72 229 Table 23 73 SCCD questions if the protocol was accurately applied. 74 73 245 2 Same as Comment #32 75 74 237 2 Same as comment #71 76 75 237 3 Same as comment #71 The document acknowledges the forest system roads and that it has impacts, then the document draws conclusions on livestock affects 76 238 1 77 at this site. Also it appears that the math on the decrease value on stability is 40% not 30%. The document states that Fish Creek site #1 was not an ideal location, but then the Forest still utilized the data in the document. SCCD is 77 238 3 dicouraged that if a site was determined not to be ideal that the Forest still utilized the data for the analysis when impacts where both 78 from recreation and livestock where cited. 79 78 239 2 Fish Creek site #2 is right next to a camp site as well and shouldn't be utilized in this analysis as well

79 240 1 After consultation with the permittees the Wagon Creek exclosure was fenced as a mangement tool for the rider to help with use, not 80 for water quality reasons as stated in the document. The exclosure was fenced at the request of the permittees. The feasability of the Darwin Ranch to run its 27 horses in the Teepee Creek pasture system and still have the ability to gather them 80 241 3 81 when needed is impossible. 81 245 4 82 SCCD feels that the PFC rating on site #4 should state that the rating is directly related to the proximity to the elk feedground. 83 82 246 3 Correct the water quality data collection to the current year of 2016

83 252 4 With a feedground along the Green River and constant use by moose and elk, SCCD feels that the Forest has no documented evidence to 84 state elk and other wildlife aren't impacting the riparian area and that impacts appear to be from cattle. ABC D 84 256 4 85 The statement that cattle move from the Mosquito rotation into the Fish Creek rotation doesn't reflect current management. 85 282 2 86 SCCD encourages the Forest to stick to issues that fall within the project area and not to discuss the adjacent sheep allotments. SCCD is unaware of cutthroat trout in Wagon Creek and would request clarification or documentation of cuthroat trout in wagon creek 86 285 5 87 to set the threshold of 68 degrees. 88 87 289 7 SCCD would like clarification if cattle are even present when the redds are being utilized 88 297 Table 26 89 SCCD agrees that past fish stocking has done more to impact native fish populations by introducing more aggressive non‐native species. 90 89 297 Table 26 Same as comment #85 90 327 2 91 SCCD consulted with the WGFD and they disagree with the document calling the project area a mortality sink for grizzly bears. The use of O'Brien et. al. 2003 to determine the rangeland health and functionality of the key site within the NW pasture is a tota 91 misuse of the paper. The paper is designed to be utilized on upland sites not sub‐irrigated areas. SCCD encourages the Forest to rethink 92 the use of non peer reviewed papers as supporting documntation in this EIS. 93 92 322 1 SCCD believes that with the removal of grazing, social tolerance of the bears potentially will dimish SCCD does not see the correlation between grizzly bear protection and the improvement it has on wolf habitat conditions within the 93 324 Table 29 94 project area The WGFD hasn't made changes to their hunting regulations in regards to black bear baiting and grizzly bear mortality. SCCD encourages 94 325 Table 29 the Forest to not draw conclusions between bear baiting and mortality of grizzly bears if its not seen as a problem with the State's game 95 management agency. 96 95 325 Table 29 SCCD is unaware of research showing improved riparian function that benefits grizzly bear health. 97 96 327 6 SCCD strongly discurages the Forest from speculating property damage due to cattle presence within the project area 98 97 328 4 Same as comment #55 SCCD believes that the cumulative effects from grazing don’t detrack from bear population growth in Wyoming and the GYE, and that 98 329 3 99 the cumulative effects statements conflict within this paragraph. SCCD believes that based on the current data reports, etc. This statement should read "may affect, and is likely to adversley affect 99 329 5 100 individuals, but not the population." 101 100 330 3 SCCD is unaware of any documention showing that cattle increase hunter and recreational conflicts with bears SCCD would request that the Forest shows the data that livestock will have an effect throughout the grizzly bears entire population. 101 331 4 102 Then later in the paragraph, the document states the effects are below thresholds. 103 102 331 5 Same as comment #99 104 103 161 Table 19 Contradicts statements made in the document on page 329 and 331. 105 104 249 5 USFWS statement conflicts statement made on page 345 paragraph 5. SCCD would strongly encourage the Forest to look at the current data collected cooperatively and see that it doesn’t show an adverse 105 348 2 impact to willow and aspen communities. SCCD again encourages the Forest to leave any assumptions of impacts from full use out of 106 this document. 107 106 348 SCCD encourages the Forest to only utilize peer reviewed papers when citing research in this EIS. There is science based research that proves amphibian occupancy is related to retention. SCCD strongly believes that 70% retention 107 370 Table 30 108 hasn't been proven as the benchmark for healthy populations. 109 108 374 3 SCCD discourages the Forest from using email and conversation as a citation. 110 109 374 4 Same comment as #66 111 110 377 Table 32 Same comment as #105 The document shows that following the grazing prescription in Alternative 3, using the regression curve shows that the permittees won't 111 378 Table 32 112 meet the objective of 70% retention. 113 112 379 Table 33 Title has some typos and also the chart heading has sage grouse effects not amphibian effects ABC D The statement that desired conditions for amphiban populations would not be met is misleading since there has been grazing in the 113 384 3 114 project area for over 100 years and populations of amphibians are still intact. The document admits to a bad study design using a biased approach to picking sites within the project area. SCCD encourages picking 114 384 4 115 areas representative of habitats across the landscape. 116 115 386 4 SCCD agrees with the statement that grazing has not had a consistent severe negetative impact 117 116 388 3 SCCD agrees with the statement that grazing is not considered the primary cause of population declines In stating "will likely result in a trend to federal listing or loss of vialbility", SCCD would refer the Forest to comments #118 and #189 that 117 388 4 118 don't support this conclusion. 119 118 391 7 Same as comment #111 120 119 392 4 SCCD is unaware of any data to show impacts of retention on toad populations within the project area SCCD doesn't understand how the statement of impact can be different for the spotted frog and the chrous frog since they occupy 120 393 3 and 5 121 similar habitats. If 7 inches is unattainable based on the ecological site potential, then SCCD would like to know how the sites potential is going to be determined. If the sites ecological site potential is "x" then is the target "y"? What percentage of the landscape is needed to meet the 121 404 Table 36 target? Maintaing 4 inches post breeding is problematic if the site isnt capable of 7 inches, so would the post nesting requirement 122 change as well? 123 122 404 Table 36 Same as comment #121 SCCD would like to know what percentage of habitat do these conditions have to exist in order to meet the requirements set forth in this 123 404 Table 36 124 document. The data collected by the Forest in 2015, which was a high precipitation year, proves some of the sites aren't capable even with no 124 405 1 125 grazing occuring on the site. 126 125 404 5 Same as comment #124 Previous cooperating agency drafts talked to ecological site potential and there is no mention of this in the new DEIS, which is a key 126 405 127 component of the ROD for the sage grouse 9 plan amandment. SCCD would like to point out that data cooperatively collected from 1996‐2015 shows the average ungrazed height of Idaho Fescue from 127 404 Table 36 all sites within the Upper Green allotment is 5.3 inches. This shows that at least in this allotment that the 7 inch standard cannot be 128 achieved the majority of the time. Sage grouse are still prevalant in the project area with over 100 years of grazing along with several other subdivisions and anthropogenic 128 415 5 additions to the landscape. This population within the project area is not in core habitat as defined by the state and is a fringe 129 population not essential to the main population. 130 129 417 4 Same comment as #127 SCCD doesn't understand how the document can prefer an alternative and then state that the allotments won't meet the 4 inch height 130 418 1 131 with a moderate degree of uncertainty. The document states that under Alternative 3 there will have greater utilization, but doesn't say what its compared too. SCCD would like 131 417 4 132 clarification on this sentence. SCCD disagrees with this paragraph saying Alternative 3 would provide less cover than existing conditions when it is unachievable to 132 419 5 133 predict the future use when permitted use will not change. Using the average of 5.3 inches for Idaho Fescue and calculating 50% use using the USFS utilization wheel would result in a stubble height of 7/8". To maintain a 4 inch post nesting stubble height the average use would be 2‐3%. SCCD feels that if the permittees are 133 419 5 held to 2% use within 5.3 miles of the potential big bend lek within nesting habitat then grazing on the nesting habitat within the project 134 area would cease to exist. 135 134 443 6 Same as comment #48 136 135 444 4 Same as comment #48 SCCD doesn't understand how a holding pen can be criticized for low ground cover when it was designed to hold and concentrate 136 485 Table 40 137 livestock. 138 137 487 2 SCCD would like to point out that cooperative collected data shows SWMP‐04 has an average 95% cover from 1996‐2013 ABC D 139 138 477 4 There is no data cited to support the conclusions made on cumulative affects due to the alternatives in this document 140 139 477 4 SCCD believes that the effects shown in Table 36 haven't been addressed on the socio economic resources section SCCD believes that Alternative 3 doesn’t show what the effects of the increased use requirements will have on use and cattle numbers in 140 479 3 141 the allotments. SCCD as stated in a previous comment is in favor of the one week shift at the beginning and end of the permitted season, but is 141 67 5 discouraged that the document puts stipulations on which allotments and pasture systems the shif applies too. SCCD would like the 142 decision to be up to the District Ranger which would allow for flexibilty. Quantifying Influences on Line Point Intercept Estimates of Plant Cover

Glenn Owings, Range Specialist--Sublette County Conservation District

Measures of vegetative and other ground cover on rangelands are used by managing

agencies to assess the ability of the landscape to provide necessary ecological functions (Pellant et al. 2005, Johnston 2006). Line-point intercept is one of the most commonly used methods for collecting cover data (Bonham 1989, Herrick et al. 2005). It produces a large number of points in a relatively short amount of time and is minimally influenced by observer bias (Bonham 1989,

Godinez-Alvarez 2009).

Line-point intercept transects read over time are often used to determine if a particular site is trending upward, downward, or is static. High levels of bare ground indicate greater susceptibility to erosion and invasive species, decreased vegetative production, lower infiltration rates, reduced cover for wildlife, and a potential shift to a less desirable plant community

(Herrick et al. 2005). While it is known that different soil and precipitation regimes result in

unique values for expected cover and plant community composition, a drastic decrease in ground

cover is understood to indicate natural disturbance, land misuse, or sampling error (Brady et al.

1995, Herrick et al. 2005).

There are several assumptions associated with this monitoring/management approach.

First, it is supposed that the sampling site was placed in a location representative of the

management unit (commonly an allotment or pasture). It should then indicate changes expected

throughout the unit of interest and convey them with reasonable confidence (Brady et al. 1995).

In terms of policy, changes in the chosen site are assumed to be indicative of management

changes, such that an increase or decrease in cover may be influenced by agency directives.

While this may be true in some cases, variable biophysical factors like total precipitation, snowpack, and soil characteristics may have a greater influence on cover than year-to-year

management changes.

It is suggested that basal cover be used in rangeland monitoring because it is less

susceptible to annual variation in precipitation than foliar cover (Brady et al. 1995, Herrick et al.

2005). However, because of time constraints and interest in following historic monitoring protocols, agencies may be hesitant to adapt management plans to include basal cover.

Another method commonly used to assess trend is nested frequency (USDA 1993).

While it results in many data points at every site reading, bias induced by different observers is magnified. In addition, site location after many years is difficult, making confidence in trend assessments very weak. Because of its simplicity, line point intercept has proven to be one of the most reliable trend assessment techniques over time (Brady et al. 1995).

The purpose of this document is to quantify the influence of precipitation metrics,

livestock numbers, and utilization on first intercept cover in a federal grazing allotment. We

expected that precipitation and growing season metrics might better predict variation in cover than annual differences in management.

Methods

The study area is located in the Upper Green C & H grazing allotment (USFS) in northeastern Sublette County, WY. It is ecologically important as the headwaters of the Green

River, a significant tributary to the Colorado River. Elevation in the allotment varies from ca.

8,000’-10,200’. It is composed of multiple rotational pasture systems and totals 125,663 acres.

The vegetation is characterized by mixed mountain shrub and sagebrush/bunchgrass communities. Dominant shrubs are mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp.

vaseyana (Rydb.) Beetle), silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana Pursh), and spiked sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. spiciformis (Osterh.) Kartesz & Gandhi). Common grasses

include Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis Elmer), Columbia needlegrass (Achnatherum nelsonii

(Scribn.) Barkworth), and slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould ex Shinners).

Long term trend monitoring sites and associated line-point intercept transects were

selected for the allotment by the USFS, Upper Green River Cattleman’s Association (UGRCA),

and range professionals from the University of Wyoming. Permanent stakes were located at

each of twelve locations. Cover data was collected by USFS staff and UGRCA members each

September from 1996 to 2012, and compiled in the fall of 2012. One hundred points were

collected at one foot intervals for each site reading.

Utilization sites were selected by the same interdisciplinary group. Data were collected using the height-weight method for the selected key species, Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis)

(Lomasson and Jensen 1943). Utilization data was collected after or near the end of use in sampled pastures. Multiple observers were present when conducting line-point and utilization measurements and the USFS was involved in nearly every case.

Cover data for each year were averaged across the allotment to combat effects of potentially misplaced transect lines (Bonham and Reich 2009). Total cover is the sum of vegetation, rock, and litter hits along the line-point transect. On a 100 point transect, total cover is equivalent to 100 minus the number of bare ground hits. Foliar cover, as assessed in this document, is the total of vegetative hits on a 100 point transect. Actual use numbers for the allotment were provided by the UGRCA.

The Gros Ventre Summit snow telemetry (SNOTEL) site recorded precipitation data for the years of interest (NRCS 2012). It is located within the allotment at an elevation similar to the monitoring sites. Precipitation and snow data were stratified by water year and extracted from the SNOTEL online data library (NRCS 2012).

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using Minitab 16 (Minitab 2012). Descriptive statistics were

tabulated for cover at all sites. Simple and multiple linear regression were used to detect

relationships between the response variables and predictor variables (Table 1). The metrics used

in analysis were selected based on data availability, quality, and basic ecological theory.

Table 1. Summary of dependent and independent variables used in regression analysis. Dependent (Response) Independent (Predictor) Variables Variables Total Cover Total Precipitation Foliar Cover June Precipitation July Precipitation August Precipitation Summer Precipitation Maximum Snow Water Equivalent Date of Snow Disappearance Stock Number (Previous Year Actual Use) Utilization (Previous Year)

Previous year’s stocking and utilization data was used because cover information was

collected in rested pastures. Date of snow disappearance was converted to Julian date in order to

make it suitable for regression analysis. The experimental unit is one year of cover data.

Relationships will be considered significant when p<0.05.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The means for total cover and foliar cover were 97.78% and 88.91% respectively (Table

2). With a mean of 97.78 and standard deviation of 2.80, total cover did not provide enough

variation away from the possible maximum value for meaningful analysis. Because of this, foliar cover was an important surrogate to test factor influences on vegetative cover. Regression was still performed on total cover data because it is commonly the metric of interest in management documents.

Table 2. Mean, standard error, and standard deviation for total cover and foliar cover in percent (n=45). Mean Std. Error of Mean Std. Deviation Total Cover 97.78 0.42 2.80 Foliar Cover 88.91 1.42 9.51

Regression Analysis

Regression analysis did not identify any significant predictors for total cover (Table 3).

Foliar cover was significantly correlated with three independent variables (Table 4). Adjusted r- squared was used to compare simple and multiple regression models because it accounts for the increase in correlation induced by additional factors.

Table 3. Results of simple linear regression analysis using total cover as the response variable. Predictor Variables n p-value R-Squared R-Squared (adj.) Yearly Precipitation 17 0.465 3.6% 0.0%

June Precipitation 17 0.346 5.9% 0.0%

July Precipitation 17 0.838 0.3% 0.0%

August Precipitation 17 0.252 8.7% 2.6%

Summer Precipitation 17 0.854 0.2% 0.0% (June-August) Maximum Snow Water 17 0.467 3.6% 0.0% Equivalent Date of Snow 17 0.238 9.2% 3.1% Disappearance Stock Number (Previous 16 0.680 1.2% 0.0% Year Actual Use) Utilization (Previous 16 0.490 3.5% 0.0% Year) *Statistically significant relationship (p<0.05)

Table 4. Results of simple linear regression analysis using foliar cover as the response variable. Predictor Variables n p-value R-Squared R-Squared (adj.) Annual Precipitation 17 0.030* 27.7% 22.9%

June Precipitation 17 0.043* 24.7% 19.6%

July Precipitation 17 0.870 0.2% 0.0%

August Precipitation 17 0.978 0.0% 0.0%

Summer Precipitation 17 0.170 12.2% 6.3% (June-August) Maximum Snow Water 17 0.059 21.7% 16.5% Equivalent Date of Snow 17 0.001* 52.7% 49.5% Disappearance Stock Number (Previous 16 0.314 7.2% 0.6% Year Actual Use) Utilization (Previous 16 0.080 20.3% 14.6% Year) *Statistically significant relationship (p<0.05).

Yearly precipitation was significantly correlated with foliar cover (p=0.030, adjusted r- sq=22.9, Figure 1).

Regression for Foliar Cover vs Yearly Precipitation

Y: Foliar Cov er X: Yearly Precipitation Fitted Line Plot for Linear Model Y = 73.04 + 0.6832 X

100

95

90

FoliarCover 85

80

15 20 25 30 35 Yearly Precipitation

Figure 1. Regression for foliar cover vs. yearly precipitation. June precipitation was also positively correlated with foliar cover (p=0.043, adjusted r- sq=19.6%, Figure 2).

Regression for Foliar Cover vs June Precipitation

Y: Foliar Cov er X: June Precipitation Fitted Line Plot for Linear Model Y = 84.00 + 2.418 X

100

95

90

FoliarCover 85

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 June Precipitation

Figure 2. Regression for foliar cover vs. yearly precipitation.

The date of snow disappearance was the best predictor of foliar cover among variables tested (p=0.001, adjusted r-sq=49.5%, Figure 3).

Regression for Foliar Cover vs Date of Snow Disappearance

Y: Foliar Cov er X: Date of Snow Disappearance Fitted Line Plot for Linear Model Y = 21.33 + 0.4516 X

100

95

90

FoliarCover 85

80

130 140 150 160 170 Date of Snow Disappearance

Figure 3. Regression for foliar cover vs. date of snow disappearance. The three significant independent variables were then analyzed using multiple linear

regression. Predictor variables were removed from the model if the variance inflation factor

(VIF) was greater than five. A high VIF value indicates collinearity among independent

variables. Predictors were also removed from the multiple regression model if they were not

related to the response variable at a significant level within said model (p<0.05). While several

iterations of a multiple factor model were significant, none were more predictive than the date of

snow disappearance alone.

Discussion

Despite seventeen years of monitoring data, no predictor was significantly correlated with

total cover. A data collection of this quality, consistency, and breadth is uncommon on Western

rangelands and it is unlikely that more data would illuminate a relationship.

Furthermore, the results indicate that annual use and total stock number are not reliable indicators of changes in total cover. Changes in annual use and stocking rate could not be expected to alter bare ground at a detectable level within the constraints of this grazing system, monitoring protocol, and period of observation.

There are several possible explanations for this finding. First, no functional degradation is occurring under current annual use and stocking rates. Use is exerting no ecological pressure

on the uplands, and the ecosystem is functioning at a sustainably high level. Alternatively, the

monitoring plan set in place is insufficient to detect actual change caused by grazing. Finally,

there may be an unknown lag time associated with a vegetative response to grazing and other

land uses in place.

Foliar cover was selected as an alternative indicator for measuring influences of predictor

variables on vegetation. The results indicate that yearly precipitation, June precipitation, and the date of snow disappearance have a significant influence on foliar cover. The date of snow

disappearance alone accounts for 52.7% of the variation in foliar cover. This suggests that soil-

water characteristics on uplands within the allotment are heavily influence by snowpack.

Specifically, vegetative cover is higher when snow lasts longer into the growing season. While it

is known that precipitation and snowpack influence annual vegetative cover, this phenomenon

has not previously been quantified for this ecoregion.

In many management scenarios total cover is considered over time on a site basis, not in the whole allotment. Sample size becomes limiting in this case. For example, the sample standard deviation for the most frequently recorded site in this allotment is 1.63 (n=6). If this is applied to a future reading, a minimum of five line-point intercept transects at that site would be required to achieve a margin of error of 2.5 when estimating the mean cover ( + or – 2.5).

An alternative to assessing cover trend on a yearly basis has been to define푥 a threshold

level at which total ground cover is no longer sufficient to preserve ecological function (O’Brien

et al. 2003). Threshold identification is one of the most challenging aspects of natural resource

management and must incorporate the complex non-linear relationships that exist between

landscape morphology, management actions, climatic variation, wildlife affects, and climate

change (Briske et al. 2005, Groffman et al. 2006). The application of large scale, region-wide

cover estimates to specific monitoring sites is questionable in light of current science and known

drivers of landscape variability.

The development of ecological site descriptions (ESD’s) is a viable alternative to these

broad scale assumptions. Modern science best describes plant communities as multiple states

with varying transitional pathways, not as points on a linear seral stage progression (Westoby et

al. 1989, Stringham et al. 2003, Briske et al. 2005). The development of ESD’s for the study area would provide an ecologically based framework for site assessment. There is biological

evidence to suggest that cover, plant communities, and production are site specific and driven

primarily by soils and precipitation (Westoby et al. 1989, Stringham et al. 2003). In addition,

federal land agencies signed a memorandum of understanding in 2005 to develop an interagency guide for ESD development (Bureau of Land Management 2010). It was completed in 2010, and associated policy dictates that agencies further develop and implement the Rangeland

Interagency Ecological Site Manual (RIESM) (Bureau of Land Management 2010).

Management Implications

This research supports the assertion that biophysical factors such as precipitation, soils,

and temperature strongly influence plant community morphology. While grazing measures such

as utilization may be predictive under some circumstances, their affects were masked by the

larger ecological processes addressed in this study. The results indicate that reducing stocking

rate or utilization in this system will not have a measurable effect on annual trend readings for

cover. Assumptions about standard monitoring techniques may not apply where systems are in

high ecological condition, under light stocking rates, and exhibit a strong precipitation influence.

If a relationship between change in policy and landscape characteristics is inferred, it is

imperative that managing agencies employ monitoring techniques indicative of said relationship.

Because of site relocation error, infrequent readings, and observer bias, nested frequency data for

this allotment cannot compare with the statistical rigor of the line-point data set analyzed in this

study.

Adaptation of monitoring techniques may be required to detect actual change as a result

of management. Future studies should evaluate the most efficient, predictive monitoring methods for use in this allotment. Further understanding of naturally induced variation in local plant communities would be useful when incorporated into ecological site development.

It should also be noted that is impossible to estimate a confidence interval for the sample mean with only one transect. There is no way to assess variability when that single transect is the experimental unit. Therefore comparing single transects from one year to another is statistically suspect even when certain that the same line is being read. Future monitoring should incorporate multiple transects for the same key site (Bonham and Reich 2009).

References

Bonham, C.D. 1989. Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. Wiley Intersciences, N.Y. 338pp.

Bonham, C.D. and R.M. Reich. 2009. Influences of transect relocation errors on line-point estimates of plant cover. Plant Ecology 204:173-178.

Brady, W.W., J.E. Mitchell, C.D. Bonham, and J.W. Cook. 1995. Assessing the power of the point-line transect to monitor changes in plant basal cover. Journal of Range Management 48:187-190.

Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Information Bulletin No. 2011-004.

Briske, D.D., S. D. Fuhlendorf and F. E. Smeins. 2005. State-and-transition models, thresholds, and rangeland health: A synthesis of ecological concepts and perspectives. Rangeland Ecology & Management 58:1-10.

Herrick, J.E., J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, L. M. Burkett, and W.G. Whitford. 2005. Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland and savanna ecosystems. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range. Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press. 236pp.

Johnston, A. 2006. Effects of Grazing Intensity and Cover on the Water Intake Rate of Fescue Grassland. Journal of Range Management 15:79-83.

Lommasson, T. and C. Jensen, C. 1943. Determining utilization of range grasses by height– weight tables. Journal of Forestry 41:589–593.

NRCS. 2012. USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service. SNOTEL Data and Products. http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/.

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D. Pyke and J. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health. Version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. 122pp.

Stringham, T.K., W.C. Krueger, and P.L. Shaver. 2003. State and transition modeling: an ecological process approach. Journal of Range Management 56:106-113.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1993. Rangeland ecosystem analysis and management handbook. FSH 2209-21. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 4 ch.

Westoby, M., B. Walker and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42:266-274.

Trend Summary by Pasture Green River Allotment

Prepared for: Upper Green River Cattleman’s Association Prepared by: Glenn Owings, Range Program Manager, Sublette County Conservation District

I.Introduction

The purpose of this document is to summarize cover data and address pasture trend at

cooperatively selected locations in the Green River C&H, Pinedale Ranger district, Bridger

Teton National Forest. Forest personnel were present at all but a handful of site readings when

circumstances precluded their availability. Previous analysis of foliar cover at the allotment scale indicated a statistically significant influence of precipitation and snowpack on cover readings.

Neither utilization nor actual use (total stock numbers) were predictive of foliar cover.

Each pasture within the Mosquito Lake system has been split out for analysis. All other pastures are addressed together because none has more than two cover readings. More than two readings are needed to determine ecological trend.

Because each monitoring site represents just one experimental unit, statistical analyses could not be used to assess variability and deviation from a mean. For the purpose of clarity, please note how the following terms will be used in this report:

Total Cover: First intercept cover, including vegetation, rock, and litter. Equivalent to 100 percent minus percent bare ground. All values are reported as a percentage.

Trend: A discernible, scientifically defensible change in plant community structure and function.

II.Summaries A.Mosquito Lake 1.SE Pasture

Site 5 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1996 43 17 30 4 0 4 96 1998 51 20 23 5 1 0 100 2002 45 18 16 21 0 0 100 2006 42 18 27 10 0 3 97 2009 50 9 25 12 0 3 97 2012 53 13 27 5 0 2 98

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Readings

Site 8 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1996 35 20 25 2 2 2 98 1998 54 24 18 1 1 1 99 2002 37 20 18 0 2 0 100 2006 45 21 18 0 2 0 100 2009 50 16 22 1 1 1 99 2012 53 15 13 1 3 1 99

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Readings

Discussion: With total cover measures consistently exceeding Forest standards and life form composition relatively steady there is no clear trend for this pasture. It appears stable, resistant to weed invasion, and exhibits adequate ground cover to provide for soil protection and infiltration.

2.SW Pasture

Site 4 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1996 49 1 50 0 0 0 100 1999 50 4 41 0 0 4 96 2003 22 5 39 21 2 1 99 2007 28 4 39 17 0 12 88 2010 39 5 50 2 0 4 96 2013 36 3 39 15 0 7 93

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Readings

Site 2 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1996 40 30 19 7 0 4 96 1999 49 31 17 2 0 1 99 2003 38 27 17 15 1 2 98 2007 46 21 18 14 0 1 99 2010 46 33 18 2 0 1 99 2013 35 31 20 11 0 3 97

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

100 Variable Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Readings

Discussion: Samples at site 4 showed some variability across the monitoring time frame.

Readings 3 and 4 (2003 and 2007) showed a drop in grass and increase in litter cover large

enough that it could represent more than sampling noise. Total cover is also somewhat variable

but does not follow any apparent trend. After reviewing the precipitation data it does not appear

to be correlated in this case. Very weak regression lines can be drawn for grass and litter cover

though neither is statistically significant. Site 2 data shows very stable conditions and does not

exhibit a pattern similar to site 4. This supports the assertion that large scale annual factors did

not account for the grass-litter relationship at site 4. Based on the preponderance of evidence

there is no clear trend for this pasture. It appears stable, resistant to weed invasion, and exhibits adequate ground cover to provide for soil protection and infiltration.

3.NW Pasture

Site 13 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1997 48 17 21 9 0 5 95 2000 54 26 9 8 0 3 97 2004 35 17 19 26 0 3 97 2014 55 15 23 6 0 4 96

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Litter, Rock, ...

100 Variable Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Litter Rock 60 Bare Total

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 Readings

Discussion: Site 13 was selected for analysis in the NW pasture because it is the only site with more than two readings. While some variability is apparent there is no clear trend in any of the cover metrics. It appears stable, resistant to weed invasion, and exhibits adequate ground cover to provide for soil protection and infiltration.

4.NE Pasture

Site 17 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1997 61 11 24 2 0 2 98 2001 71 15 13 1 0 0 100 2005 68 13 17 2 0 0 100 2008 66 17 16 1 0 0 100 2011 75 16 9 0 0 0 100

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 Readings

Site 18 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1997 44 29 24 2 0 2 98 2001 46 33 12 6 0 3 97 2005 43 30 10 12 1 4 96 2008 28 35 23 12 0 2 98 2011 60 31 9 0 0 0 100

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 Readings

Discussion: Site 17 shows consistent readings over time for all cover metrics. For site 18 the increase in grass cover and decrease in other measures in 2011 may be meaningful but cannot be addressed until further readings take place. There is no clear trend in any of the cover metrics.

The pasture appears stable, resistant to weed invasion, and exhibits adequate ground cover to provide for soil protection and infiltration.

B. All Other Pastures

Tepee Cr., Mud Lake (E and W), Fish Cr., and Gypsum Cr. (upper and lower) do not have enough readings to adequately assess trend. However, it is worth noting that bare ground is at or below 8% for all readings in the aforementioned pastures. This suggests a sufficient level of site stability and exceeds the Forest standard for ground cover.

III.Conclusion

Based on the available cover data it appears that all sites in the Green River C&H are

ecologically stable and do not exhibit meaningful trend. There may be several reasons that this is

the case:

-There has been no substantial change in plant communities across the pastures in the Green

River allotment.

-There were changes in the plant communities, but monitoring cover by life-form was not

adequate to detect change.

-There were changes in the plant communities, but the sample size and site distribution were not sufficient to detect change.

ATTACHMENT 2

Comment Number Page Number Paragraph Number Comment 1ix1 60% cover in the driveway is not an attainable objective when the driveway is defined as 200 feet either side of a forest service road. No mention of the ecological site potential if 7 inches is unattainable. Also no mention of the percentage of nesting habitat that needs to meet this 2 7 #13 objective within the project area.

SCCD would like the Forest to justify how they came to the conclusion that 70% retention is a science based number that is a benefit to the amphibian 3 7 #14 population within the project area. SCCD has done a review of the Delong paper and found several flaws in the use of the current scientfic literature in regards to the Boreal Toad and the Columbia Spotted frog. SCCD would encourage the Forest to stick with peer reviewed liturature and avoid using non peer reviewed papers in this document.

4215Putting the standard for areas meeting resource objectives at 50 percent utilization and putting a 4 inch stubble height standard on the greenline is essentially amending the forest plan on areas that are meeting objectives without amending the forest plan.

512380‐95% cover isn't related to ESD or other peer reviewed data.SCCD strongly encourages the Forest to utilize the current science when picking standards or objectives. The 80‐95 percent ground cover objective doesn't appear to have any scientific backing. 6132SCCD would like clarification on what data was used to support the sites not meeting objectives.

7183Permittees are unaware of the site on wagon creek in the nw pasture that is not meeting desired conditions. With the cooperative monitoring program in place since 1996, communication on area of concern is vital to permittees so they can try to address areas not meeting objectives.

8221The adaptaive management tool prescribed in this document is to reduce use in order to shift species composition. In a state and transition model reducing use won't shift species composition across a threshold without significant inputs outside of reduced livestock grazing. The methodology used to calculate the suitable acres for grazing came up with 61,331 acres. According to the permittees this number seems 9521 extremely low. 10 52 4 SCCD believes that the USFS has the ability to reduce use through their AOI or other permit action if conditions warrant. 11 56 1 Same as comment #9 on suitable grazing acres determination. 12 Having the ability to move pastures in response to large carnivores is essential along with actual use standards, weather, and other triggers. 13 66 4 The 270 head reduction in the permitted use goes against SCCD's Public Land Use Policy of no net loss of AUM's. 14 67 6 The 270 head reduction should be taken out over the entire allotment and shouldn’t be taken out of the Mosquito Lake pasture system. 15 67 5 The shift of 7 days to either end of the grazing season is very important to having flexibility and adaptive management. Then by putting a restriction on which pasture systems the Forest allows the 7 day shift takes away all flexability and adaptative management. It 16 67 5 should be in every allotment and pasture system analyzed under this EIS. SCCD believes in adapative management but when you give a 5 year average and then say 1 year can't exceed 50% utilization. This goes against 17 71 3 adaptive management.

18 73 1 SCCD doesn't correlate how increasing greenline standards will change species composition on the uplands to meet objectives. SCCD encourages the Forest to address the issues in the uplands in the uplands not through the riparian management. SCCD believes that the 20% bank alteration standard isn't as repeatable and reliable of a method as stubble height and was never designed to be used 19 73 2 as a move on use standard just an indicator. 20 73 3 If livestock haven't been determined the causal factor then why start putting unwarranted standards on the permittees. 21 74 3 SCCD is unaware of amphiban breeding zones that have been delinated using some approved protocol. Also breeding dates haven't been made available to the cooperating agencies or permittees to even know if livestock are present on the allotment when breeding occurs. 22 73 5 Salting should be added to the list of activities that can be allowed occasionaly with motorized vehicles

23 78 Table 6 What reasoning does the Forest have for requiring active herding of cattle away from the feedground in the fall. The feedground doesn't provide any winter feed for elk due to the plant community that is present as a result of feeding elk over the years. SCCD thinks that the standard of 20% bank alteration along with the 6 inch stubble height is over kill. SCCD believes that bank alteration is highly 24 78 Table 6 variable between readers, and is not a good standard for this project area. 25 79 Table 6 Is Wagon Creek going to be fenced for eternity or until objectives are met? And what are the site specific objectives? 26 79 Table 6 Same as comment #17 27 81 Table 6 same as comment #1 28 General General The driveway on USFS property from the end of the pavement to Jim Creek is a part of what allotment if its not analyzed in this document? This document puts a standard on the Tosi area of 20 percent alteration and 6 inch stubble height based on what data. Beavers actively use this area 29 87 1 and most of the concerns are when dams fail. 30 92 4 On raspberry creek what is the problem that would require identification of alternative trails. SCCD is unaware of an issue that would trigger this. The Fish Creek focus areas are on top of dispersed campgrounds used by the public and how does the Forest plan to discern the difference between 31 93 2 and 3 cattle and recreational impacts to the area.

32 93 6 SCCD would ask the Forest to address in this document all the cooperative monitoring sites established in the Upper Green for trend. If there is a need for more sites it hasn't been communicated to the permittees or cooperating agencies.

SCCD would request that the Forest meets with the permittees regarding the Mud Lake pasture fence realignment along Crow Creek. The creek is 33 93 5 armored and provides good water to that pasture which was the original intent according to the permittees. Realigning the fence would put increased pressure on the Green River which may not be a desired outcome. 34 95 2 Same as comment #17

35 95 2 Depending on the goal for species composition and the departure from that goal, increasing utilization standards may or may not work. Without knowing what the goal is, then how can the cooperating agencies and the permittees know if this is a viable option? SCCD disagrees with the Forest going away from several monitoring sites within each pasture that is currently cooperatively monitored on an annual 36 95 2 basis for utilization, to one site per pasture to establish use. One site in this large of a landscape doesn't give the Forest a reliable answer to what the average utilization in the pasture is. SCCD feels that the Forest is putting conditions on the Kinky Creek pasture that can be used is eliminating adapative management if options/needs in 37 98 2 the future arise. Also SCCD is aware that the permittees have proposed exchanging the Kinky for some of the old Bacon Creek allotment, which hasn't been analyzed in this document and should be. Cooperative data shows huge gains in the health of Teepee Creek in a cooperative report showing photos from 1982 through 2002 of the focus area, so 38 98 4 why build the fence if the data shows otherwise?

39 General General SCCD found no where in the document that explains when or if grazing precriptions on the focus areas would change if goals and objectives are being met. If the intent of the Forest is to never change the grazing precriptions then SCCD feels that this is the wrong approach to adaptive management.

40 103 1 The statement about Gypsum Creek cattle not using the River Bottom pasture doesn’t reflect the current management on the ground and SCCD feels that the document should reflect current management of livestock within the project area. 41 103 2 The definition of the driveway doesn't accurately depict whats on the ground and how does the Forest expect to maintain 60% ground cover 200 feet either side of a forest system road with all the other uses and impacts that the road adds to the stock driveway. 42 General General Alternative 4 contradicts the current forest plan for areas meeting resource objectives . Ground cover through cooperative monitoring has shown upward trend under current management. SCCD would encourage the Forest to review the 43 158 Table 18 data that they currently have in their files. The Forest assumes riparian function under Alternative 2 current permitted use would degrade condition. To SCCD's knowledge the forest has no data 44 160 Table 19 to support these claims. 45 162 Table 19 The statement that grazing in Alternative 2 would impact lynx is incorrect when the majority of their habitat doesn't overlap.

46 163 Table 19 The Forest is assuming 3 inch stubble in Alternative 2 and high use would cause listing with no data to support this statement. Some current data in regards to toad research is showing areas with cattle grazing is successfully allowing toads to shed the cytrid fungus, which contradicts this statement.

47 165 Table 19 SCCD strongly disagrees with the statement that in Alternative 2 permitted use would result in a trend to federal listing. The Upper Green population isn't the last place sage grouse exist in the intermountain west, nor is it a core population according to the State of Wyoming. The statement the Forest makes that grazing would reduce vole habitat is purely speculative as SCCD is unaware of any studies that show this 48 165 Table 19 correlation. SCCD encourages the Forest to not speculate and use current peer reviewed science when making statments. In Table 19 the Forest makes lots of 49 General Table 19 statements without any backing of peer reviewed science. 50 170 Table 19 Social and economic impact seems backwards, wording change is needed. Feasibilty of the implementation won't be known until its attempted on the ground. The Forest is making a large assumption without consultation with 51 171 Table 19 the permittees. 52 171 Table 19 SCCD is unaware of the definition for environmental productivity and would encourage the Forest to include it in the glossary of this document. SCCD believes that the Forest has the authority to change the allotments in the project area from seaon long grazing to conform with the Forest Plan, 53 172 Table 20 and in the case of the Noble Pastures this is already occurring. 54 177 1 Misuse of the word "key". Key areas are represntative areas not the most sensitive areas on the landscape. Why are key wildlife areas not suitable for livestock grazing when wildlife needs and wildlife AUMs were taken into account when the forage allocation 55 182 bullet was calculated?

56 184 4 SCCD is discouraged that the Forest chose to ignore cooperatively collected data and chose to use data from a method based on ocular data collection, and then tried to repeat this collection at sites that weren't permenantly monumented. SCCD questions the validity of this data set. SCCD is discouraged that there is no mention of all the cooperative data collected, and the key sites that have been developed over the years in 57 185 2,3,4,5 conjunction with several Forest staff and permittees. SCCD encourages the Forest to not base ground cover objectives on a single species. Shrubby Cinquifoil is not a stand alone indicator of a riparian site 58 186 3 and a lot more information is needed for example hydrology and soils.

SCCD is disappointed that the Forest isnt recognizing throughout this document all the data and key sites that are cooperatively monitored every year 59 191 9 with the Forest staff. They state that the last time species composition was monitored was 2014 in Mud Lake East when it was read in 2016 using the line point intercept method. Instead the cooperative monitoring is mentioned sparatically but not to the extent it deserves as that is the most complete data set for vegetation the Forest has. SCCD is encouraged to see the document talk about coop data and how the Forest discussed the results of the data and how that site is trending 60 192 6 upward. This is a picture of the SE pasture and the discussion is of the NW pasture. The figure needs moved to the right area or the figure needs to show the 61 193 Figure 40 NW pasture. 62 194 7 SCCD encourages the Forest to list historical uses that impacted Teepee Creek (roads and culverts placement associated with timber activity).

63 85 1 SCCD feels that removing the flexibility of three time over grazing goes against the theme of this document which is adaptive management. Removal can hinder addressing climatic conditions of any given year in the Noble Pastures since they are irrigated. In consultation with the permittee SCCD doesn’t feel that the rotation as presented has been worked out with the Forest range staff and the 64 85 Table ? permittee. SCCD encourages communication between the District Range staff and the permittee be reflected in this document so there is no suprises like this occurring in the document.

65 85 1 SCCD encourages the Forest not to use a standard on the irrigated land that was developed for rangeland situations. SCCD is willing to work with the Forest and the permittee to form goals and objectives that are for man made irrigated pastures. SCCD is discouraged that the document is citing a non peer reviewed white paper that draws a correlation between stubble height and utilization 66 204 2 without developing a height weight curve for that species in the project area. Climatic conditions have large impacts to utlization and this paper doesn't account for that. SCCD encourages the Forest to amend the Forest Plan if the Forest feels the grazing objectives are incorrect. Changing them in this document is not 67 203 4 the right avenue. 68 209 3 Same as comments #67

69 209 6 SCCD, in consultation with the permittees, wants to point out that current mangement isn't as stated in this EIS and needs corrected to show what currently happens. Current management is a rest rotation system changing the pasture they enter annually. This document doesn't mention that if livestock have been deemed the causal factor then that triggers adapative management measures. SCCD 70 215 2 strongly encourages the Forest to put laguage in this document that livestock have to be deemed as the causal factor before adapative management triggers are made. SCCD encourages the Forest to revisit their MIM sites within the project area. There has been updates to the protocol and they need to be utilized. 71 224 4 SCCD strongly encourages the Forest not to utilize data that was collected at a "critical" DMA which shows impacts from several uses to make decisions on livestock grazing. SCCD's experience in using the MIM protocol is that in a 3 year time frame you don't see a +/‐ 35‐40% change in stream bank stability. SCCD questions 72 229 Table 23 if the protocol was accurately applied. 73 245 2 Same as Comment #32 74 237 2 Same as comment #71 75 237 3 Same as comment #71 The document acknowledges the forest system roads and that it has impacts, then the document draws conclusions on livestock affects at this site. 76 238 1 Also it appears that the math on the decrease value on stability is 40% not 30%. The document states that Fish Creek site #1 was not an ideal location, but then the Forest still utilized the data in the document. SCCD is dicouraged 77 238 3 that if a site was determined not to be ideal that the Forest still utilized the data for the analysis when impacts where both from recreation and livestock where cited. 78 239 2 Fish Creek site #2 is right next to a camp site as well and shouldn't be utilized in this analysis as well.

79 240 1 After consultation with the permittees the Wagon Creek exclosure was fenced as a mangement tool for the rider to help with use, not for water quality reasons as stated in the document. The exclosure was fenced at the request of the permittees. The feasability of the Darwin Ranch to run its 27 horses in the Teepee Creek pasture system and still have the ability to gather them when needed is 80 241 3 impossible. 81 245 4 SCCD feels that the PFC rating on site #4 should state that the rating is directly related to the proximity to the elk feedground. 82 246 3 Correct the water quality data collection to the current year of 2016.

83 252 4 With a feedground along the Green River and constant use by moose and elk, SCCD feels that the Forest has no documented evidence to state elk and other wildlife aren't impacting the riparian area and that impacts appear to be from cattle. 84 256 4 The statement that cattle move from the Mosquito rotation into the Fish Creek rotation doesn't reflect current management. 85 282 2 SCCD encourages the Forest to stick to issues that fall within the project area and not to discuss the adjacent sheep allotments. SCCD is unaware of cutthroat trout in Wagon Creek and would request clarification or documentation of cuthroat trout in wagon creek to set the 86 285 5 threshold of 68 degrees. 87 289 7 SCCD would like clarification if cattle are even present when the redds are being utilized. 88 297 Table 26 SCCD agrees that past fish stocking has done more to impact native fish populations by introducing more aggressive non‐native species. 89 297 Table 26 Same as comment #85 90 327 2 SCCD consulted with the WGFD and they disagree with the document calling the project area a mortality sink for grizzly bears. The use of O'Brien et. al. 2003 to determine the rangeland health and functionality of the key site within the NW pasture is a total misuse of the paper. 91 The paper is designed to be utilized on upland sites not sub‐irrigated areas. SCCD encourages the Forest to rethink the use of non peer reviewed papers as supporting documntation in this EIS. 92 322 1 SCCD believes that with the removal of grazing, social tolerance of the bears potentially will dimish. 93 324 Table 29 SCCD does not see the correlation between grizzly bear protection and the improvement it has on wolf habitat conditions within the project area

94 325 Table 29 The WGFD hasn't made changes to their hunting regulations in regards to black bear baiting and grizzly bear mortality. SCCD encourages the Forest to not draw conclusions between bear baiting and mortality of grizzly bears if its not seen as a problem with the State's game management agency. 95 325 Table 29 SCCD is unaware of research showing improved riparian function that benefits grizzly bear health. 96 327 6 SCCD strongly discurages the Forest from speculating property damage due to cattle presence within the project area. 97 328 4 Same as comment #55 SCCD believes that the cumulative effects from grazing don’t detrack from bear population growth in Wyoming and the GYE, and that the cumulative 98 329 3 effects statements conflict within this paragraph. SCCD believes that based on the current data reports, etc. This statement should read "may affect, and is likely to adversley affect individuals, but not 99 329 5 the population." 100 330 3 SCCD is unaware of any documention showing that cattle increase hunter and recreational conflicts with bears. SCCD would request that the Forest shows the data that livestock will have an effect throughout the grizzly bears entire population. Then later in the 101 331 4 paragraph, the document states the effects are below thresholds. 102 331 5 Same as comment #99 103 161 Table 19 Contradicts statements made in the document on page 329 and 331. 104 249 5 USFWS statement conflicts statement made on page 345 paragraph 5.

105 348 2 SCCD would strongly encourage the Forest to look at the current data collected cooperatively and see that it doesn’t show an adverse impact to willow and aspen communities. SCCD again encourages the Forest to leave any assumptions of impacts from full use out of this document. 106 348 SCCD encourages the Forest to only utilize peer reviewed papers when citing research in this EIS. There is science based research that proves amphibian occupancy is related to retention. SCCD strongly believes that 70% retention hasn't been 107 370 Table 30 proven as the benchmark for healthy populations. 108 374 3 SCCD discourages the Forest from using email and conversation as a citation. 109 374 4 Same comment as #66 110 377 Table 32 Same comment as #105 The document shows that following the grazing prescription in Alternative 3, using the regression curve shows that the permittees won't meet the 111 378 Table 32 objective of 70% retention. 112 379 Table 33 Title has some typos and also the chart heading has sage grouse effects not amphibian effects. The statement that desired conditions for amphiban populations would not be met is misleading since there has been grazing in the project area for 113 384 3 over 100 years and populations of amphibians are still intact. The document admits to a bad study design using a biased approach to picking sites within the project area. SCCD encourages picking areas 114 384 4 representative of habitats across the landscape. 115 386 4 SCCD agrees with the statement that grazing has not had a consistent severe negetative impact. 116 388 3 SCCD agrees with the statement that grazing is not considered the primary cause of population declines. In stating "will likely result in a trend to federal listing or loss of vialbility", SCCD would refer the Forest to comments #118 and #189 that don't support 117 388 4 this conclusion. 118 391 7 Same as comment #111 119 392 4 SCCD is unaware of any data to show impacts of retention on toad populations within the project area. 120 393 3 and 5 SCCD doesn't understand how the statement of impact can be different for the spotted frog and the chrous frog since they occupy similar habitats.

If 7 inches is unattainable based on the ecological site potential, then SCCD would like to know how the sites potential is going to be determined. If the 121 404 Table 36 sites ecological site potential is "x" then is the target "y"? What percentage of the landscape is needed to meet the target? Maintaing 4 inches post breeding is problematic if the site isnt capable of 7 inches, so would the post nesting requirement change as well? 122 404 Table 36 Same as comment #121 123 404 Table 36 SCCD would like to know what percentage of habitat do these conditions have to exist in order to meet the requirements set forth in this document. The data collected by the Forest in 2015, which was a high precipitation year, proves some of the sites aren't capable even with no grazing occuring on 124 405 1 the site. 125 404 5 Same as comment #124 Previous cooperating agency drafts talked to ecological site potential and there is no mention of this in the new DEIS, which is a key component of the 126 405 ROD for the sage grouse 9 plan amandment. SCCD would like to point out that data cooperatively collected from 1996‐2015 shows the average ungrazed height of Idaho Fescue from all sites 127 404 Table 36 within the Upper Green allotment is 5.3 inches. This shows that at least in this allotment that the 7 inch standard cannot be achieved the majority of the time. Sage grouse are still prevalant in the project area with over 100 years of grazing along with several other subdivisions and anthropogenic additions to 128 415 5 the landscape. This population within the project area is not in core habitat as defined by the state and is a fringe population not essential to the main population. 129 417 4 Same comment as #127 SCCD doesn't understand how the document can prefer an alternative and then state that the allotments won't meet the 4 inch height with a 130 418 1 moderate degree of uncertainty. The document states that under Alternative 3 there will have greater utilization, but doesn't say what its compared too. SCCD would like clarification 131 417 4 on this sentence. SCCD disagrees with this paragraph saying Alternative 3 would provide less cover than existing conditions when it is unachievable to predict the future 132 419 5 use when permitted use will not change. Using the average of 5.3 inches for Idaho Fescue and calculating 50% use using the USFS utilization wheel would result in a stubble height of 7/8". To 133 419 5 maintain a 4 inch post nesting stubble height the average use would be 2‐3%. SCCD feels that if the permittees are held to 2% use within 5.3 miles of the potential big bend lek within nesting habitat then grazing on the nesting habitat within the project area would cease to exist. 134 443 6 Same as comment #48 135 444 4 Same as comment #48 136 485 Table 40 SCCD doesn't understand how a holding pen can be criticized for low ground cover when it was designed to hold and concentrate livestock. 137 487 2 SCCD would like to point out that cooperative collected data shows SWMP‐04 has an average 95% cover from 1996‐2013. 138 477 4 There is no data cited to support the conclusions made on cumulative affects due to the alternatives in this document. 139 477 4 SCCD believes that the effects shown in Table 36 haven't been addressed on the socio economic resources section. SCCD believes that Alternative 3 doesn’t show what the effects of the increased use requirements will have on use and cattle numbers in the 140 479 3 allotments. SCCD as stated in a previous comment is in favor of the one week shift at the beginning and end of the permitted season, but is discouraged that the 141 67 5 document puts stipulations on which allotments and pasture systems the shif applies too. SCCD would like the decision to be up to the District Ranger which would allow for flexibilty. Quantifying Influences on Line Point Intercept Estimates of Plant Cover

Glenn Owings, Range Specialist--Sublette County Conservation District

Measures of vegetative and other ground cover on rangelands are used by managing agencies to assess the ability of the landscape to provide necessary ecological functions (Pellant et al. 2005, Johnston 2006). Line-point intercept is one of the most commonly used methods for collecting cover data (Bonham 1989, Herrick et al. 2005). It produces a large number of points in a relatively short amount of time and is minimally influenced by observer bias (Bonham 1989,

Godinez-Alvarez 2009).

Line-point intercept transects read over time are often used to determine if a particular site is trending upward, downward, or is static. High levels of bare ground indicate greater susceptibility to erosion and invasive species, decreased vegetative production, lower infiltration rates, reduced cover for wildlife, and a potential shift to a less desirable plant community

(Herrick et al. 2005). While it is known that different soil and precipitation regimes result in unique values for expected cover and plant community composition, a drastic decrease in ground cover is understood to indicate natural disturbance, land misuse, or sampling error (Brady et al.

1995, Herrick et al. 2005).

There are several assumptions associated with this monitoring/management approach.

First, it is supposed that the sampling site was placed in a location representative of the management unit (commonly an allotment or pasture). It should then indicate changes expected throughout the unit of interest and convey them with reasonable confidence (Brady et al. 1995).

In terms of policy, changes in the chosen site are assumed to be indicative of management changes, such that an increase or decrease in cover may be influenced by agency directives.

While this may be true in some cases, variable biophysical factors like total precipitation, snowpack, and soil characteristics may have a greater influence on cover than year-to-year management changes.

It is suggested that basal cover be used in rangeland monitoring because it is less susceptible to annual variation in precipitation than foliar cover (Brady et al. 1995, Herrick et al.

2005). However, because of time constraints and interest in following historic monitoring protocols, agencies may be hesitant to adapt management plans to include basal cover.

Another method commonly used to assess trend is nested frequency (USDA 1993).

While it results in many data points at every site reading, bias induced by different observers is magnified. In addition, site location after many years is difficult, making confidence in trend assessments very weak. Because of its simplicity, line point intercept has proven to be one of the most reliable trend assessment techniques over time (Brady et al. 1995).

The purpose of this document is to quantify the influence of precipitation metrics, livestock numbers, and utilization on first intercept cover in a federal grazing allotment. We expected that precipitation and growing season metrics might better predict variation in cover than annual differences in management.

Methods

The study area is located in the Upper Green C & H grazing allotment (USFS) in northeastern Sublette County, WY. It is ecologically important as the headwaters of the Green

River, a significant tributary to the Colorado River. Elevation in the allotment varies from ca.

8,000’-10,200’. It is composed of multiple rotational pasture systems and totals 125,663 acres.

The vegetation is characterized by mixed mountain shrub and sagebrush/bunchgrass communities. Dominant shrubs are mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. vaseyana (Rydb.) Beetle), silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana Pursh), and spiked sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. spiciformis (Osterh.) Kartesz & Gandhi). Common grasses

include Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis Elmer), Columbia needlegrass (Achnatherum nelsonii

(Scribn.) Barkworth), and slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould ex Shinners).

Long term trend monitoring sites and associated line-point intercept transects were selected for the allotment by the USFS, Upper Green River Cattleman’s Association (UGRCA), and range professionals from the University of Wyoming. Permanent stakes were located at each of twelve locations. Cover data was collected by USFS staff and UGRCA members each

September from 1996 to 2012, and compiled in the fall of 2012. One hundred points were collected at one foot intervals for each site reading.

Utilization sites were selected by the same interdisciplinary group. Data were collected using the height-weight method for the selected key species, Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis)

(Lomasson and Jensen 1943). Utilization data was collected after or near the end of use in sampled pastures. Multiple observers were present when conducting line-point and utilization measurements and the USFS was involved in nearly every case.

Cover data for each year were averaged across the allotment to combat effects of potentially misplaced transect lines (Bonham and Reich 2009). Total cover is the sum of vegetation, rock, and litter hits along the line-point transect. On a 100 point transect, total cover is equivalent to 100 minus the number of bare ground hits. Foliar cover, as assessed in this document, is the total of vegetative hits on a 100 point transect. Actual use numbers for the allotment were provided by the UGRCA.

The Gros Ventre Summit snow telemetry (SNOTEL) site recorded precipitation data for the years of interest (NRCS 2012). It is located within the allotment at an elevation similar to the monitoring sites. Precipitation and snow data were stratified by water year and extracted from the SNOTEL online data library (NRCS 2012).

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using Minitab 16 (Minitab 2012). Descriptive statistics were tabulated for cover at all sites. Simple and multiple linear regression were used to detect relationships between the response variables and predictor variables (Table 1). The metrics used in analysis were selected based on data availability, quality, and basic ecological theory.

Table 1. Summary of dependent and independent variables used in regression analysis. Dependent (Response) Independent (Predictor) Variables Variables Total Cover Total Precipitation Foliar Cover June Precipitation July Precipitation August Precipitation Summer Precipitation Maximum Snow Water Equivalent Date of Snow Disappearance Stock Number (Previous Year Actual Use) Utilization (Previous Year)

Previous year’s stocking and utilization data was used because cover information was collected in rested pastures. Date of snow disappearance was converted to Julian date in order to make it suitable for regression analysis. The experimental unit is one year of cover data.

Relationships will be considered significant when p<0.05.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The means for total cover and foliar cover were 97.78% and 88.91% respectively (Table

2). With a mean of 97.78 and standard deviation of 2.80, total cover did not provide enough variation away from the possible maximum value for meaningful analysis. Because of this, foliar cover was an important surrogate to test factor influences on vegetative cover. Regression was still performed on total cover data because it is commonly the metric of interest in management documents.

Table 2. Mean, standard error, and standard deviation for total cover and foliar cover in percent (n=45). Mean Std. Error of Mean Std. Deviation Total Cover 97.78 0.42 2.80 Foliar Cover 88.91 1.42 9.51

Regression Analysis

Regression analysis did not identify any significant predictors for total cover (Table 3).

Foliar cover was significantly correlated with three independent variables (Table 4). Adjusted r-

squared was used to compare simple and multiple regression models because it accounts for the

increase in correlation induced by additional factors.

Table 3. Results of simple linear regression analysis using total cover as the response variable. Predictor Variables n p-value R-Squared R-Squared (adj.) Yearly Precipitation 17 0.465 3.6% 0.0%

June Precipitation 17 0.346 5.9% 0.0%

July Precipitation 17 0.838 0.3% 0.0%

August Precipitation 17 0.252 8.7% 2.6%

Summer Precipitation 17 0.854 0.2% 0.0% (June-August) Maximum Snow Water 17 0.467 3.6% 0.0% Equivalent Date of Snow 17 0.238 9.2% 3.1% Disappearance Stock Number (Previous 16 0.680 1.2% 0.0% Year Actual Use) Utilization (Previous 16 0.490 3.5% 0.0% Year) *Statistically significant relationship (p<0.05)

Table 4. Results of simple linear regression analysis using foliar cover as the response variable. Predictor Variables n p-value R-Squared R-Squared (adj.) Annual Precipitation 17 0.030* 27.7% 22.9%

June Precipitation 17 0.043* 24.7% 19.6%

July Precipitation 17 0.870 0.2% 0.0%

August Precipitation 17 0.978 0.0% 0.0%

Summer Precipitation 17 0.170 12.2% 6.3% (June-August) Maximum Snow Water 17 0.059 21.7% 16.5% Equivalent Date of Snow 17 0.001* 52.7% 49.5% Disappearance Stock Number (Previous 16 0.314 7.2% 0.6% Year Actual Use) Utilization (Previous 16 0.080 20.3% 14.6% Year) *Statistically significant relationship (p<0.05).

Yearly precipitation was significantly correlated with foliar cover (p=0.030, adjusted r- sq=22.9, Figure 1).

Regression for Foliar Cover vs Yearly Precipitation

Y: Foliar Cover X: Yearly Precipitation Fitted Line Plot for Linear Model Y = 73.04 + 0.6832 X

100

95

90

Foliar Cover Foliar 85

80

15 20 25 30 35 Yearly Precipitation

Figure 1. Regression for foliar cover vs. yearly precipitation. June precipitation was also positively correlated with foliar cover (p=0.043, adjusted r- sq=19.6%, Figure 2).

Regression for Foliar Cover vs June Precipitation

Y: Foliar Cover X: June Precipitation Fitted Line Plot for Linear Model Y = 84.00 + 2.418 X

100

95

90

Foliar Cover Foliar 85

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 June Precipitation

Figure 2. Regression for foliar cover vs. yearly precipitation.

The date of snow disappearance was the best predictor of foliar cover among variables tested (p=0.001, adjusted r-sq=49.5%, Figure 3).

Regression for Foliar Cover vs Date of Snow Disappearance

Y: Foliar Cover X: Date of Snow Disappearance Fitted Line Plot for Linear Model Y = 21.33 + 0.4516 X

100

95

90

Foliar Cover Foliar 85

80

130 140 150 160 170 Date of Snow Disappearance

Figure 3. Regression for foliar cover vs. date of snow disappearance. The three significant independent variables were then analyzed using multiple linear regression. Predictor variables were removed from the model if the variance inflation factor

(VIF) was greater than five. A high VIF value indicates collinearity among independent

variables. Predictors were also removed from the multiple regression model if they were not

related to the response variable at a significant level within said model (p<0.05). While several

iterations of a multiple factor model were significant, none were more predictive than the date of snow disappearance alone.

Discussion

Despite seventeen years of monitoring data, no predictor was significantly correlated with

total cover. A data collection of this quality, consistency, and breadth is uncommon on Western

rangelands and it is unlikely that more data would illuminate a relationship.

Furthermore, the results indicate that annual use and total stock number are not reliable

indicators of changes in total cover. Changes in annual use and stocking rate could not be expected to alter bare ground at a detectable level within the constraints of this grazing system, monitoring protocol, and period of observation.

There are several possible explanations for this finding. First, no functional degradation is occurring under current annual use and stocking rates. Use is exerting no ecological pressure on the uplands, and the ecosystem is functioning at a sustainably high level. Alternatively, the monitoring plan set in place is insufficient to detect actual change caused by grazing. Finally, there may be an unknown lag time associated with a vegetative response to grazing and other land uses in place.

Foliar cover was selected as an alternative indicator for measuring influences of predictor variables on vegetation. The results indicate that yearly precipitation, June precipitation, and the date of snow disappearance have a significant influence on foliar cover. The date of snow

disappearance alone accounts for 52.7% of the variation in foliar cover. This suggests that soil-

water characteristics on uplands within the allotment are heavily influence by snowpack.

Specifically, vegetative cover is higher when snow lasts longer into the growing season. While it

is known that precipitation and snowpack influence annual vegetative cover, this phenomenon

has not previously been quantified for this ecoregion.

In many management scenarios total cover is considered over time on a site basis, not in

the whole allotment. Sample size becomes limiting in this case. For example, the sample

standard deviation for the most frequently recorded site in this allotment is 1.63 (n=6). If this is

applied to a future reading, a minimum of five line-point intercept transects at that site would be

.(required to achieve a margin of error of 2.5 when estimating the mean cover (ݔ + or – 2.5

An alternative to assessing cover trend on a yearly basis has been to define a threshold

level at which total ground cover is no longer sufficient to preserve ecological function (O’Brien

et al. 2003). Threshold identification is one of the most challenging aspects of natural resource

management and must incorporate the complex non-linear relationships that exist between landscape morphology, management actions, climatic variation, wildlife affects, and climate change (Briske et al. 2005, Groffman et al. 2006). The application of large scale, region-wide cover estimates to specific monitoring sites is questionable in light of current science and known drivers of landscape variability.

The development of ecological site descriptions (ESD’s) is a viable alternative to these broad scale assumptions. Modern science best describes plant communities as multiple states with varying transitional pathways, not as points on a linear seral stage progression (Westoby et al. 1989, Stringham et al. 2003, Briske et al. 2005). The development of ESD’s for the study area would provide an ecologically based framework for site assessment. There is biological

evidence to suggest that cover, plant communities, and production are site specific and driven

primarily by soils and precipitation (Westoby et al. 1989, Stringham et al. 2003). In addition,

federal land agencies signed a memorandum of understanding in 2005 to develop an interagency

guide for ESD development (Bureau of Land Management 2010). It was completed in 2010, and

associated policy dictates that agencies further develop and implement the Rangeland

Interagency Ecological Site Manual (RIESM) (Bureau of Land Management 2010).

Management Implications

This research supports the assertion that biophysical factors such as precipitation, soils, and temperature strongly influence plant community morphology. While grazing measures such as utilization may be predictive under some circumstances, their affects were masked by the larger ecological processes addressed in this study. The results indicate that reducing stocking

rate or utilization in this system will not have a measurable effect on annual trend readings for

cover. Assumptions about standard monitoring techniques may not apply where systems are in

high ecological condition, under light stocking rates, and exhibit a strong precipitation influence.

If a relationship between change in policy and landscape characteristics is inferred, it is

imperative that managing agencies employ monitoring techniques indicative of said relationship.

Because of site relocation error, infrequent readings, and observer bias, nested frequency data for

this allotment cannot compare with the statistical rigor of the line-point data set analyzed in this study.

Adaptation of monitoring techniques may be required to detect actual change as a result

of management. Future studies should evaluate the most efficient, predictive monitoring methods for use in this allotment. Further understanding of naturally induced variation in local

plant communities would be useful when incorporated into ecological site development.

It should also be noted that is impossible to estimate a confidence interval for the sample mean with only one transect. There is no way to assess variability when that single transect is the experimental unit. Therefore comparing single transects from one year to another is statistically suspect even when certain that the same line is being read. Future monitoring should incorporate multiple transects for the same key site (Bonham and Reich 2009).

References

Bonham, C.D. 1989. Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. Wiley Intersciences, N.Y. 338pp.

Bonham, C.D. and R.M. Reich. 2009. Influences of transect relocation errors on line-point estimates of plant cover. Plant Ecology 204:173-178.

Brady, W.W., J.E. Mitchell, C.D. Bonham, and J.W. Cook. 1995. Assessing the power of the point-line transect to monitor changes in plant basal cover. Journal of Range Management 48:187-190.

Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Information Bulletin No. 2011-004.

Briske, D.D., S. D. Fuhlendorf and F. E. Smeins. 2005. State-and-transition models, thresholds, and rangeland health: A synthesis of ecological concepts and perspectives. Rangeland Ecology & Management 58:1-10.

Herrick, J.E., J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, L. M. Burkett, and W.G. Whitford. 2005. Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland and savanna ecosystems. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range. Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press. 236pp.

Johnston, A. 2006. Effects of Grazing Intensity and Cover on the Water Intake Rate of Fescue Grassland. Journal of Range Management 15:79-83.

Lommasson, T. and C. Jensen, C. 1943. Determining utilization of range grasses by height– weight tables. Journal of Forestry 41:589–593.

NRCS. 2012. USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service. SNOTEL Data and Products. http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/.

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D. Pyke and J. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health. Version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. 122pp.

Stringham, T.K., W.C. Krueger, and P.L. Shaver. 2003. State and transition modeling: an ecological process approach. Journal of Range Management 56:106-113.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1993. Rangeland ecosystem analysis and management handbook. FSH 2209-21. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 4 ch.

Westoby, M., B. Walker and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42:266-274.

Trend Summary by Pasture Green River Allotment

Prepared for: Upper Green River Cattleman’s Association Prepared by: Glenn Owings, Range Program Manager, Sublette County Conservation District

I.Introduction

The purpose of this document is to summarize cover data and address pasture trend at

cooperatively selected locations in the Green River C&H, Pinedale Ranger district, Bridger

Teton National Forest. Forest personnel were present at all but a handful of site readings when circumstances precluded their availability. Previous analysis of foliar cover at the allotment scale indicated a statistically significant influence of precipitation and snowpack on cover readings.

Neither utilization nor actual use (total stock numbers) were predictive of foliar cover.

Each pasture within the Mosquito Lake system has been split out for analysis. All other pastures are addressed together because none has more than two cover readings. More than two readings are needed to determine ecological trend.

Because each monitoring site represents just one experimental unit, statistical analyses could not be used to assess variability and deviation from a mean. For the purpose of clarity, please note how the following terms will be used in this report:

Total Cover: First intercept cover, including vegetation, rock, and litter. Equivalent to 100 percent minus percent bare ground. All values are reported as a percentage.

Trend: A discernible, scientifically defensible change in plant community structure and function.

II.Summaries A.Mosquito Lake 1.SE Pasture

Site 5 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1996 43 17 30 4 0 4 96 1998 51 20 23 5 1 0 100 2002 45 18 16 21 0 0 100 2006 42 18 27 10 0 3 97 2009 50 9 25 12 0 3 97 2012 53 13 27 5 0 2 98

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Readings

Site 8 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1996 35 20 25 2 2 2 98 1998 54 24 18 1 1 1 99 2002 37 20 18 0 2 0 100 2006 45 21 18 0 2 0 100 2009 50 16 22 1 1 1 99 2012 53 15 13 1 3 1 99

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Readings

Discussion: With total cover measures consistently exceeding Forest standards and life form composition relatively steady there is no clear trend for this pasture. It appears stable, resistant to weed invasion, and exhibits adequate ground cover to provide for soil protection and infiltration.

2.SW Pasture

Site 4 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1996 49 1 50 0 0 0 100 1999 50 4 41 0 0 4 96 2003 22 5 39 21 2 1 99 2007 28 4 39 17 0 12 88 2010 39 5 50 2 0 4 96 2013 36 3 39 15 0 7 93

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Readings

Site 2 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1996 40 30 19 7 0 4 96 1999 49 31 17 2 0 1 99 2003 38 27 17 15 1 2 98 2007 46 21 18 14 0 1 99 2010 46 33 18 2 0 1 99 2013 35 31 20 11 0 3 97

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

100 Variable Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Readings

Discussion: Samples at site 4 showed some variability across the monitoring time frame.

Readings 3 and 4 (2003 and 2007) showed a drop in grass and increase in litter cover large enough that it could represent more than sampling noise. Total cover is also somewhat variable but does not follow any apparent trend. After reviewing the precipitation data it does not appear to be correlated in this case. Very weak regression lines can be drawn for grass and litter cover though neither is statistically significant. Site 2 data shows very stable conditions and does not exhibit a pattern similar to site 4. This supports the assertion that large scale annual factors did not account for the grass-litter relationship at site 4. Based on the preponderance of evidence there is no clear trend for this pasture. It appears stable, resistant to weed invasion, and exhibits adequate ground cover to provide for soil protection and infiltration.

3.NW Pasture

Site 13 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1997 48 17 21 9 0 5 95 2000 54 26 9 8 0 3 97 2004 35 17 19 26 0 3 97 2014 55 15 23 6 0 4 96

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Litter, Rock, ...

100 Variable Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Litter Rock 60 Bare Total

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 Readings

Discussion: Site 13 was selected for analysis in the NW pasture because it is the only site with more than two readings. While some variability is apparent there is no clear trend in any of the cover metrics. It appears stable, resistant to weed invasion, and exhibits adequate ground cover to provide for soil protection and infiltration.

4.NE Pasture

Site 17 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1997 61 11 24 2 0 2 98 2001 71 15 13 1 0 0 100 2005 68 13 17 2 0 0 100 2008 66 17 16 1 0 0 100 2011 75 16 9 0 0 0 100

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 Readings

Site 18 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1997 44 29 24 2 0 2 98 2001 46 33 12 6 0 3 97 2005 43 30 10 12 1 4 96 2008 28 35 23 12 0 2 98 2011 60 31 9 0 0 0 100

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 Readings

Discussion: Site 17 shows consistent readings over time for all cover metrics. For site 18 the increase in grass cover and decrease in other measures in 2011 may be meaningful but cannot be addressed until further readings take place. There is no clear trend in any of the cover metrics.

The pasture appears stable, resistant to weed invasion, and exhibits adequate ground cover to provide for soil protection and infiltration.

B. All Other Pastures

Tepee Cr., Mud Lake (E and W), Fish Cr., and Gypsum Cr. (upper and lower) do not have enough readings to adequately assess trend. However, it is worth noting that bare ground is at or below 8% for all readings in the aforementioned pastures. This suggests a sufficient level of site stability and exceeds the Forest standard for ground cover.

III.Conclusion

Based on the available cover data it appears that all sites in the Green River C&H are ecologically stable and do not exhibit meaningful trend. There may be several reasons that this is the case:

-There has been no substantial change in plant communities across the pastures in the Green

River allotment.

-There were changes in the plant communities, but monitoring cover by life-form was not adequate to detect change.

-There were changes in the plant communities, but the sample size and site distribution were not sufficient to detect change.

ATTACHMENT 3

COALITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 925 SAGE AVENUE, SUITE 302 KEMMERER, WY 83101

COUNTY COMMISSIONS AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS FOR LINCOLN, SWEETWATER, UINTA, LITTLE SNAKE, AND SUBLETTE - WYOMING

November 21, 2016

VIA http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=3049

Robert Hoelscher, District Ranger Dave Booth, Natural Resource Specialist Pinedale Ranger District Bridger Teton National Forest 29 East Fremont Lake Road P.O. Box 220, Pinedale Wyoming 82941

Re: Upper Green River Rangeland Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Mr. Hoelscher & Mr. Booth:

The Coalition of Local Governments (“Coalition”) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Forest Service’s (“USFS”) most recent Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) in the ongoing evaluation of the Upper Green River Rangeland Project (“Project”). Coalition members Sublette County and Sublette County Conservation District have worked with the USFS in an effort to ensure that local government interests and concerns area adequately addressed. The Coalition raises the following significant issues.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST

The Coalition is a voluntary association of local governments organized under the laws of the State of Wyoming to educate, guide, and develop public land policy in the affected counties. Wyo. Stat. §§11-16-103, 11-16-122. Coalition members include Lincoln County, Sweetwater County, Uinta County, Sublette County, Lincoln Conservation District, Sweetwater Conservation District, Uinta County Conservation District, Sublette County Conservation District, Little Snake River Conservation District, and Star Valley Conservation District. The Coalition serves many purposes for its members, including the protection of vested rights of individuals and industries dependent on utilizing and conserving existing resources and public lands, the promotion and support of habitat improvement, the support and funding of scientific studies addressing federal land use plans and projects, and providing comments on behalf of members for the educational benefit of those proposing federal land use plans and land use projects. Robert Hoelscher Dave Booth November 21, 2016 Page 2

Both county and conservation district members of the Coalition have authority to protect the public health and welfare of Wyoming citizens while promoting and protecting public lands and natural resources. Wyo. Stat. §§18-5-102; Wyo. Stat. §§11-16-122. Given this broad statutory charge and wealth of experience in public land matters, the Coalition has enjoyed a long history as a cooperating entity and has coordinated efforts with Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), U.S. Forest Service and other federal, state, and local entities.

The members of the Coalition have strong interests in the BLM planning procedures in the proposed rule and its application to the lands subject to their statutory authority1. Sweetwater County “[e]ncourage[s] and support[s] environmentally responsible resource exploration/development within the region” and encourages “a balance between resource development and environmental protection.” Sweetwater County Comprehensive Plan, at 2.9 (2002) (SCCP). It further “[e]ncourage[s] the preservation of agricultural lands and activities within the County.” Id. at 2.5. Sweetwater County Conservation District commits to seeing that all natural resource decisions “maintain and revitalize the concept of multiple use on state and federal lands in Sweetwater County.” SWCCD Land & Resource Use Plan & Policy at 8, 17, 29 (2011) (SWCCD Plan). It encourages the participation “in local plans for sage grouse management to ensure an effective balance between sagebrush habitat for sage grouse and grass vegetation for domestic and wild grazing animals.” Id. at 55. It also looks to ensure “that wildlife management and habitat objectives reduce and/or avoid conflicts with other multiple uses,” and that the “objective of maintaining healthy wildlife populations balance[] with resource carrying capacity and other land uses.” Id. at 66-68.

Sublette County supports a multiple-use policy on the lands within the county. Sublette County Comprehensive Plan, at 19, 62 (2005) (Sublette County Plan). It encourages and supports “maintaining wildlife populations that are in balance with available habitat and other uses,” as well as supporting “wildlife management techniques that minimize conflicts with agricultural operations and/or practices.” Id. at 18, 57. It is also Sublette County’s goal to “balance between the conservation and the use of the County’s natural resources.” Id. at 44-45, 61. Sublette County Conservation District’s objective is to “ensure public lands are managed for multiple use, sustained yield, and prevention of natural resource waste.” Sublette County Conservation District Public Land Use Policies, at 5, 7-8 (2008) (Sublette CD Policies). Its position is that “[f]orests, rangelands, and watersheds, in a healthy condition, are necessary and beneficial for wildlife, livestock grazing, and other multiple uses.” Id. at 16.

Lincoln County also supports and depends on the multiple uses of the public lands and supports land uses that are consistent with “orderly development and efficient use of renewable and

1All county and conservation district plans are publicly available documents on each respective website. We incorporate by reference each plan in its entirety. Robert Hoelscher Dave Booth November 21, 2016 Page 3

nonrenewable resources.” Lincoln County Comprehensive Plan, at 7 (2006) (LCCP). It is its position that if forests, rangelands, and watersheds are maintained in a healthy condition, then it will benefit wildlife, livestock grazing, and other multiple-uses. Lincoln County Public Lands Policy, at 3-40. Lincoln Conservation District’s objective is to “maintain a solid resource balance between wildlife, recreation and other land uses in the District.” Lincoln Conservation District Land Use & Natural Management Long Range Plan, at 36 (2010-2015) (LCD Plan).

Uinta County supports public land development and livestock grazing as critical economic and cultural drivers. Uinta County Comprehensive Plan at 21-23 (2011) (UCC Plan). The County supports use of maxium Animal Unit Months and opposes any relinquishment of livestock permits. Id. at 22. The County supports public land access and opposes the any use of the Endangered Species Act, or candidate species to restrict or curtail uses in the County. Id. Uinta County Conservation District seeks “promote and protect agriculture, to provide leadership, information, education and technical assistance for the development and improvement of our natural resources, to protect the tax base and promote the health, safety and well being of Uinta County residents.” Uinta County Conservation District Long Range Plan at 1 (2010-2015) (UCCD Plan).

II. Proposed Action Does Not Conform to Local Government Plans or LRMP

The Preferred Alternative, Alternative 3, proposes new vegetation objectives such as canopy cover and grass height for sage-grouse habitat. These new requirements will nearly dismantle livestock grazing in the project area. As described below, the USFS has made no attempt to identify what allotments under what moisture regimes are even capable of reaching stubble heights greater than seven inches during the spring and greater than four inches after nesting and brood rearing seasons. See supra §IV. Livestock grazing is an essential economic driver for Sublette County and neighboring counties and those rural communities that depend on secondary industries dependent on livestock grazing. The new vegetation requirements are directly counter to the custom and culture of Sublette County and conflicts with the Sublette County Comprehensive Plan and the Sublette County Conservation District Public Land Use Policies. Moreover, the DEIS also conflicts with the controlling Land Resource Managment Plan.

The Bridger Teton Land Resource Management Plan adopted a number of objectives, the first one of which is to support community prosperity. LRMP at 112. Relative to livestock grazing, the LRMP states “[p]rovide forage for about 260,000 animal unit months (AUMs) of livestock grazing annually.” Id. at 113. The LRMP also sets as a goal the avoidance of “unacceptable effects from livestock use.” Id. at 120. The LRMP also provides for reducing interference with and improving conditions for livestock operations. Id. These include providing for stock driveways, reducing noxious weeds, and implementing predator control when appropriate. Id. at 121. The DEIS, however, proposes a cut in numbers based on actual use, all but guarantees stocking level decreases Robert Hoelscher Dave Booth November 21, 2016 Page 4 due to unattainable vegetation objectives, and dismantles a stable economic driver and cultural staple in the community. Thus, the DEIS is in several respect, antithetical to the LRMP.

III. Table ES-1 “No Concerns Identified”

In several columns in Table ES-1, with regard to identified resource objectives, such as ground cover, or trend in species composition, the DEIS states that in some allotments “no concerns identified.” This phrase is ambiguous and does not reflect the language used in the relevant regulatory framework. The precise evaluation is whether conditions are meeting or making progress toward meeting the objectives. “No concerns identified” does nothing to indicate the trend, and therefore, the merit of the action being proposed. As a result, the evaluation of the alternatives is also skewed to the point that the public cannot determine which alternative is actually meeting the objectives, and which are not.

IV. Sage-Grouse Desired Conditions Ignore Site Potential

The DEIS provides several objectives with regard to habitat conditions for sage-grouse. According to the DEIS, the “objectives” are requirements.2 See DEIS at 22 (“Adaptive management would entail reducing the maximum allowable use on key forage species . . . until such time as the resource objective(s) is reached.”). The following table identifies the objectives under the Proposed Action.

HABITAT TRAIT OBJECTIVE Nesting Canopy Cover >15% Grass Summer Canopy Cover >15% Herbaceous Upland Nesting Grass Height >7" Upland Summer Grass Height >4" Riparian Grass Height >4"

The project area includes 170,643 acres, of which, approximately 44 percent or 74,263 acres are determined to be capable and suitable to support livestock grazing. However, the DEIS is completely devoid of any attempt to identify those allotments – let alone the varying sites within the

2For more than 40 years, the USFS has treated objectives as aspirational while standards are binding. See 36 C.F.R. 219. The DEIS deviates for no reason and results in a proposed action that fails to reflect site potential or resource management realities. Robert Hoelscher Dave Booth November 21, 2016 Page 5

allotments – that have to potential to meet these objectives. See DEIS at 12 (providing that only in “some cases” were objectives “refined for site-specificity at the project level by the interdisciplinary team.”). Site potential is the determining factor of whether the objectives can be met, and thus, whether that particular allotment will have reductions in livestock numbers.

It is highly unlikely, if not entirely impossible, that any of the allotments will be able to meet a spring grass height of greater than seven inches. The growing season usually begins in April, but in some springs, may not being until late May. Thus, by the time the allotment actually exceeds a seven inch grass height – if ever – the spring season will have passed without any livestock grazing. Indeed, the DEIS provides no indication as to when the grass height will be measured in the spring to determine whether it is meeting this objective.

Neither has the DEIS attempted to identify and delineate the moisture regime for any of the allotments. It is basic knowledge that a drought year may be preceded by an exceptionally wet year and followed by an even drier year. The result, therefore, is widely variable plant growth from year to year. In other words, the DEIS makes no attempt to deal with those variables that will inevitably impact the productivity of the site. There is no documentation that the DEIS objectives reflect an average that can be achieved most years.

When the USFS establishes a minimum standard for a grass height objective of > 7 inches during the nesting season and > 4 inches post nesting season in upland nesting habitat, then guidelines or parameters need to be established with them.

In this case the guidelines would be:

• How much vegetation can be produced where the minimum standard is applied, commonly called site potential, measured in pounds of vegetation per acre (lbs/ac)?

• How much water, commonly called precipitation, does the area receive during the year either in rain or snow?

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (“NRCS”) has done extensive work on the first guideline above in the form of gathering vegetative data on areas, commonly called ecological sites, allowing anyone to determine the sites productivity in lbs/ac. Weather Sites on the internet such as the “US Drought Monitor” also allow anyone to determine how much water an area or site receives by day, month or year.

Thus, using publicly available data the following research could be done to evaluate the feasibility of the two guidelines: Robert Hoelscher Dave Booth November 21, 2016 Page 6

• Can the area or site produce enough vegetation and with average precipitation achieve a grass height objective of > 7 inches during the nesting season and > 4 inches post nesting season in upland nesting habitat?

• Does the area or site receive enough water (precipitation) to achieve a grass height objective of > 7 inches during the nesting season and > 4 inches post nesting season in upland nesting habitat?

• Does the area or site receive enough water (precipitation) and produce enough vegetation to allow for other uses while achieving a grass height objective of > 7 inches during the nesting season and > 4 inches post nesting season in upland nesting habitat?

Research can be done ahead of time to predict what area or sites are capable and what sites are not capable of a grass height objective of > 7 inches during the nesting season and > 4 inches post nesting season in upland nesting habitat. Research can be done ahead of time to predict what combination of water and vegetation production are sites capable of a grass height objective of > 7 inches during the nesting season and > 4 inches post nesting season in upland nesting habitat. However, the EA has made no attempt at determining what sites are capable, under what precipitation regimes, despite the tools necessary to do so. Instead, USFS opts to apply a one-size- fits-all standard that will ultimately phase out livestock grazing.

For example, if research showed that sites producing 1100 lbs/ac could produce a grass height objective of > 7 inches during the nesting season and > 4 inches post nesting season in upland nesting habitat, then research should be completed to show the following:

• Those sites not capable of producing a grass height objective of > 7 inches during the nesting season and > 4 inches post nesting season in upland nesting habitat because of herbage production less than 1100 lbs/ac/yr.

• Those sites capable of producing a grass height objective of > 7 inches during the nesting season and > 4 inches post nesting season in upland nesting habitat at least once with herbage production greater than 1100 lbs/ac/yr. within years receiving above average precipitation (>130 percent of the long-term average) growing season moisture.

• Those sites capable of producing a grass height objective of > 7 inches during the nesting season and > 4 inches post nesting season in upland nesting habitat in years with average precipitation (90 - 110% of 30-year average) or greater with representative values equal to or greater than 1600 lbs/ac/yr. Robert Hoelscher Dave Booth November 21, 2016 Page 7

• Those sites are capable of producing a grass height objective of > 7 inches during the nesting season and > 4 inches post nesting season in upland nesting habitat in years with below average precipitation (75 - 90% of 30-year average) with representative values equal to or greater than 2000 lbs/ac/yr.

• Those sites are capable of producing a grass height objective of > 7 inches during the nesting season and > 4 inches post nesting season in upland nesting habitat in drought years (< 75% of 30-year average) with representative values equal to or greater than 3000 lbs/ac/yr.

• And lastly, capable of producing a grass height objective of > 7 inches during the nesting season and > 4 inches post nesting season in upland nesting habitat in years with when grazed at moderate to full use levels.

None of these scenarios appear in the DEIS. None of the studies cited in the DEIS deal with certainty that precipitation will vary from year to year. Nowhere in the DEIS does the USFS attempt to reconcile the fact that some sites – regardless of moisture – are not capable of meeting these standards. Put simply, the DEIS has not done its job – it has not adequately analyzed the alternatives to produce a hard look at the alternatives and their impacts.

V. Sage-Grouse Habitat Conditions Premised on Single Site Study

The Sage Grouse Supplemental Wildlife Report states that under the proposed action, Alternative 3, “[h]erbaceous height retained at the end of the season may not be sufficient to meet the 4 inch herbaceous stubble height objective in meadows under 50 percent forage utilization and 4 inch stubble height on the greenline across sage grouse summer habitat in the Upper Green project area (based on site specific 2014/2015 data and Clary and Webster 1989).” The DEIS cites a single study to support its discussion of Alternative 3. The study, almost three decades old, is not the best available science and cannot be used as the sole support for an entire alternative. Moreover, it appears that “Alternative 3 would likely not meet the 4-inch herbaceous stubble height objective after the grazing season in the summer habitat with a moderate degree of uncertainty, because 50 percent maximum forage utilization under average to drought conditions and full livestock numbers may yield less than a 4-inch stubble height objective in brood rearing habitat.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, not only does USFS propose an alternative that would almost guaratee that no livestock grazing would occur, but it uses a single study to support that management action. The same is true of the seven inch stubble height. VI. The DEIS Does Not Account for Seasonal Dynamics Research by the U.S. International Biological Program (“IBP”) conducted on the National Grasslands in western South Dakota concluded that herbage biomass declines following the peak Robert Hoelscher Dave Booth November 21, 2016 Page 8

production were due to senescence and weather conditions, etc. The total loss of herbage from peak to end of the growing season ranges from 23 to 50%, depending on whether the plots are in good or fair condition. Seasonal dynamics are entirely separate from the effects of livestock grazing. As one Range Study provided: Therefore, depending on range condition (seral stage) from 23-50% of the herbage (live plus current year dead) is lost from the time that it peaks during summer until early November. On the average, 36% of the herbage biomass disappeared, fell to the ground or blew away during the late summer and fall. Similar seasonal dynamics occur on the Grand River Grasslands. The same report concluded “the natural occurring processes would decrease the above ground herbage (live plus current year's dead) from 1,899 lbs in August to 1,226 lbs on November 1st. . . These relationships would occur in the absence of livestock grazing. The loss of herbage and subsequent structure are strictly the result of senescence, aging, response to weather patterns, insects, etc.” The relevant problem with the current DEIS and the preferred alternative is that “the FS failure to account for seasonal dynamics of the mixed grass prairie has resulted in biological goals that are unrealistic and unattainable.” Id. USFS must determine what percent of vegetation on the allotments will decrease due to senescence, aging, weather patterns, and insects. Without this information, the USFS has left a massive gap in the analysis, compromised the integrity of the conclusions in the DEIS, and ensured that livestock grazing numbers will be arbitrarily cut. Even if the USFS can estimate the level of seasonal dynamics, because grasses and forbs lose anywhere from 50 to 30% of their mass in the fall, it is more likely that no area will meet 4" stubble height after the grazing season ends. The failure to consider this fundamental and documented process renders the application of the stubble heights fundamentally flawed. VII. The DEIS Does Not Account For Wildlife The DEIS states that the “Twin Creeks Pasture was measured [for ground cover] in 2002 which predates implementation of the current management (2009-2013). This site had 64 percent ground cover with an 85 percent objective.” DEIS at 190. The DEIS also states that “another possible factor influencing low ground cover is grazing by summering elk.” Id. However, the trend for the site is not known because only one measurement has been taken to date. Id. The USFS, however, has not qualified the vegetation objectives due to any impacts by wildlife such as heavy summer elk use. As such, impacts caused by elk will be attributed to livestock, and once again, livestock grazers will be left to bear the burden. Similarly, there is no monitoring data that the USFS can use as a baseline for elk summer use. Without a baseline, the impacts of any grazing scheme will be inherently skewed toward reductions. Robert Hoelscher Dave Booth November 21, 2016 Page 9

VIII. Ground Cover Objectives Do Not Equate to Allowable Use Ground cover is a measurement taken over the long-term to measure trend in grazing impacts. Allowable use is an annual measurement called “utilization” and is meant to measure grazing impacts for the current year. Utilization and ground cover, therefore, do measure the same type of impacts but do so at different scales. Thus, the analysis under one scale, will not produce the same conclusions as analysis under the other scale. Ground cover changes slowly, usually due to drought, or other long-term conditions. Utilization, on the other hand, changes due to short-term changes in administration such as grazing use. Thus, using ground cover as an indicator of utilization will not provide an accurate representation of the grazing use. And, providing a meaningful evaluation of the impacts of a proposed action is the precise purpose of the EA. Unless the Forest Service chooses to use utilization instead of ground cover, the document fails its basic NEPA purpose. VIV. Conclusion The Coalition requests that USFS specifically respond to each of these issues. If the USFS would like further information, please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely,

/s/Kent Connelly Chairman, Coalition of Local Governments

ATTACHMENT 4

Quantifying Influences on Line Point Intercept Estimates of Plant Cover

Glenn Owings, Range Specialist--Sublette County Conservation District

Measures of vegetative and other ground cover on rangelands are used by managing

agencies to assess the ability of the landscape to provide necessary ecological functions (Pellant

et al. 2005, Johnston 2006). Line-point intercept is one of the most commonly used methods for

collecting cover data (Bonham 1989, Herrick et al. 2005). It produces a large number of points

in a relatively short amount of time and is minimally influenced by observer bias (Bonham 1989,

Godinez-Alvarez 2009).

Line-point intercept transects read over time are often used to determine if a particular

site is trending upward, downward, or is static. High levels of bare ground indicate greater

susceptibility to erosion and invasive species, decreased vegetative production, lower infiltration

rates, reduced cover for wildlife, and a potential shift to a less desirable plant community

(Herrick et al. 2005). While it is known that different soil and precipitation regimes result in

unique values for expected cover and plant community composition, a drastic decrease in ground

cover is understood to indicate natural disturbance, land misuse, or sampling error (Brady et al.

1995, Herrick et al. 2005).

There are several assumptions associated with this monitoring/management approach.

First, it is supposed that the sampling site was placed in a location representative of the management unit (commonly an allotment or pasture). It should then indicate changes expected throughout the unit of interest and convey them with reasonable confidence (Brady et al. 1995).

In terms of policy, changes in the chosen site are assumed to be indicative of management changes, such that an increase or decrease in cover may be influenced by agency directives.

While this may be true in some cases, variable biophysical factors like total precipitation, snowpack, and soil characteristics may have a greater influence on cover than year-to-year management changes.

It is suggested that basal cover be used in rangeland monitoring because it is less susceptible to annual variation in precipitation than foliar cover (Brady et al. 1995, Herrick et al.

2005). However, because of time constraints and interest in following historic monitoring protocols, agencies may be hesitant to adapt management plans to include basal cover.

Another method commonly used to assess trend is nested frequency (USDA 1993).

While it results in many data points at every site reading, bias induced by different observers is magnified. In addition, site location after many years is difficult, making confidence in trend assessments very weak. Because of its simplicity, line point intercept has proven to be one of the most reliable trend assessment techniques over time (Brady et al. 1995).

The purpose of this document is to quantify the influence of precipitation metrics, livestock numbers, and utilization on first intercept cover in a federal grazing allotment. We expected that precipitation and growing season metrics might better predict variation in cover than annual differences in management.

Methods

The study area is located in the Upper Green C & H grazing allotment (USFS) in

northeastern Sublette County, WY. It is ecologically important as the headwaters of the Green

River, a significant tributary to the Colorado River. Elevation in the allotment varies from ca.

8,000’-10,200’. It is composed of multiple rotational pasture systems and totals 125,663 acres.

The vegetation is characterized by mixed mountain shrub and sagebrush/bunchgrass

communities. Dominant shrubs are mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp.

vaseyana (Rydb.) Beetle), silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana Pursh), and spiked sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. spiciformis (Osterh.) Kartesz & Gandhi). Common grasses include Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis Elmer), Columbia needlegrass (Achnatherum nelsonii

(Scribn.) Barkworth), and slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould ex Shinners).

Long term trend monitoring sites and associated line-point intercept transects were

selected for the allotment by the USFS, Upper Green River Cattleman’s Association (UGRCA),

and range professionals from the University of Wyoming. Permanent stakes were located at

each of twelve locations. Cover data was collected by USFS staff and UGRCA members each

September from 1996 to 2012, and compiled in the fall of 2012. One hundred points were

collected at one foot intervals for each site reading.

Utilization sites were selected by the same interdisciplinary group. Data were collected

using the height-weight method for the selected key species, Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis)

(Lomasson and Jensen 1943). Utilization data was collected after or near the end of use in

sampled pastures. Multiple observers were present when conducting line-point and utilization measurements and the USFS was involved in nearly every case.

Cover data for each year were averaged across the allotment to combat effects of potentially misplaced transect lines (Bonham and Reich 2009). Total cover is the sum of vegetation, rock, and litter hits along the line-point transect. On a 100 point transect, total cover is equivalent to 100 minus the number of bare ground hits. Foliar cover, as assessed in this document, is the total of vegetative hits on a 100 point transect. Actual use numbers for the allotment were provided by the UGRCA.

The Gros Ventre Summit snow telemetry (SNOTEL) site recorded precipitation data for the years of interest (NRCS 2012). It is located within the allotment at an elevation similar to the monitoring sites. Precipitation and snow data were stratified by water year and extracted from

the SNOTEL online data library (NRCS 2012).

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using Minitab 16 (Minitab 2012). Descriptive statistics were tabulated for cover at all sites. Simple and multiple linear regression were used to detect relationships between the response variables and predictor variables (Table 1). The metrics used in analysis were selected based on data availability, quality, and basic ecological theory.

Table 1. Summary of dependent and independent variables used in regression analysis. Dependent (Response) Independent (Predictor) Variables Variables Total Cover Total Precipitation Foliar Cover June Precipitation July Precipitation August Precipitation Summer Precipitation Maximum Snow Water Equivalent Date of Snow Disappearance Stock Number (Previous Year Actual Use) Utilization (Previous Year)

Previous year’s stocking and utilization data was used because cover information was

collected in rested pastures. Date of snow disappearance was converted to Julian date in order to

make it suitable for regression analysis. The experimental unit is one year of cover data.

Relationships will be considered significant when p<0.05.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The means for total cover and foliar cover were 97.78% and 88.91% respectively (Table

2). With a mean of 97.78 and standard deviation of 2.80, total cover did not provide enough

variation away from the possible maximum value for meaningful analysis. Because of this, foliar cover was an important surrogate to test factor influences on vegetative cover. Regression was still performed on total cover data because it is commonly the metric of interest in management documents.

Table 2. Mean, standard error, and standard deviation for total cover and foliar cover in percent (n=45). Mean Std. Error of Mean Std. Deviation Total Cover 97.78 0.42 2.80 Foliar Cover 88.91 1.42 9.51

Regression Analysis

Regression analysis did not identify any significant predictors for total cover (Table 3).

Foliar cover was significantly correlated with three independent variables (Table 4). Adjusted r- squared was used to compare simple and multiple regression models because it accounts for the increase in correlation induced by additional factors.

Table 3. Results of simple linear regression analysis using total cover as the response variable. Predictor Variables n p-value R-Squared R-Squared (adj.) Yearly Precipitation 17 0.465 3.6% 0.0%

June Precipitation 17 0.346 5.9% 0.0%

July Precipitation 17 0.838 0.3% 0.0%

August Precipitation 17 0.252 8.7% 2.6%

Summer Precipitation 17 0.854 0.2% 0.0% (June-August) Maximum Snow Water 17 0.467 3.6% 0.0% Equivalent Date of Snow 17 0.238 9.2% 3.1% Disappearance Stock Number (Previous 16 0.680 1.2% 0.0% Year Actual Use) Utilization (Previous 16 0.490 3.5% 0.0% Year) *Statistically significant relationship (p<0.05)

Table 4. Results of simple linear regression analysis using foliar cover as the response variable. Predictor Variables n p-value R-Squared R-Squared (adj.) Annual Precipitation 17 0.030* 27.7% 22.9%

June Precipitation 17 0.043* 24.7% 19.6%

July Precipitation 17 0.870 0.2% 0.0%

August Precipitation 17 0.978 0.0% 0.0%

Summer Precipitation 17 0.170 12.2% 6.3% (June-August) Maximum Snow Water 17 0.059 21.7% 16.5% Equivalent Date of Snow 17 0.001* 52.7% 49.5% Disappearance Stock Number (Previous 16 0.314 7.2% 0.6% Year Actual Use) Utilization (Previous 16 0.080 20.3% 14.6% Year) *Statistically significant relationship (p<0.05).

Yearly precipitation was significantly correlated with foliar cover (p=0.030, adjusted r- sq=22.9, Figure 1).

Regression for Foliar Cover vs Yearly Precipitation

Y: Foliar Cov er X: Yearly Precipitation Fitted Line Plot for Linear Model Y = 73.04 + 0.6832 X

100

95

90

FoliarCover 85

80

15 20 25 30 35 Yearly Precipitation

Figure 1. Regression for foliar cover vs. yearly precipitation. June precipitation was also positively correlated with foliar cover (p=0.043, adjusted r- sq=19.6%, Figure 2).

Regression for Foliar Cover vs June Precipitation

Y: Foliar Cov er X: June Precipitation Fitted Line Plot for Linear Model Y = 84.00 + 2.418 X

100

95

90

FoliarCover 85

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 June Precipitation

Figure 2. Regression for foliar cover vs. yearly precipitation.

The date of snow disappearance was the best predictor of foliar cover among variables tested (p=0.001, adjusted r-sq=49.5%, Figure 3).

Regression for Foliar Cover vs Date of Snow Disappearance

Y: Foliar Cov er X: Date of Snow Disappearance Fitted Line Plot for Linear Model Y = 21.33 + 0.4516 X

100

95

90

FoliarCover 85

80

130 140 150 160 170 Date of Snow Disappearance

Figure 3. Regression for foliar cover vs. date of snow disappearance. The three significant independent variables were then analyzed using multiple linear regression. Predictor variables were removed from the model if the variance inflation factor

(VIF) was greater than five. A high VIF value indicates collinearity among independent variables. Predictors were also removed from the multiple regression model if they were not related to the response variable at a significant level within said model (p<0.05). While several iterations of a multiple factor model were significant, none were more predictive than the date of snow disappearance alone.

Discussion

Despite seventeen years of monitoring data, no predictor was significantly correlated with total cover. A data collection of this quality, consistency, and breadth is uncommon on Western rangelands and it is unlikely that more data would illuminate a relationship.

Furthermore, the results indicate that annual use and total stock number are not reliable indicators of changes in total cover. Changes in annual use and stocking rate could not be expected to alter bare ground at a detectable level within the constraints of this grazing system, monitoring protocol, and period of observation.

There are several possible explanations for this finding. First, no functional degradation is occurring under current annual use and stocking rates. Use is exerting no ecological pressure on the uplands, and the ecosystem is functioning at a sustainably high level. Alternatively, the monitoring plan set in place is insufficient to detect actual change caused by grazing. Finally, there may be an unknown lag time associated with a vegetative response to grazing and other land uses in place.

Foliar cover was selected as an alternative indicator for measuring influences of predictor variables on vegetation. The results indicate that yearly precipitation, June precipitation, and the date of snow disappearance have a significant influence on foliar cover. The date of snow

disappearance alone accounts for 52.7% of the variation in foliar cover. This suggests that soil-

water characteristics on uplands within the allotment are heavily influence by snowpack.

Specifically, vegetative cover is higher when snow lasts longer into the growing season. While it

is known that precipitation and snowpack influence annual vegetative cover, this phenomenon

has not previously been quantified for this ecoregion.

In many management scenarios total cover is considered over time on a site basis, not in

the whole allotment. Sample size becomes limiting in this case. For example, the sample

standard deviation for the most frequently recorded site in this allotment is 1.63 (n=6). If this is

applied to a future reading, a minimum of five line-point intercept transects at that site would be required to achieve a margin of error of 2.5 when estimating the mean cover ( + or – 2.5).

An alternative to assessing cover trend on a yearly basis has been to define푥 a threshold

level at which total ground cover is no longer sufficient to preserve ecological function (O’Brien

et al. 2003). Threshold identification is one of the most challenging aspects of natural resource

management and must incorporate the complex non-linear relationships that exist between

landscape morphology, management actions, climatic variation, wildlife affects, and climate

change (Briske et al. 2005, Groffman et al. 2006). The application of large scale, region-wide

cover estimates to specific monitoring sites is questionable in light of current science and known

drivers of landscape variability.

The development of ecological site descriptions (ESD’s) is a viable alternative to these

broad scale assumptions. Modern science best describes plant communities as multiple states

with varying transitional pathways, not as points on a linear seral stage progression (Westoby et

al. 1989, Stringham et al. 2003, Briske et al. 2005). The development of ESD’s for the study area would provide an ecologically based framework for site assessment. There is biological

evidence to suggest that cover, plant communities, and production are site specific and driven

primarily by soils and precipitation (Westoby et al. 1989, Stringham et al. 2003). In addition,

federal land agencies signed a memorandum of understanding in 2005 to develop an interagency

guide for ESD development (Bureau of Land Management 2010). It was completed in 2010, and

associated policy dictates that agencies further develop and implement the Rangeland

Interagency Ecological Site Manual (RIESM) (Bureau of Land Management 2010).

Management Implications

This research supports the assertion that biophysical factors such as precipitation, soils,

and temperature strongly influence plant community morphology. While grazing measures such

as utilization may be predictive under some circumstances, their affects were masked by the larger ecological processes addressed in this study. The results indicate that reducing stocking rate or utilization in this system will not have a measurable effect on annual trend readings for cover. Assumptions about standard monitoring techniques may not apply where systems are in high ecological condition, under light stocking rates, and exhibit a strong precipitation influence.

If a relationship between change in policy and landscape characteristics is inferred, it is imperative that managing agencies employ monitoring techniques indicative of said relationship.

Because of site relocation error, infrequent readings, and observer bias, nested frequency data for this allotment cannot compare with the statistical rigor of the line-point data set analyzed in this study.

Adaptation of monitoring techniques may be required to detect actual change as a result of management. Future studies should evaluate the most efficient, predictive monitoring methods for use in this allotment. Further understanding of naturally induced variation in local

plant communities would be useful when incorporated into ecological site development.

It should also be noted that is impossible to estimate a confidence interval for the sample mean with only one transect. There is no way to assess variability when that single transect is the experimental unit. Therefore comparing single transects from one year to another is statistically suspect even when certain that the same line is being read. Future monitoring should incorporate multiple transects for the same key site (Bonham and Reich 2009).

References

Bonham, C.D. 1989. Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. Wiley Intersciences, N.Y. 338pp.

Bonham, C.D. and R.M. Reich. 2009. Influences of transect relocation errors on line-point estimates of plant cover. Plant Ecology 204:173-178.

Brady, W.W., J.E. Mitchell, C.D. Bonham, and J.W. Cook. 1995. Assessing the power of the point-line transect to monitor changes in plant basal cover. Journal of Range Management 48:187-190.

Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Information Bulletin No. 2011-004.

Briske, D.D., S. D. Fuhlendorf and F. E. Smeins. 2005. State-and-transition models, thresholds, and rangeland health: A synthesis of ecological concepts and perspectives. Rangeland Ecology & Management 58:1-10.

Herrick, J.E., J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, L. M. Burkett, and W.G. Whitford. 2005. Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland and savanna ecosystems. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range. Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press. 236pp.

Johnston, A. 2006. Effects of Grazing Intensity and Cover on the Water Intake Rate of Fescue Grassland. Journal of Range Management 15:79-83.

Lommasson, T. and C. Jensen, C. 1943. Determining utilization of range grasses by height– weight tables. Journal of Forestry 41:589–593.

NRCS. 2012. USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service. SNOTEL Data and Products. http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/.

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D. Pyke and J. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health. Version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. 122pp.

Stringham, T.K., W.C. Krueger, and P.L. Shaver. 2003. State and transition modeling: an ecological process approach. Journal of Range Management 56:106-113.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1993. Rangeland ecosystem analysis and management handbook. FSH 2209-21. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 4 ch.

Westoby, M., B. Walker and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42:266-274.

Trend Summary by Pasture Green River Allotment

Prepared for: Upper Green River Cattleman’s Association Prepared by: Glenn Owings, Range Program Manager, Sublette County Conservation District

I.Introduction

The purpose of this document is to summarize cover data and address pasture trend at cooperatively selected locations in the Green River C&H, Pinedale Ranger district, Bridger

Teton National Forest. Forest personnel were present at all but a handful of site readings when circumstances precluded their availability. Previous analysis of foliar cover at the allotment scale indicated a statistically significant influence of precipitation and snowpack on cover readings.

Neither utilization nor actual use (total stock numbers) were predictive of foliar cover.

Each pasture within the Mosquito Lake system has been split out for analysis. All other pastures are addressed together because none has more than two cover readings. More than two readings are needed to determine ecological trend.

Because each monitoring site represents just one experimental unit, statistical analyses could not be used to assess variability and deviation from a mean. For the purpose of clarity, please note how the following terms will be used in this report:

Total Cover: First intercept cover, including vegetation, rock, and litter. Equivalent to 100 percent minus percent bare ground. All values are reported as a percentage.

Trend: A discernible, scientifically defensible change in plant community structure and function.

II.Summaries A.Mosquito Lake 1.SE Pasture

Site 5 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1996 43 17 30 4 0 4 96 1998 51 20 23 5 1 0 100 2002 45 18 16 21 0 0 100 2006 42 18 27 10 0 3 97 2009 50 9 25 12 0 3 97 2012 53 13 27 5 0 2 98

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Readings

Site 8 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1996 35 20 25 2 2 2 98 1998 54 24 18 1 1 1 99 2002 37 20 18 0 2 0 100 2006 45 21 18 0 2 0 100 2009 50 16 22 1 1 1 99 2012 53 15 13 1 3 1 99

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Readings

Discussion: With total cover measures consistently exceeding Forest standards and life form composition relatively steady there is no clear trend for this pasture. It appears stable, resistant to weed invasion, and exhibits adequate ground cover to provide for soil protection and infiltration.

2.SW Pasture

Site 4 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1996 49 1 50 0 0 0 100 1999 50 4 41 0 0 4 96 2003 22 5 39 21 2 1 99 2007 28 4 39 17 0 12 88 2010 39 5 50 2 0 4 96 2013 36 3 39 15 0 7 93

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Readings

Site 2 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1996 40 30 19 7 0 4 96 1999 49 31 17 2 0 1 99 2003 38 27 17 15 1 2 98 2007 46 21 18 14 0 1 99 2010 46 33 18 2 0 1 99 2013 35 31 20 11 0 3 97

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

100 Variable Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 Readings

Discussion: Samples at site 4 showed some variability across the monitoring time frame.

Readings 3 and 4 (2003 and 2007) showed a drop in grass and increase in litter cover large

enough that it could represent more than sampling noise. Total cover is also somewhat variable

but does not follow any apparent trend. After reviewing the precipitation data it does not appear to be correlated in this case. Very weak regression lines can be drawn for grass and litter cover

though neither is statistically significant. Site 2 data shows very stable conditions and does not

exhibit a pattern similar to site 4. This supports the assertion that large scale annual factors did

not account for the grass-litter relationship at site 4. Based on the preponderance of evidence

there is no clear trend for this pasture. It appears stable, resistant to weed invasion, and exhibits

adequate ground cover to provide for soil protection and infiltration.

3.NW Pasture

Site 13 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1997 48 17 21 9 0 5 95 2000 54 26 9 8 0 3 97 2004 35 17 19 26 0 3 97 2014 55 15 23 6 0 4 96

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Litter, Rock, ...

100 Variable Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Litter Rock 60 Bare Total

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 Readings

Discussion: Site 13 was selected for analysis in the NW pasture because it is the only site with more than two readings. While some variability is apparent there is no clear trend in any of the cover metrics. It appears stable, resistant to weed invasion, and exhibits adequate ground cover to provide for soil protection and infiltration.

4.NE Pasture

Site 17 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1997 61 11 24 2 0 2 98 2001 71 15 13 1 0 0 100 2005 68 13 17 2 0 0 100 2008 66 17 16 1 0 0 100 2011 75 16 9 0 0 0 100

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 Readings

Site 18 Year Grass Shrub Forb Litter Rock Bare Ground Total Cover 1997 44 29 24 2 0 2 98 2001 46 33 12 6 0 3 97 2005 43 30 10 12 1 4 96 2008 28 35 23 12 0 2 98 2011 60 31 9 0 0 0 100

Time Series Plot of Grass, Shrub, Forb, Litter, Rock, Bare, Total

Variable 100 Grass Shrub Forb 80 Litter Rock Bare Total 60

40 Percent Cover

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 Readings

Discussion: Site 17 shows consistent readings over time for all cover metrics. For site 18 the increase in grass cover and decrease in other measures in 2011 may be meaningful but cannot be addressed until further readings take place. There is no clear trend in any of the cover metrics.

The pasture appears stable, resistant to weed invasion, and exhibits adequate ground cover to provide for soil protection and infiltration.

B. All Other Pastures

Tepee Cr., Mud Lake (E and W), Fish Cr., and Gypsum Cr. (upper and lower) do not have enough readings to adequately assess trend. However, it is worth noting that bare ground is at or below 8% for all readings in the aforementioned pastures. This suggests a sufficient level of site stability and exceeds the Forest standard for ground cover.

III.Conclusion

Based on the available cover data it appears that all sites in the Green River C&H are

ecologically stable and do not exhibit meaningful trend. There may be several reasons that this is

the case:

-There has been no substantial change in plant communities across the pastures in the Green

River allotment.

-There were changes in the plant communities, but monitoring cover by life-form was not

adequate to detect change.

-There were changes in the plant communities, but the sample size and site distribution were not sufficient to detect change.

ATTACHMENT 5

VIEW Points Range Readiness Is an Obsolete Management Tool Range readiness is an outdated practice forcing rangeland managers into management situations that are detrimental to the natural resource base. By B. L. Perryman, W. A. Laycock, L. B. Bruce, K. K. Crane, and J. W. Burkhardt

Introduction he art and science of range management has ben- efited greatly from keen observations and thoughtful management guidelines by many rangeland management predecessors. However, as Tour knowledge and experience advances, it is prudent to revisit even the most well-established and accepted princi- ples of range management. These periodic reevaluations serve to ensure that our rules of thumb remain scientifically sound and applicable within contemporary, ecological knowledge and rangeland management strategies. The fol- lowing discussion provides a critical evaluation of range readiness, including the evolution, scientific basis, and use- fulness of the idea in contemporary rangeland management. The theory of range readiness evolved early in the 20th century during development of the art and science of range Figure 1. Northern Nevada sagebrush steppe management on western rangelands. Both early and more recent research, along with the invention of specialized graz- not damage the vegetation and soil resource. For example, ing systems, have made the application of range readiness use of range readiness occurs at a number of planning levels not only obsolete but also potentially detrimental to the including Forest Management Plans,1 Allotment resource base. Management Plan Environmental Assessments,2 Scoping The Society for Range Management defines range readi- Reports,3 Area Activity Plans,4 and Allotment Evaluation ness as “the defined stage of plant growth at which grazing Recommendations.5 Our investigation of the evolution and may begin under a specific management plan without per- scientific basis for range readiness shows that the theory was manent damage to vegetation or soil.” The definition also conceived before the presence of widespread, seasonal graz- explicitly suggests that range readiness is “usually applied to ing strategies. Also, indicators were never developed to seasonal range.” Using this definition, contemporary usage of determine impacts on soil resources. range readiness would be to identify the precise moment in spring when plant development has progressed beyond the Development of Range Readiness grazing animals’ ability to detrimentally affect the plant. Sampson6 may have been the first rangeland ecologist to That would be under moderate grazing intensities, and when record development of the range readiness tool. He offered soil conditions are dry enough to prevent mechanical dam- the following observation, “Removal of the herbage year age or compaction. Even though the ecological and manage- after year during the early part of the growing season weak- ment conditions under which range readiness evolved are ens the plant, delays the resumption of growth, advances the seldom encountered today, the application is still frequently time of maturity, and decreases the seed production and fer- practiced. In fact, we often encounter rangeland managers tility of the seed.” He recommended deferring grazing of a relying on this rule of thumb to ensure seasonal grazing does portion of the range each year, initiating grazing after seed

36 Rangelands age species present,” and added, “The earliest plants on the range mature early and . . . when they are in full bloom, the main forage species are seldom sufficiently developed for grazing and the soil is soft and often boggy.” Range readiness was a useful and effective management tool when it was developed because, at that time, public rangelands (and many private lands as well) were greatly over- stocked, and continuous, season-long grazing was the univer- sal strategy. During that era, most rangelands were heavily grazed throughout winter, or winter feeding occurred on or in close proximity to native rangelands. Consequently, livestock had unrestricted access to rangelands, and grazing occurred immediately upon the emergence of new vegetation, with no rest during any time of the year. Depending on the particular area, that grazing strategy may have been practiced for 4 or 5 Figure 2. Central Nevada basin and range topography decades before Sampson’s initial publication in 1914. As an example, at the time of the establishment of the Santa Rosa ripe to “…insure the planting of the seed crop and the per- National Forest in 1911 in north-central Nevada, the small manent establishment of seedling plants without sacrificing mountain range supported approximately 16,000 cattle, 1,500 the season’s forage or establishing a fire hazard.” horses, and 150,000 sheep, grazing all year long, for at least In a widely used grazing management guide, developed in 20 years or more.9 Under that scenario, range readiness pro- 1919 for national forestlands, Jardine and Anderson7 stated: vided a useful mechanism to delay initiation of intensive, sea- son-long livestock grazing, essentially providing a rudimenta- Premature grazing was undoubtedly one of the foremost ry type of rest from intense, heavy grazing. causes of the deterioration of range lands prior to regulated The emphasis on plant criteria in range readiness led to grazing. The damage to forage plants from premature the development of growth guidelines for different plant grazing is greatest immediately after growth begins and species by federal agencies. In 1943, Stoddart and Smith’s decreases as the growing season advances…In a broad first range management textbook10 published a long list of sense, therefore, grazing at any time before seed maturity of height or growth stages for a large number of grass, forb, and the forage plants may be considered premature. shrub species to mark when grazing should be initiated. Those guidelines were widely used by the Forest Service in Jardine and Anderson also recognized that delaying graz- California to determine range readiness. In 1994, Heady and ing on all rangelands until after seed maturity was not prac- Child11 published a later version of range readiness criteria, tical and recommended grazing initiation be timed so graz- taken from a California Forest Service District range analy- ing damage would not be irreparable or out of proportion to sis field guide, which listed growth characteristics of 13 the value of the forage. In other words, they recommended species of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. grazing be delayed until range readiness was reached, All of the early efforts to develop a quantitative way to although they did not use the term. Neither Sampson nor determine range readiness focused on describing plant Jardine and Anderson discussed or referred to soil conditions growth stages. For example, in 1939 Costello and Price12 and range readiness. Early references to range readiness dealt developed a way to predict range readiness based on the only with plant growth characteristics and not with soil. growth stages of major forage species and snowmelt dates. Later on, Sampson and Malmsten8 defined the time of range On the sagebrush–grass rangelands of the Snake River readiness as: Plains of southeastern Idaho, Pechanec and Stewart13 stated that after bluebunch wheatgrass leaves reached 2.5 inches, the date in any one year when the range first reaches the plant growth was sufficient to begin grazing and soil was condition in which there is sufficient feed to keep livestock generally firm enough to prevent compaction or other dam- in thrifty condition and when the stock may be admitted age. In the same area, Blaisdell14 found that the 2.5-inch leaf without serious impairment of the growth and reproduc- stage was highly correlated with the snowmelt date and the tive processes of the more important forage plants. mean daily March temperatures, and so developed a way to predict the date of range readiness from the mean daily This definition referred only to plant growth stage. Later March temperatures. in the publication, however, Sampson and Malmsten The earliest publications clearly indicate that develop- addressed soil conditions, “The opening date of the grazing ment of range readiness as a management tool was based on season for a given range should be based upon the condition plant-growth stage and not soil characteristics. The contem- of the soil and the development of all of the important for- porary definition and use of range readiness includes both

April 2005 37 vegetation and soil conditions. In practice, this seems logical tion. That strategy was also recommended to reduce grazing but was not evident in the earliest literature addressing the intensities during critical periods of plant growth (ie, during range readiness idea. The later works of Costello and Price,12 the flowering period). A similar strategy was earlier proposed Pechanec and Stewart,13 and Blaisdell15 represent the first by Sampson in 1914.6 Hormay and Evanko23 developed research efforts to develop practical management guidelines rest–rotation grazing in 1958 “…to provide the amount of based on range readiness. By including references to soil con- rest needed to satisfy the growth requirements of desirable ditions, their works also mark the initial divergence from the range plants.” Since then, rest–rotation grazing has been original concept that suggested range readiness be based widely implemented on public and private rangelands, pri- solely on the growth stage of major forage plants and their marily as a strategy to reduce the impacts of grazing during ability to recover from grazing. critical periods of plant growth. Rest and rotation ensures that an area will be grazed when grass plants are producing Seasonal Grazing Effects reproductive tillers in only 1 out of 4 years. In the 1930s, widespread conventional wisdom suggested Research has shown that early grazing at moderate inten- that early grazing prevented adequate renewal of stored car- sities followed by grazing removal to allow for regrowth pro- bohydrates and weakened grass plants.15–17 This point was vides more benefit than grazing when grass plants are in the emphasized in Stoddart and Smith’s 2nd edition range man- reproductive stage. In a 1989 review, Bawtree24 concluded agement text18, which stated, “Rapid growth of plants in the that grazing bunchgrasses during the boot stage (the appro- spring may temporarily deplete food reserves . ...Deferring priate stage of range readiness) is more damaging than at any grazing until the plant has had opportunity to restore these other stage of growth. On Forest Service allotments in food supplies is advisable.” More recent research and Montana, in 1994, Lacey and others25 found an upward eco- reviews19–21 suggest that the relationship between carbohy- logical trend in pastures grazed in early spring before tiller drate storage and grazing is questionable and that widely elongation. They also found that vegetation changes in early held theories of food reserves are in need of revision. The spring pastures were similar to or better than changes in contribution of carbohydrate reserves to the leaf regrowth of summer pastures. In a 1994 study in the Blue Mountains of perennial grasses may be much smaller than previously Oregon, bluebunch wheatgrass plants, clipped to simulate assumed. Briske20 pointed out the difficulty of determining early spring grazing, developed similarly to unclipped plants the amount and location of carbohydrate pools in plants, let because they had sufficient soil moisture and growing season alone their effects on plant growth. The use of range readi- left after clipping.26 ness cannot be based on food-reserve theories. Bawtree’s review24 presented a comprehensive discussion Sampson and McCarty15 conducted some of the earliest about the range readiness concept. One of the major points research on the link between plant-growth stage and grazing was that range plants are not damaged by early grazing but effects on subsequent growth. They found that grazing or clip- rather by grazing intensity. The key was to keep the grazing ping once or twice, early in the growth cycle, had little influ- period short, removing grazing while there was still enough ence on total annual herbage yield of purple needlegrass in soil moisture left for grass plants to complete the reproduc- California. They also found that removal of herbage between tion cycle. Burkhardt27 described a naturally occurring sys- the time of flower-stalk production and seed maturity inhibit- tem of “functional herbivory” during the Pleistocene and ed growth. McCarty16 concluded that continuous, heavy graz- early Holocene periods, before the introduction of domestic ing during flower-stalk formation reduced regrowth more livestock. In this system, forage quality and opportunity for than early, intense use of mountain brome in Utah. forage plants to recover from defoliation were simultaneous- Early research indicated that delaying grazing until forage ly optimized through early season grazing. Burkhardt stated, plants reach early reproductive stages may not be the optimal “There does not appear to have been anything in the strategy. McCarty and Price17 demonstrated that early sea- Pleistocene herbivory that was analogous to our concept of son grazing may be more appropriate for total annual forage range readiness. Range readiness in the shrub steppe post- production. In fact, common control methods such as graz- pones grazing until the critical reproductive period of native ing and burning to reduce or damage perennating buds and bunchgrasses.” Burkhardt went on to explain that the natu- reproductive tillers of smooth bromegrass work best if ral grazing pattern of native grazers in the western United applied at the time of initial tiller elongation. Smooth States was to “follow the green.” As soon as snow melts and bromegrass is most vulnerable at this stage.22 When grazing plant growth was initiated on winter range, animals immedi- initiation (range readiness) dates and sufficiently high graz- ately began to graze new green forage. As the snow melt pro- ing intensities coincide with reproductive tiller elongation gressed to higher elevations, herds of native animals moved through the boot stage, productivity of native cool-season to obtain newly emerged green forage. Vallentine28 described grasses can be significantly reduced. similar situations in the Intermountain West where free- In 1942, McCarty and Price17 recommended that grazing roaming elk generally follow the receding snowline up the be rotated so that no particular portion of the range was mountain in the spring, but livestock are permitted to graze grazed at the same time each year to allow for seed produc- only after range readiness. Burkhardt27 also pointed out that

38 Rangelands the vegetation of the Intermountain West evolved with the seasonal migration by now-extinct Pleistocene megafauna as well as surviving species. The vegetation composition of the Intermountain West is essentially the same now as it was when it was grazed by Pleistocene species,29,30 and logic dic- tates that plant communities are adapted to this seasonal migration pattern. On western public lands, many areas are grazed based only on a system of deferment coincident with range readi- ness. This includes specific turnout and exit dates with no rotation system. Often, turnout dates correspond to plant- growth stages that are most detrimental to key grass species. Earlier turnout dates combined with exit dates before soil- moisture depletion and hot temperatures would be more appropriate for plant health and vigor. Earlier turnout and exit dates would also improve animal distribution, reducing Figure 3. University of Nevada-Reno Gund Ranch near Austin, NV riparian impacts that generally occur during the hot season.31 This approach would also provide the potential to return for warranted in many situations, particularly if animal distribu- a late-season grazing period after seed set. tion is good, indicating that the soil condition part of the Application of range readiness also fails to recognize dif- range readiness concept may be overemphasized in many ferential responses to grazing by different forage species. For management scenarios. example, Caldwell and Richards32 demonstrated that crested wheatgrass is much less sensitive to early grazing than blue- Management Implications bunch wheatgrass, and they also provide physiological rea- Over time, as rotation systems (deferred rotation, rest rota- sons for this difference. In 1967, Hedrick33 reported that tion, etc) have been implemented, we have gained a better heavy grazing in April and May of crested wheatgrass in understanding of the interrelationships between grazing and southeastern Oregon resulted in considerable more green plant-growth stage. Because of this, the range readiness idea regrowth and better seed production, which meant a poten- has become less important as a management tool. On any tial early turnout the subsequent year. Yet where range readi- rangeland, with rotational deferment built into the grazing ness grazing turnout is practiced, agency field guidelines system, use of range readiness to determine initiation of often make no distinctions, applying the same range readi- grazing in the first pasture may actually be detrimental to ness criteria across all species. plant health. Initiating grazing much earlier in the first pas- ture, followed by earlier livestock removal, and rotating the Potential Soil Impacts use of the first pasture each year may be a better strategy for In the 1980s, rangeland ecologists and management agencies plant and ecosystem health. began to recognize the potential for livestock grazing to neg- On western ranges where areas are grazed based only on atively impact certain soil characteristics. The body of a system of deferment coincident with range readiness and research addressing soil impacts and livestock grazing is sub- no rotation, turnout dates should be arranged for earlier use stantial.34–37 General conclusions across all grazing systems to avoid use during the reproductive tiller development indicate that heavy stocking rates negatively affect infiltration stages. Early use should be followed by early removal. By the rates and soil structure while increasing bulk densities. Often, time of range readiness, upland plants are beginning to these are only growing season effects that are alleviated by mature, and grazing animals switch their preference to ripar- freeze–thaw processes the following winter. Effects are also ian areas. Earlier turnout dates combined with exit dates variable with respect to soil type and precipitation patterns. before soil moisture depletion and hot temperatures would However, with respect to range readiness, no specific quanti- be more appropriate for plant health and vigor and would tative soil moisture guidelines have been developed. also improve animal distribution, reducing riparian impacts The greatest potential for negative soil impacts occurs that generally occur during the hot season. This approach when soil moisture levels are just below the saturation point. would also provide the potential to return for a late-season Even at the time of snowmelt, many western rangeland areas grazing period after seed set. Managers may also need to never approach this level of soil moisture content. Many eco- adjust animal numbers up or down to achieve distribution logical sites are also characterized by soils with coarse-frag- and use goals because earlier turnouts will probably have an ment inclusions. On these sites, snowmelt rates seldom effect on foraging behavior. exceed infiltration rates,38 limiting the time soils would be One additional aspect of range readiness—making sure susceptible to negative impacts from large grazing animals. that there is enough forage to sustain livestock once they are Concerns about soil damage from early grazing may not be turned out—is still valid in view of animal performance.39

April 2005 39 Early cattle and sheep foraging will include both new growth er ready?” Are we ready, when appropriate, to abandon cook- and residual growth from the previous year. Early research book approaches in exchange for on-the-ground applications from the 1920s and 1930s demonstrated that the combina- of up-to-date ecological knowledge and experience? It is our tion provides an adequate nutritional base.15,17 Ensuring ade- assertion that rangeland managers are indeed ready and, in quate residue to support early grazing usually is not a prob- fact, have repeatedly demonstrated successful grazing man- lem on rangelands that have been moderately or lightly agement through communication, innovation, and sound grazed the previous year. Earlier turnout and removal dates application of ecological principles. Hopefully, this will be may also necessitate changes in calving dates and location of the approach embraced by authors of planning documents calving operations. These are questions and scenarios that and rangeland managers in the future. Managers need the need to be discussed with grazing permittees on an individ- flexibility to reject inappropriate or outdated tools and con- ual basis. Some operations may be better suited to season-of- cepts, leaving them in the past where they belong instead of use changes than others. Bawtree24 suggested that economic, attempting to apply them to situations where they no longer animal nutrition, and rangeland ecology research all support have relevance. the concept that grazing and removing animals early helps ensure resource health. The range readiness tool is widely used on western range- Authors are Associate Professor, Department of Animal lands today, even though research has demonstrated poten- Biotechnology, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV 89557 tial negative effects on forage grass species. Research has not (Perryman); Rangeland Consultant, Laramie, WY 82072 effectively addressed potential soil impacts when range (Laycock); Associate Professor, Department of Animal readiness is practiced. In general, rotational-grazing strate- Biotechnology, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV 89557 gies effectively address the concern of severe, repeated defo- (Bruce); Rangeland Consultant, Prineville, OR 97754 (Crane); liation of forage plants during critical growth stages. and Rangeland Consultant, Indian Valley, ID 83632 However, rangeland managers continue to use the range (Burkhardt). readiness tool to manage grazing at an individual plant scale across large spatial areas. Tools like range readiness were References developed at a time when rangeland managers did not have 1. USDA FOREST SERVICE. 2001. Sierra Nevada forest plan the authority, experience, or scientific research on which to amendment, final environmental impact statement, January base grazing management. Today, we have the authority, 2001. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA: USDA. knowledge, and experience to effectively manage livestock 2. USDA FOREST SERVICE. 1999. Environmental assessment, grazing at a landscape scale. Yet, even in the presence of allotment management plans for Chevelon Canyon, Clear proven, successful grazing management strategies, best man- Creek, Limestone, and Wallace allotments, Chevelon/Heber agement practices continue to be plagued by rule-of-thumb Ranger Districts, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, measures, applied too broadly, with little relationship to Overgaard, AZ: USDA. management objectives. 3. USDA FOREST SERVICE. 1998. Scoping report—Allotment Range readiness was a useful and practical management management plans, Chevelon/Heber Ranger District, Apache- guideline for the era in which it was developed. The original Sitgreaves National Forest, Overgaard, AZ: USDA. objective of range readiness—“avoiding permanent damage 4. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. 2000. Draft environmental to vegetation or soil”—remains integral to meeting natural impact statement for the Jack Morrow Hills coordinated activ- resource objectives through sound grazing management ity plan. Rock Springs, WY: BLM. strategies. However, it is apparent that range readiness may 5. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. 1997. Grass Valley no longer be an appropriate tool to meet this objective. We Allotment Evaluation, Battle Mountain District, NV: BLM. suggest that the range may always be “ready” provided that 6. SAMPSON, A. W. 1914. Natural revegetation of rangelands sufficient forage is present to sustain grazing animals and based upon growth requirements and life history of the vegeta- that it can be demonstrated that the existing grazing man- tion. Journal of Agricultural Research 3:93–148. agement strategy results in progress toward long-term plant 7. JARDINE,J.T.,AND M. ANDERSON. 1919. Range management community objectives. on the national forests. Washington, DC: US Department of Planning documents should provide rangeland managers Agriculture. Bulletin 790. with the flexibility to tailor turnout and exit dates to specif- 8. SAMPSON,A.W.,AND H. E. MALMSTEN. 1926. Grazing peri- ic areas and permittee operations rather than focusing on ods and forage production on the national forests. US regulating allotment or district-wide specifications and stan- Department of Agriculture. Bulletin 1405. dards. Where range readiness is an appropriate tool, it should 9. USDA FOREST SERVICE. 2004. Draft environmental impact state- be employed; where it is detrimental, it should be rejected; ment, Martin Basin rangeland project. Santa Rosa Ranger District and a discussion of the idea should be revisited by land man- Humbolt-Toiyabe National Forest, Winnemucca, NV: USDA. agers and scientists alike. The appropriate question may not 10. STODDART,L.A.,AND A. D. SMITH. 1943. Range manage- be “is the range ready?” but rather “is the rangeland manag- ment. 1st ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

40 Rangelands 11. HEADY,H.F.,AND R. D. CHILD. 1994. Rangeland ecology and wheatgrass regrowth on elk winter range in relation to defolia- management. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. tion. Journal of Range Management 47:240–244. 12. COSTELLO,D.F.,AND R. PRICE. 1939. Weather and plant- 27. BURKHARDT, J. W. 1996. Herbivory in the Intermountain development data as determinants of grazing periods on moun- West. Moscow: Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment tain range. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture. Station. Bulletin 58. Technical Bulletin 686. 28. VALLENTINE, J. F. 1990. Grazing management. San Diego, CA: 13. PECHANEC,J.F.,AND G. STEWART. 1949. Grazing spring–fall Academic Press. sheep ranges of southern Idaho. US Department of Agriculture. 29. BARNOSKY,C.W.,P.M.ANDERSON, AND P. J . B ARTLEIM. Circular 808. 1987. The northwestern U.S. during deglaciation: Vegetational 14. BLAISDELL, J. P. 1958. Seasonal development and yield of history and paleoclimate implications. In: W. F. Ruddiman and native plants on the upper Snake River Plains and their relation H. E. Wright, Jr. [eds.]. North America and adjacent oceans to certain climatic factors. Washington, DC: US Department of during the last deglaciation. Vol. K-3 of The geology of North Agriculture. Technical Bulletin 1190. America. Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America. 15. SAMPSON,A.W.,AND E. C. MCCARTY. 1930. The carbohy- 30. TIDWELL, W. D., S. R. RUSHFORTH, AND D. SIMPER. 1972. drate metabolism of Stipa pulchra. Hilgardia 5:61–100. Evolution of floras in the Intermountain region. In: A. 16. MCCARTY, E. C. 1938. The relation of growth to the varying Cronquist, A. H. Holmgren, H. H. Holmgren, and J. L. Reveal carbohydrate content in mountain brome. US Department of [eds.]. Intermountain flora. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Hafner Agriculture. Technical Bulletin 598. Publishing Co. 17. MCCARTY,E.C.,AND R. PRICE. 1942. Growth and carbohy- 31. SWANSON,S.R.,AND D. TORELL. 1990. Riparian grazing man- drate content of important mountain forage plants in central agement: An alternative to range readiness. Reno, NV: University Utah as affected by clipping and grazing. US Department of of Nevada. Nevada Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet 90-25. Agriculture. Technical Bulletin 818. 32. CALDWELL, M. M., AND J. H. RICHARDS. 1986. Competitive 18. STODDART, L. A., AND A. D. SMITH. 1955. Range manage- position of species in respect to grazing tolerance: Some per- ment. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. spective on ecophysiological processes. In: Proceedings of the 19. BRISKE, D. D. 1991. Developmental morphology and physiol- 2nd International Rangeland Congress. Canberra: Australian ogy of grasses. In: R. K. Heitschmidt and J. W. Stuth [eds.]. Academy of Science, p 447–449. Grazing management: An ecological perspective. Portland, 33. HEDRICK. D. W. 1967. Managing crested wheatgrass for early OR: Timber Press. p 85–108. spring use. Journal of Range Management 20:53–54. 20. BRISKE,D.D.,AND J. H. RICHARDS. 1994. Physiological respons- 34. ABDEL-MAGIB, A. H., G. E. SCHUMAN, AND R. H. HART. es of individual plants to grazing: current status and ecological sig- 1987. Soil bulk density and water infiltration as affected by nificance. In: M. Vavra, W. A. Laycock, and R. D. Pieper [eds.]. grazing systems. Journal of Range Management 40:307–310. Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the west. Denver, 35. NAETH, M. A., R. L. ROTHWELL,D.S.CHANASYK, AND A. W. CO: Society for Range Management. p 147–176. BAILEY. 1990. Grazing impacts on infiltration in mixed prairie 21. CALDWELL, M. M. 1984. Plant requirements for prudent graz- and fescue grassland ecosystems of Alberta. Canadian Journal of ing. In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. Soil Science 70:593–605. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. p 117–152 36. PLUHAR,J.J.,R.W.KNIGHT, AND R. K. HEITSCHMIDT. 1987. 22. STACY, M. D., B. L. PERRYMAN,P.D.STAHL, AND M. A. Infiltration rates and sediment production as influenced by SMITH. Brome control and microbial inoculation effects in grazing systems in the Texas Rolling Plains. Journal of Range reclaimed cool-season grasslands. Rangeland Ecology and Management 40:240–243. Management 58:161–166. 37. THUROW,T.L.,W.H.BALCKBURN, AND C. A. TAYLOR,JR. 23. HORMAY,A.L.,AND A. B. EVANKO. 1958. Rest–rotation graz- 1986. Hydrologic characteristics of vegetation types as affected ing, a management system for bunchgrass ranges. USDA Forest by livestock grazing systems, Edwards Plateau, Texas. Journal of Service California Forest and Range Experiment Station. Misc. Range Management 39:505–508. Paper No. 27. 38. TABLER, R. D. 1985. Ablation rates of snow fence drifts at 24. BAWTREE, A. H. 1989. Recognizing range readiness. 2,300 meter elevation in Wyoming. Proceedings of the 53rd Rangelands 11:67–69. Annual Western Snow Conference; 16–19 April 1985; Boulder, 25. LACEY, J., S. STUDINGER, AND R. HECKER. 1994. Early spring CO. Soda Springs, CA: WSC. p 1–12. grazing on native range. Rangelands 16:231–233. 39. SHARP, L. A. 1970. Suggested management programs for graz- 26. WESTONSKOW-WALL, K. J., W. C. KRUEGER,L.D.BRYANT, ing crested wheatgrass. University of Idaho, College of Forestry, AND D. R. THOMAS. 1994. Nutrient quality of bluebunch Wildlife and Range Science, Bulletin 4.

April 2005 41

ATTACHMENT 6

Rangeland Ecol Manage 61:647–655 | November 2008

Evaluating Livestock Grazing Use With Streambank Alteration Protocols: Challenges and Solutions Jeremiah D. Heitke,1 Richard C. Henderson,2 Brett B. Roper,3 and Eric K. Archer2

Authors are 1Fisheries Biologist and 2Biological Scientist, PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring Program, National Forest Systems, USDA Forest Service, Logan, UT 84321, USA; and 3National Aquatic Monitoring Coordinator, Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit, National Forest Systems, USDA Forest Service, Logan, UT 84321, USA.

Abstract Appropriate management of livestock in riparian areas can help ensure that these ecosystems are maintained. We evaluated how one indicator of livestock grazing in riparian areas, streambank alteration, was affected by choices related to protocols and personnel used for these assessments. We found that although streambank alteration protocols were generally repeatable among observers, results were affected by factors not directly related to grazing intensity, including 1) training, 2) professional background, 3) location and intensity of measurements, and 4) the protocol used. Training reduced estimates of alteration and observer variability. Rangeland professionals had higher estimates of streambank alteration than seasonal technicians. Rapid assessments of alteration were correlated with more intensive estimates; however, the relationship was not 1:1. Different protocols resulted in different alterations estimates when alterations at the same locations were estimated. Given the large number of monitoring programs, personnel, and methods used to assess streambank alteration, we suggest more thought be given on how to standardize monitoring efforts so results consistently reflect the true amount of alteration at a site. We also remind managers that no protocol can be implemented without some error. Managers should therefore be careful when taking action based on a single evaluation—especially when the result is near a management standard or threshold. When these concerns are addressed, indicators such as streambank alteration can help ensure management decisions maintain both sustainable allotments and landscapes.

Resumen El manejo apropiado del ganado en a´reas riveren˜as puede favorecer el mantenimiento de estos ecosistemas. El objetivo fue evaluar la alteracio´n del banco del arroyo, co´mo un indicador del pastoreo del ganado en a´reas riveren˜asy co´mo las decisiones tomadas y el personal utilizado para estas evaluaciones afectaron este indicador. Se encontro´que mientras que las propuestas de alteracio´n del banco del arroyo fueron generalmente repetibles entre observadores, los resultados fueron afectados por factores no directamente relacionados con la intensidad del pastoreo, incluyendo; 1) entrenamiento, 2) experiencia profesional, 3) localizacio´n e intensidad de las medidas, y 4) la propuesta que utilizaron. El entrenamiento redujo estimaciones de la alteracio´n y de la variabilidad del observador. Los expertos en pastizales hicieron estimaciones ma´s altas de la alteracio´n del banco del arroyo que la que hicieron los te´cnicos temporales. Las evaluaciones ra´pidas de la alteracio´n fueron correlacionadas con estimaciones ma´s intensivas; sin embargo la relacio´n no fue de 1:1. Diversas propuestas dieron lugar a distintas estimacionesde la alteracio´n en las mismas localidades. Dado el gran nu´mero de programas de monitoreo, de personal, y me´todos utilizados para determinar la alteracio´n del banco del arroyo sugerimos que debe tenerse ma´s cuidado para estandarizar esfuerzos para supervisio´n. Asimismo, los resultados reflejan consistentemente el grado de alteracio´n en un sitio. Tambie´n sugerimos a los encargados que ninguna propuesta se puede aplicar sin cierto error. Los encargados debieran por lo tanto tener precaucio´n al tomar medidas basadas en una sola evaluacio´n, especialmente cuando el resultado esta´cerca de un esta´ndar o de un umbral de manejo. Cuando se consideran estos factores, los indicadores tales como alteracio´n del banco del arroyo ayudan a tomar decisiones de manejo para mantener una asignacio´n y paisajes sostenibles. Key Words: allowable use standards, annual monitoring indicators, observer variability, riparian grazing, training

INTRODUCTION lands (Shepard 2007). Appropriate allotment planning and administration of livestock use in riparian areas not only Unmanaged livestock grazing can negatively affect conditions minimizes these negative effects (Bengeyfield 2006), but can and processes in riparian areas (Platts 1991). Negative impacts also be used to maintain or improve rangeland conditions associated with riparian grazing are often the focus of lawsuits (Blackmore and Vitousek 2000; Marty 2005). Therefore, it is seeking to question grazing practices on federally managed important that indicators of riparian conditions be identified and standards set for those indicators so managers can quickly Research was funded by the USDA Forest Service Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit and USDA assess whether management was appropriate and take action if Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion it was not (Clary and Leininger 2000). Effectiveness Monitoring Program. Stream and riparian characteristics, such as streambank Correspondence: Brett B. Roper, USDA Forest Service, Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit, angle, prevalence and depths of undercut banks, and riparian Forest Sciences Laboratory, Logan, UT 84321, USA. Email: [email protected] community composition, can be good indicators of grazing Manuscript received 13 February 2008; manuscript accepted 19 August 2008. intensity (Platts et al. 1987; Bauer and Burton 1993; Green and

RANGELAND ECOLOGY & MANAGEMENT 61(6) November 2008 647 Table 1. Definitions of the types of alteration used to define streambank alteration in all four protocols evaluated in this study. A streambank was defined as altered when the presence of any of these three alterations was determined to have occurred in the current year.

Types of alteration Definition

Shearing Removal of a portion of the streambank by ungulate hooves leaving a smooth vertical surface and an indentation of a hoofprint at the bottom or along the sides. Trampling Indentation of a hoofprint and exposed roots or soil, resulting in a depression at least 13 mm deep or soil displacement at least 13 mm upwards. Trailing Trails and other severe trampling were counted as alteration if there were signs of current-year use. Because of the compacted soils, trailing was counted even if hoofprints did not result in 13-mm displacement of soil. Current-year alteration Discernible from previous years’ alteration because of weathering effects of freeze/thaw cycles, rain events, and erosion by stream flow or vegetative regrowth.

Kauffman 1995; Clary 1999; Winward 2000). The conditions assume values produced by these protocols are directly related of these attributes, however, change slowly over the time frame to that attribute (Thompson et al. 1998; Anderson 2001). of several grazing seasons (Green and Kauffman 1995), making In this article we evaluate the repeatability and accuracy of them most useful as long-term indicators/goals of riparian four protocols used to measure one annual indicator of grazing grazing management plans. To provide annual accountability intensity in riparian areas: streambank alteration. Streambank for riparian grazing programs, managers instead rely on alteration is defined by the presence of current-year shearing, indicators that reflect within-season disturbance and promote trampling, and trailing by livestock in the evaluated area the attainment of long-term indicators. (Table 1). We chose this indicator because limiting streambank Examples of annual indicators include measures of stream- alteration has been shown to maintain or improve riparian bank alteration by livestock, height of forage remaining conditions (Bengeyfield 2006), is widely used (Burton et al. following grazing (stubble height), and amount of woody 2007), simple to learn, and can be easily related to a more precise species utilization (Clary and Leininger 2000; Turner and Clary measurement of livestock disturbance. In assessing streambank 2001; Bengeyfield 2006). Each of these indicators has been alteration, we evaluated 1) differences in mean values for used as end-of-season compliance standards or indicators for different streambank alteration protocols, 2) variation in riparian areas, is quick and cost effective to measure (Cowley protocol results among and within observers, 3) the effect of and Burton 2005), and, if maintained above an annual training on results, 4) the effect of experience/background on the threshold, facilitates long-term riparian health. results, and 5) how rapid protocols were related to more Although not explicitly stated, use of annual indicators for intensive measurements of streambank alteration. management decisions is predicated on the assumptions that different evaluators will get similar results and these results are related to true grazing intensity. If monitoring results differ METHODS substantially among observers, decisions based on these assess- ments could be dependent upon who completed the assessment We evaluated streambank alteration within 10 fall-grazing rather than on environmental impacts (MacDonald et al. 1991; allotments located on lands managed by the US Forest Service Elzinga et al. 1998; Bauer and Ralph 2001). Therefore, poorly in western Montana in 2003 and 2004 (Table 2). Forest Service designed and implemented protocols threaten the credibility and personnel selected these sites to assure a broad representation trust of federal management agencies while increasing economic of grazing intensities, stream sizes, channel types, and risk to permittees (Conley et al. 2007). vegetation communities. All four protocols used paces to Previous studies evaluating repeatability among observers in determine spacing of the samples, and then used the tip of the evaluating annual indicators have had mixed results, with some protocols deemed repeatable (Turner and Clary 2001) and others Table 2. Stream width and vegetation community of 10 sampling sites. unrepeatable (Platts et al. 1983; Hall and Max 1999). Factors shown to affect repeatability of a protocol among observers Stream name Bankfull width (m) Riparian vegetation include methodology and operational clarity of the protocol, the Beaverhead–Deerlodge National Forests length and complexity of the evaluated stream reach, and the amount of training evaluators received (Whitacre et al. 2007). Bowles Creek 6.0 Willow/sedge/grass Although replication of results among observers is impor- Meadow, east branch 2.5 Willow/sedge tant, it is also important for results to be related to the Meadow, west branch 3.8 Forb disturbance of interest. For example, results of a protocol that Middle Fork Rock Creek 18.0 Conifer/sedge/grass evaluates ground disturbance by cattle should be related to the Sand Basin Creek 3.0 Conifer/sedge/grass true amount of ground disturbance caused by cattle. One Lewis and Clark National Forest concern is that in order to develop a cost-effective and easy-to- Allen Gulch 0.8 Wet sedge meadow use protocol, methodologies could be simplified to a point Cabin Creek 1.3 Alder/mixed shrub where they may no longer be related to the disturbance they Calf Creek 4.5 Conifer/mixed shrub seek to evaluate (Anderson 2003). So, although environmental Daniels Creek 1.0 Douglas fir/grass monitoring programs often evaluate indices and surrogates of an attribute of interest, it is important that we not blindly Newlan Creek 3.5 Willow dominated

648 Rangeland Ecology & Management boot as the reference point for the sample (see Wolman 1954 had been disturbed by cattle was counted. A ‘‘0’’ meant none of for genesis of this sampling approach). Data were collected 23– the 10 lines were altered by cattle and a ‘‘10’’ meant all the lines 29 September in 2003 and 21–26 September in 2004. were altered by cattle. Total streambank alteration for the The 2003 tests focused on how training affected means and monitoring site measured with the use of this approach was the variability associated with two streambank alteration protocols. average of all the frames times 10, resulting in a disturbance The 2004 tests assessed whether the same observer could replicate rating between 0 and 100 (a percentage scale). his or her results, the effect of professional experience, and whether Both protocols evaluated disturbance on both streambanks, intensive and rapid streambank alteration protocols produced used paces as the interval to space measurements (every step for similar results. Evaluated protocols differed between years because TS and every second step for BF), had the same definition of the primary goal of this study was to examine methods that would alteration categories (Table 1), and started their surveys at the improve streambank alteration assessment techniques. same locations. The protocols did differ in the length of Because of the number of people evaluating each site each streambank evaluated, 30.5 m for TS vs. 110 m for BF. Both year, the observers were reminded to minimize their impacts to protocols were considered rapid techniques because they used the site. Throughout both years of the study observers worked visual techniques to assess alteration. independently, were asked not to discuss interpretation or application of the sampling method with other observers, and 2004 Evaluation were not given individual feedback by investigators. Rather than using BF elevation or TS, the methods evaluated in 2004 followed the first line of perennial vegetation, commonly 2003 Evaluation referred to as the greenline (Winward 2000). This change in To evaluate the role training played in differences among protocol was made because unpublished data suggested that observers, we asked eight summer seasonal employees (hereaf- greenline could be identified by observers more consistently ter called technicians) with little experience evaluating grazing than BF elevation or TS. The two evaluated protocols, greenline to estimate streambank alteration at the 10 sites twice, once (GL; Fig. 1C) and greenline precise (GLP; Fig. 1D), measured before training and again following training. We evaluated two disturbance along a line centered on the GL and perpendicular streambank alteration protocols and randomly assigned four to the stream channel. The line extended through the toe of the technicians to each protocol. Prior to the first visit (untrained), observer 46 cm toward the stream and 46 cm up the each of the technicians were given a 30-min introduction to streambank (92 cm in total length). livestock alteration approaches, a written copy of the assigned When GL was used, the sample line was considered altered if protocol, and time to familiarize him- or herself with the current-year disturbance was observed at any point along the method at a site not used for the study. line and unaltered if alteration was from the prior year or no Following the first visit to sites, technicians received a half- alteration was observed (Fig. 1C; Table 1). The percent day training session (4 h) for the protocol they were applying. streambank alteration with the use of GL was the number of Training involved detailed operational instructions on where to sample lines altered divided by the total number of sample take measurements and how to identify and distinguish lines. This protocol was considered a rapid technique (like different forms of current-year streambank alteration. Follow- those evaluated in 2003) because it used visual techniques to ing training, observers resampled the same 10 sites. To assess alteration at a site. minimize the likelihood of crews memorizing results from their The GLP evaluated streambank alteration with the exact first visit (untrained), observers were not told of the second part same approach as the GL protocol, except the observers of the study until they had completed their first visit. All data measured the length of the line (in centimeters) that had been were entered on data recorders so results of the first visits were altered (Fig. 1D). Because GLP was a measurement of the total not directly available to the technicians. length of a line affected by disturbance, this protocol was a One of the evaluated protocols, the top of streambank (TS), good estimate of the true amount of alteration at the measured disturbance along a visualized line that was monitoring site (line-intercept approach; Elzinga et al. 1998). perpendicular to the stream and extended from the water’s An estimate of the true amount of streambank alteration with edge through the tip of the observers shoe to a point 46 cm the use of GLP was the percent of the cumulative length of the beyond the TS (Fig. 1A; TS). This protocol evaluated alteration lines evaluated that had been altered. In contrast to the other along a line that did not have a fixed length but varied with the protocols, this technique was considered intensive because it size and shape of the streambank. With the use of the TS required the physical measurement of alteration at each site. protocol, the visualized line was considered altered if any part Four technicians assessed disturbance with the GL and three of the line was altered by livestock (each step was either a ‘‘0’’ technicians used GLP. Because of a concern that some of the for no disturbance or ‘‘1’’ for disturbed). Total streambank difference between protocols in 2003 could have been due to alteration for the monitoring site with this protocol was the different reach lengths (Whitacre et al. 2007), all 2004 percent of the surveyed lines that had disturbance. evaluations were performed on the same 75-m stream segment The second protocol, the bankfull (BF), measured distur- within each of the 10 allotments. Measurements were taken on bance with the use of a 61 3 30.5 cm sampling frame, the both stream banks. At each site the presence or measurement of length of which was centered at BF elevation and parallel to the alteration on the line was taken every second step (87–102 stream (Fig. 1B; BF). The BF protocol divided the sampling samples per site, depending upon the individual’s pace length). frame into 10 equally spaced lines. At each placement of the We asked three of the four technicians that applied the GL to frame, the number of the lines (0–10, with intervals of 1) that reevaluate the 10 sites in order to assess the ability of observers

61(6) November 2008 649 Figure 1. An illustration of the four streambank alteration protocols we evaluated. Footprints illustrate how sample lines were oriented relative to the observer’s foot while the observer was walking along the top of streambank (TS, A), bankfull (BF, B), or greenline (GL, C; greenline precise [GLP], D). All evaluated lines were perpendicular to stream flow. Lengths of the lines evaluated for alteration were from the stream to 46 cm beyond the top of streambank for TS, at 10 equally spaced lines, with a length of 30.5 cm within a 61-cm quadrat for BF, and 46 cm both toward and away (total assessed length 92 cm) from the stream for GL and GLP. The hoofprints represent current-year livestock alterations. The average alterations calculated for two paces are meant to display how different protocols might result in different average alteration percentages even when the same locations are being measured. to repeat their results. The technicians were not told they would All technicians and professionals received 4 h of training resurvey sites until after the first visit, to reduce the likelihood prior to completing the site evaluations. The trainer focused on the observers would remember results from their first visit. how to identify the GL (illustrations were provide to clarify the Data were entered in data loggers, so results were not directly GL in different situations; Cowley and Burton 2005), how to available to the technicians. identify streambank alteration, and how to distinguish current- We evaluated the effect of professional background by using from previous-year alteration. Training was conducted at a second group of observers consisting of seven Forest Service locations not used for the study. employees with between 5 yr and 30 yr of experience in rangeland management (hereafter called professionals). These professionals were asked to evaluate the same 10 sites DATA ANALYSIS evaluated by the technicians using the GL protocol. Although each technician sampled all 10 sites, two of the professionals Protocol Differences evaluated 5 sites and the five other professionals sampled the Protocol differences were determined by comparing data remaining sites. collected for the two protocols assessed in 2004 (GL and

650 Rangeland Ecology & Management GLP). We used these protocols because they differed in their Table 3. Overall mean percent of streambank altered, standard general measurement approach (rapid versus intensive) but deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation (CV) of the four evaluated the exact same stream reaches. We used the data streambank alteration protocols for the 10 allotments evaluated. from technicians in analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques, Protocols: GL 5 greenline, GLP 5 greenline precise, BF 5 bankfull, with streams as a block effect, to determine if the protocols TS 5 top of streambank. Data were summarized in a manner that produced significantly different (P # 0.10) estimates of stream- represented the protocol’s measurement approach (see Fig. 1 and text for specifics). Abbreviations in parentheses represent personnel used in bank alteration. the comparison; Tech 5 technician, Pro 5 experienced range conservationist, Tr 5 trained technician, Unt 5 untrained technicians. Among-Observer Variability Because not all protocols were used to evaluate all objectives, discussion We used the posttraining results of the technicians from both of statistical significance is found in the text. 2003 and 2004 to describe the observer variability associated with the four different protocols (TS, BF, GL, GLP). Variability 2004 2003 was portioned between that associated with differences among GL (Tech) GL (Pro) GLP BF (Tr) BF (Unt) TS (Tr) TS (Unt) streams and residual error (Kaufmann et al. 1999; Larsen et al. n 5 4 n 5 7 n 5 3 n 5 4 n 5 4 n 5 4 n 5 4 2001; Roper et al. 2002). With the use of this approach, if all Mean 31.4 41.7 8.3 22.9 32.6 38.6 45.7 observers arrived at the same estimate of alteration for each of SD 6.3 8.8 4.7 8.1 13.7 9.7 15.6 the streams, then all the variation would be due to stream CV 20 21 56 35 42 25 34 differences and there would be no residual error. Observer variability within a method was derived from the residual error estimate and described with the use of standard deviation (SD) Relationship Between Rapid and Intensive Protocols and coefficient of variation (CV; Kaufmann et al. 1999). We We tested whether results generated with the use of a rapid used a Hartley’s F-Max test to determine whether observer protocol was related to a protocol that more intensively and variance estimates among the four methods were different accurately measured streambank alteration. We used linear (Milliken and Johnson 1997). regression to relate the mean site disturbance of three technicians applying GLP (‘‘truth,’’ dependent variable) to the mean site disturbance of four technicians applying GL Within-Observer Variability (independent variable). We used GL as the independent We used the three observers from the 2004 tests who sampled variable because it was the most rapid and therefore the each site twice by the same method (GL) to determine cheaper of the evaluated protocols. variability within an individual. We took the results from the first visit and subtracted the second-visit results (paired t tests) to determine if the observers differed in their assessments RESULTS (significantly different from 0). Within-observer variability was determined by calculating the SD of the difference between the Protocol Difference two visits; if an observer perfectly repeated the evaluation there Streambank alteration as determined by the two protocols would be no within-observer variation. evaluated in 2004 (GL and GLP) differed significantly (Table 3; P , 0.1). The overall average alteration for all 10 streams was Training Effect 31.4% for GL (the rapid protocol) and 8.3% for GLP (the We used the 2003 pre- and posttraining data for both protocols intensive protocol). (TS and BF) to evaluate the effect of training. The analysis was conducted separately for each protocol. To evaluate whether Among-Observer Variability training affected mean values or observer variability we Variability in trained observers differed among the four estimated the means and SD independently for each visit protocols (Table 3). Only one pairwise comparison of the (untrained/trained). We used a paired t test and evaluated three rapid protocols differed significantly (GL vs. TS), whereas whether the difference between the two visits was significantly all the rapid protocols had significantly higher variability than different from 0. We used a Hartley’s F-Max test to determine the intensive protocol (GLP). The GLP had the lowest overall whether observer variance differed between the untrained and variability as measured by the SD (4.7), followed by GL trained observations (Milliken and Johnson 1997). (SD 5 6.3), BF (SD 5 8.1), and TS (SD 5 9.7). The CVs were similar among the three rapid protocols (20 for GL, 35 for BF, Professional Background and 25 for TS). Conversely, the GLP protocol had the largest We used the 2004 GL data and an ANOVA to compare CV (56). differences in means and variances between technicians and professionals. We used professional background as a main Within-Observer Variability effect and blocked for differences among streams. We estimated Paired t tests suggest no significant differences in the mean unique variances for each group (Milliken and Johnson 1997). estimates between visits by the same technician (confidence Observer variability was described with the use of SD and CV intervals of the difference included 0). GL variance estimates (Kaufmann et al. 1999). We used a Hartley’s F-Max test to for multiple visits by the same observer (within observer; determine whether observer variance estimates between the SD 5 5.2) were not significantly different than the variability two groups were equal (Milliken and Johnson 1997). associated with visits among different observers (SD 5 6.3).

61(6) November 2008 651 background, 3) location and intensity of measurements, and 4) the protocol used. Observer consistency in site evaluations was significantly improved by training. Variability among observers applying both the TS and BF protocols was cut by more than a third following a 4-h training session. Training has consistently been shown to reduce variability among observers when measuring stream habitat (Roper and Scarnecchia 1995; Hannaford et al. 1997) and vegetative attributes (Smith 1944; Thorne et al. 2002). However, until recently there has been little effort expended to develop standardized training for assessing livestock disturbance in riparian areas (but see Cowley and Burton 2005 for an exception). Given the higher means and variability associated with untrained observers, assessing streambank alteration with untrained observers could seriously Figure 2. The linear relationship between the mean values of two undermine the credibility of land management decisions based protocols, greenline (GL; independent variable) and greenline precise on those assessments. Further studies should be conducted to (GLP; dependent variable), for the 10 assessed allotments. Estimates for determine if additional training (beyond 4 h) will reduce each of the 10 allotments for GL are the means of the four technicians uncertainty associated with individual assessments of stream- and GLP are the means of the three technicians. bank alteration. A question related to training that is often discussed (Allen Training Effect and Hoekstra 1992; Hummel 1994) but infrequently evaluated Training significantly reduced estimates of mean streambank is this: does professional background influence monitoring alteration for both TS and BF (Table 3). The overall average results? We found that trained Forest Service technicians and estimate of streambank alteration for untrained technicians was rangeland specialists differed significantly in their mean esti- 32.6% for BF and 45.7% for TS, whereas posttraining results mates, but had similar variability when using a rapid approach were 22.9% and 38.6%. Training also lowered observer (GL) to assess streambank alteration. Even though both groups variability by at least a third (Table 3). applied the same protocol, the professionals’ estimates of streambank alteration were 30% higher than the technicians’. Professional Background Because both groups received the same training and surveyed the same reaches, differences between technicians and professionals Technicians and professionals had significantly different mean had to be the result of differences associated with the placement estimates of streambank alteration when using GL, but had of sampled lines and/or how alteration was assessed along the similar among-observer variability (Table 3). The mean esti- sample line (see Galloway et al. 2006 for similar findings in a mate of overall alteration for the technicians was 31.4%, different assessment setting). Regardless of the specific reasons whereas professionals averaged 41.7% (P , 0.1). The techni- for this difference, our data suggest that professional back- cians had a SD of 6.3 and a CV of 20, whereas the professionals ground can influence survey results. A simple (but not the only) had a SD of 8.8 and a CV of 21 (these were not significantly approach to address this concern is the use of independent and different). consistently trained technicians to evaluate grazing allotments. The use of independent observers would not only standardize the Relationship Between Rapid and Intensive Protocols application of protocols, but could reduce criticisms that imply Average GL values, as measured by the technicians, were local politics influence monitoring outcomes. linearly (r2 5 0.75, P , 0.1) related to the more intensively One potential reason why protocols yield different estimates measured GLP values (Fig. 2). The slope of the regression of streambank alteration could be that measurements are taken equation was 0.299 (90% confidence interval; 0.184–0.413), in slightly different locations such as BF, TS, and GL. The suggesting a 1-unit increase under the GLP protocol was inability of different individuals to identify these stream approximately equivalent to a 3.3-unit increase in streambank channel features consistently could affect variability associated alterations as determined by using GL. These results indicate with the protocol. For example, BF elevation has been shown to that more rapid protocols are related to the true amount of be notoriously difficult for different observers to locate disturbance, but that this relationship was not 1:1. consistently (Williams 1978; Harrelson et al. 1994; Whitacre et al. 2007). Although unpublished data we collected in association with this study did find observers more consistently DISCUSSION identified GL than either BF or the TS (median disagreement among observers; GL 5 0.13 m, BF 5 0.43 m, and TS 5 In this article we evaluated many aspects thought to influence 0.35 m), this increased consistency led to GL having only the assessment of streambank alteration by livestock grazing. slightly (but significantly) less variability than the other We found that although measurements of streambank alter- presence/absence protocol, TS. The small difference between ation are relatively repeatable by different observers, results these two protocols likely reflects the proximity of these stream were affected by several factors not directly related to grazing channel indicators, the considerable overlap in the area intensity. These factors include 1) training, 2) professional evaluated (Figs. 1A and 1C) and the coarseness (presence/

652 Rangeland Ecology & Management absence) of the protocol. We suggest that if enough measure- hoofprint). This suggests that if TS was used, there would be a ments are taken to capture the spatial variation in alteration need to have different standards for different-size streams. (Dowdy and Wearden 1983; Elzinga et al. 1998) within the The rationale given to support the use of rapid protocols, near-stream area, the choice of sample location will have only a which result in indices of alteration rather than direct measures minor effect on the overall variation. Based on the experience of the attribute of interest, is that doing so lowers the cost or gained in this test, the primary advantage of GL is not that it ease of monitoring. But as we have shown, how things are reduces variability, but that it is the simplest to teach, because it measured affects results and how those results can be does not rely on an understanding of hydrology (as does interpreted (also see Anderson 2003; Wolman 2006). So, in measurement at BF). deciding which protocol to use it is important to balance the Differences in protocol approaches (rapid versus intensive) time it takes to complete a survey against the precision and resulted in substantially different mean estimates of streambank accuracy of the estimate (Krebs 1989). Technicians were able to alteration. Because GL and GLP had sample lines with the same assess a site with GL in approximately 30 min, whereas the length, placed in the same way, in the same stream reaches by GLP generally took about an hour. When the limited additional similarly trained observers (technicians), differences reflect how time it takes to complete the more precise protocol is weighed alterations were measured and summarized rather than against the possible concerns associated with using indices of differences in actual alteration. The GLP is a good estimate alterations, there seems little rationale not to use the more of the true amount of streambank alteration (similar to Heady precise and accurate GLP assessment techniques. et al. 1959), whereas GL is an index of stream alteration. We found that streambank alteration protocols were as Because GL treats a line that barely intercepted a hoofprint as if repeatable as or better than many protocols used to assess it were 100% altered (presence/absence), whereas GLP might physical stream habitat and riparian attributes (see Kaufmann indicate only 1% of the line had actually been altered, index et al. 1999; Roper et al. 2002). But even if protocols are values derived with GL will always equal or exceed GLP. In this repeatable, managers must use caution when basing a decision study the index method (GL) was on average 3.3 times larger on a single observer’s assessment of a site (Olsen et al. 2005). than the true amount of alteration (GLP). Our comparisons This is because even well-trained observers will not get the suggest that as measurement precision increases, all other exact same estimate at a site. We found that individuals things being equal, estimates of streambank alteration gener- repeating a survey had only slightly (and not significantly) ated by a protocol will be lowered. Even in cases where all lower variability than different observers. This suggests that things were not exactly equal (different reach lengths and even if the same observer samples through time there is going to measurement configurations), in 2003 the more precise be error associated with estimates of streambank alteration. As protocol (11 possible levels of disturbance; BF) had lower a result, any single estimate is simply the best available estimates of alteration than the protocol that used presence/ indication of the amount of streambank alteration at that absence (TS). The lower the measurement precision of a site—not a perfect estimate. protocol (e.g., altered/not altered), the greater the divergence Because of the uncertainty regarding single estimates of results will be from protocols more precisely measuring streambank alteration, we suggest observer variability associ- streambank alteration (e.g., measured to the nearest centime- ated with a protocol be incorporated into management ter). decisions. For example, any site sampled with the use of the Regardless of the protocol being used, it is imperative that GL method (SD 5 6.3) should acknowledge uncertainty around the outcome of a protocol be informative relative to the the estimate of 6 10% (approximately 90% confidence interval resource condition/attribute the protocol is being used to of individual estimates). Managers can feel relatively confident estimate (Anderson 2001; Whitacre et al. 2007). For example, when making allotment decisions if assessment values plus or consider an allotment where it had been determined that when minus this uncertainty do not include the threshold value. In the near-stream area altered by hoofprints exceeds 10%, then contrast, when the estimate plus or minus this uncertainty the long-term outcome is a stream with increasing streambank includes the threshold value, then we suggest repeating the angles and decreasing biotic production. In this situation, a assessment (perhaps with multiple observers) or completing protocol must be able to identify when this 10% threshold is complementary assessments (Cowley and Burton 2005; Burton crossed (Anderson 2003). Our evaluations of these four et al. 2007). This is especially important when the decision has protocols suggest that if the observer receives training, the the potential to have high economic cost to a permittee, high three fixed-length approaches (BF, GL, GLP) could consistently ecological cost to the riparian area, greatly affects the presence indicate whether this threshold had been crossed. However, it is of rare species, or fails to meet legal obligations. important to note that the exact value of the threshold would be dependent on the protocol; 10% for GLP, approximately 35% for GL, and a value somewhere between these two for BF. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Although not directly assessed, deduction suggests it is unlikely that TS could be used to identify a single threshold criterion Both the public and permittees expect federal land management consistently. Although this protocol was repeatable among and regulatory agencies to use the best available science to observers at a site, the variable length of the sampled line inform decisions relative to grazing (for a general discussion of would result in estimates of streambank alteration not only science and the law, see Jasanoff 1995). The use of standards in being a function of livestock alteration but also being affected combination with monitoring is, and should remain, an by stream size (the bigger the stream or longer the line, the important management tool to minimize the impacts of grazing more likely the evaluated line will pass through at least one in riparian areas (Bengeyfield and Svoboda 1998; Clary and

61(6) November 2008 653 Leininger 2000). But it is also important that bank-alteration CONLEY, J. L., M. E. FERNANDEZ-GIMENEZ,G.B.RUYLE, AND M. BRUNSON. 2007. Forest standards not only indicate the desired environmental condi- service grazing permittee perception of the Endangered Species Act in tions at a site, but also identify the protocol to be used to assess Southeastern Arizona. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:136–145. streambank alteration. Given that there are at least nine COWLEY, E. R., AND T. A. BURTON. 2005. Monitoring streambanks and riparian different streambank alteration methods currently used by vegetation—multiple indicators. Boise, ID, USA: US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Technical Bulletin No. 2005-2. 29 p. land-management agencies in the western United States DOWDY, S., AND S. WEARDEN. 1983. Statistics for research. New York, NY, USA: John (Bengeyfield and Svoboda 1998; Cowley and Burton 2005), Wiley and Sons. 537 p. specialists need to understand how the choice of protocol, level ELZINGA, C. L., D. W. SALZER, AND J. W. WILLOUGHBY. 1998. Measuring and monitoring of training, and professional background affect these estimates. plant populations. Denver, CO, USA: US Department of Interior, Bureau of A clear understanding of these issues is necessary to interpret Land Management. Technical Reference 1730-1. 477 p. results accurately and to articulate clearly the implications of GALLOWAY, A. W. E., M. T. TUDOR, AND W. M. VANDER HAEGEN. 2006. The reliability of streambank alteration assessments to land management agen- citizen science: a case study of Oregon white oak stand surveys. Wildlife cies, regulators, permittees, and the public. Society Bulletin 34:1425–1429. Finally, it is important to remember that no protocol can be GREEN,D.G.,AND J. B. KAUFFMAN. 1995. Succession and livestock grazing in a northeastern implemented without measurement error (Krebs 1989; Ramsey Oregon riparian ecosystem. Journal of Rangeland Management 48:307–313. et al. 1992; Roper et al. 2002). Managers should therefore be HALL,F.C.,AND T. MAX. 1999. Test of observer variability in measuring riparian shrub twig length. Journal of Range Management 52:633–636. careful when taking action based on a single evaluation— HANNAFORD, M. J., M. T. BARBOUR, AND V. H. RESH. 1997. Training reduces observer especially when the result is near a management standard or variability in visual-based assessments of stream habitat. Journal of the North threshold. When these concerns are addressed, indicators such American Benthological Society 16:853–860. as streambank alteration can help ensure that management HARRELSON, C. C., C. L. RAWLINS, AND J. P. POTYONDY. 1994. Stream channel reference decisions maintain sustainable allotments and landscapes. sites: an illustrated guide to field techniques. Fort Collins, CO, USA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-245. 61 p. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS HEADY, H. F., R. P. GIBBENS, AND R. W. POWELL. 1959. A comparison of charting, line intercept, and line point methods of sampling shrub types of vegetation. The authors acknowledge the field technicians who collected the data for Journal of Range Management 12:180–188. this study. We extend special thanks to Mike Enk, Bo Stuart, and Dan HUMMEL, R. P. 1994. The bureaucratic experience: a critique of life in the modern Svoboda for providing input on the study design and for training the organization. New York, NY, USA: St. Martin’s Press. 286 p. participants. Finally, this article was greatly improved by reviews from Pete JASANOFF, S. 1995. Science at the bar: law, science, and technology in America. Bengeyfield, Marc Coles-Ritchie, Ervin Cowley, Mike Enk, Allison Kelly, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press. 285 p. Jeffrey Kershner, Mark Nienow, Janice Statts, Deanna J. Stouder, Dan KAUFMANN, P. R., P. LEVINE,E.G.ROBISON,C.SEELIGER, AND D. V. PECK. 1999. Svoboda, and Marina Whitacre. We are grateful for their comments. Quantifying physical habitat in wadeable streams. Washington, DC, USA: US Environmental Protection Agency. Report EPA/620/R-99/003. 99 p. KREBS, C. J. 1989. Ecological methodology. New York, NY, USA: HarperCollins. 654p. LITERATURE CITED LARSEN, D. P., T. M. KINCAID,S.E.JACOBS, AND N. S. URQUHART. 2001. Designs for evaluating local and regional scale trends. Bioscience 51:1069–1078. ALLEN, T. F. H., AND T. HOEKSTRA. 1992. Toward a unified ecology. New York, NY, MACDONALD, L. H., A. SMART, AND R. C. WISSMAR. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to USA: Columbia University Press. 384 p. evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and ANDERSON, D. R. 2001. The need to get things right in wildlife field studies. Wildlife Alaska. Seattle, WA, USA: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Society Bulletin 29:1294–1297. Water Division. Report EPA/910/9-91-001. 166 p. ANDERSON, D. R. 2003. Response to Engeman: index values rarely constitute MARTY, J. 2005. Effects of cattle grazing on diversity in ephemeral wetlands. reliable information. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:288–291. Conservation Biology 19:1626–1632. BAUER, S. B., AND T. A. BURTON. 1993. Monitoring protocols to evaluate water quality MILLIKEN, G. A., AND D. E. JOHNSON. 1997. Analysis of messy data. Volume 1. effects of grazing management of western rangeland streams. Seattle, WA, Designed experiments. London, United Kingdom: Chapman and Hall. 473 p. USA: US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10, Water Division. OLSEN, D. S., B. B. ROPER,J.L.KERSHNER,R.HENDERSON, AND E. ARCHER. 2005. Sources Report EPA 910/R-93-017. 166 p. of variability in conducting pebble counts: their potential influence on the BAUER, S. B., AND S. C. RALPH. 2001. Strengthening the use of aquatic habitat results of stream monitoring programs. Journal of the American Water indicators in the Clean Water Act programs. Fisheries 26(6):14–25. Resources Association 41:1225–1236. BENGEYFIELD, P. 2006. Managing streams with cows in mind. Rangelands 28:3–6. PLATTS, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. American Fisheries Society Special BENGEYFIELD, P., AND D. SVOBODA. 1998. Determining allowable use levels for Publication 19:389–424. livestock movement in riparian areas. Proceedings of the Specialty Conference PLATTS, W. S., C. ARMOUR,G.D.BOOTH,M.BRYANT,J.L.BUFFORD,P.CUPLIN,S.JENSEN, on Rangeland Management and Water Resources; 27–29 May 1998. G. W. LIENKAEMPER,G.W.MINSHALL,S.P.MONSEN,R.L.NELSON,J.R.SEDELL, AND Middleburg, VA, USA: American Water Resources Association. J. S. TUHY. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to BLACKMORE, M., AND P. M. VITOUSEK. 2000. Cattle grazing, forest loss and fuel loading in management. Ogden, UT, USA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, dry forest ecosystem at Pu’u Wa’aWa’a ranch Hawai’i. Biotropica 32:625–632. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report BURTON, T. A., E. R. COWLEY, AND S. J. SMITH. 2007. Monitoring stream channels and INT-221. 177 p. riparian vegetation – multiple indicators. Boise, ID, USA: Idaho State office of PLATTS, W. S., W. F. MEGAHAN, AND G. W. MINSHALL. 1983. Methods for evaluating Bureau of Land Management and Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. Ogden, UT, USA: US Department of Service BLM/ID/GI-07. 41 p. Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment CLARY, W. P. 1999. Stream grazing and vegetation responses to late spring cattle Station. General Technical Report INT-138. 70 p. grazing. Journal of Range Management 52:218–227. RAMSEY, M. H., M. THOMPSON, AND M. HALE. 1992. Objective evaluation of precision CLARY, W. P., AND W. C. LEININGER. 2000. Stubble height as a tool for management requirements for geochemistry analysis of variance. Journal of Geochemical of riparian areas. Journal of Range Management 53:562–573. Exploration 44:23–36.

654 Rangeland Ecology & Management ROPER, B. B., J. L. KERSHNER,E.K.ARCHER,R.C.HENDERSON, AND N. BOUWES. 2002. An TURNER, D. L., AND W. P. CLARY. 2001. Sequential sampling protocol for monitoring evaluation of physical stream habitat attributes used to monitor streams. pasture utilization using stubble height criteria. Journal of Range Management Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:1637–1646. 54:132–137. ROPER, B. B., AND D. L. SCARNECCHIA. 1995. Observer variability in classifying habitat WHITACRE, H. W., B. B. ROPER, AND J. L. KERSHNER. 2007. A comparison of protocols types in stream surveys. North American Journal Fisheries Management and observer precision for measuring stream attributes. Journal of the 15:49–53. American Water Resources Association 43:923–937. SHEPARD, H. S. 2007. The future of livestock grazing and the Endangered Species WILLIAMS, G. P. 1978. Bank-full discharge of rivers. Water Resources Research Act. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 21:383–444. 14:1141–1154. SMITH, A. D. 1944. A study of the reliability of range vegetation estimates. Ecology WINWARD, A. H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. 25:441–448. Ogden, UT, USA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky THOMPSON, W. L., G. C. WHITE, AND C. GOWAN. 1998. Monitoring vertebrate Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-47. 49 p. populations. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press. 365 p. WOLMAN, A. G. 2006. Measurement and meaningfulness in conservation science. THORNE, M. S., Q. D. SKINNER,M.A.SMITH,J.D.RODGERS,W.A.LAYCOCK, AND Conservation Biology 20:1626–1634. S. A. CEREKCI. 2002. Evaluation of a technique for measuring canopy volume of WOLMAN, M. G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. shrubs. Journal of Range Management 55:235–241. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 35:951–956.

61(6) November 2008 655

ATTACHMENT 7

United States Department of Agriculture Indicators of Rangeland Forest Service Health and Functionality Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical in the Intermountain West Report RMRS-GTR-104 June 2003 Renee A. O’Brien Curtis M. Johnson Andrea M. Wilson Van C. Elsbernd Abstract

O’Brien, Renee A.; Johnson, Curtis M.; Wilson, Andrea M.; Elsbernd, Van C. 2003. Indicators of rangeland health and functionality in the Intermountain West. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 13 p.

Rangelands comprise about 42 percent of the land area of the United States and provide vital land functions such as watershed, multiple-use, recreation, and other amenities. Currently, we do not know the status and trends of many of our nation’s rangelands, and consistent protocols for describing rangeland system dynamics across land management agencies are lacking. Various Federal land management agencies have responsi- bility for rangeland inventory and assessments that characterize the health of the nation’s rangelands. Many efforts have been initiated to standardize an approach to large-scale monitoring and assessment of rangelands, but none are universally accepted. This paper describes four rangeland health indicators and interpretation criteria that can be used to characterize rangeland health and functionality. The four indicators tested in this study—noxious weeds, ground cover, species composition, and shrub cover—proved to be viable indicators of rangeland health and functionality. The paper recommends that these indicators can be used at many scales, from the site level for local planning, to State and national levels for strategic planning.

Keywords: rangeland health, functionality, indicators, bare ground, noxious weeds, species composition

The Authors Renee A. O’Brien is Lead Ecologist and Analysis Team Leader with the Interior West Forest Inventory and Analysis Program at the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Ogden, UT. She holds a B.S. degree in botany from Weber State University and B.S. and M.S. degrees in range science from Utah State University.

Curtis M. Johnson is Regional Rangeland Ecosystem Specialist for the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service in Ogden, UT. He holds a B.S. degree in forest management from Humboldt State University and a M.S. degree in watershed management from the University of Arizona.

Andrea M. Wilson was an Analyst with the Interior West Forest Inventory and Analysis Program at the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Ogden, UT. She holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in Forestry from Northern Arizona University.

Van C. Elsbernd is a national Rangeland Specialist for the Washington Office of the Forest Service located in Fort Collins, CO. He has a B.S. degree in forest and rangeland management from the University of Montana.

Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation between the Interior West Forest Inventory and Analysis Program and the Intermountain Region of the USDA Forest Service to make this technical reference possible. The authors especially thank Doug Myers (retired), Forest Inventory and Assessment Group Leader at the Intermountain Region, for encouraging indicator development. Appreciation is also extended to Levi Broyles of the Bridger-Teton National Forest rangeland and timber staff and Dave Tart, Intermountain Region Ecologist, for input and review of indicator development. Special thanks also go to Dr. John Mitchell, Dr. Phillip L. Simms, Tom Roberts, Dr. Chris Lauver, Larry De Blander, and Sharon Woudenberg for their reviews. Contents Page Introduction ...... 1 Study Objectives ...... 1 Indicators of Rangeland Health and Functionality ...... 2 Methods ...... 3 Results and Discussion ...... 4 Develop Indicators of Rangeland Health and Functionality ...... 4 Value of FIA Data and Grid for Evaluating Rangeland Health ...... 7 Reliability and Precision of the Indicators ...... 8 Bridger-Teton Cover Types at Risk ...... 9 Recommendations ...... 9 References ...... 10 Appendix A—Plant species designated as noxious weeds in Wyoming ...... 11 Appendix B—References for ground cover criteria for threshold watershed protection in the Intermountain West as it relates to properly functioning condition for rangeland health ...... 12 Appendix C—Plants needed with at least 5 percent canopy cover in each Society for Range Management cover type to be at potential natural community ecological status ...... 13

Cover photo courtesy of Curt Johnson

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following media. Please specify the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1392 FAX (970) 498-1396 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm Mailing Address Publications Distribution Rocky Mountain Research Station 240 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 80526

Indicators of Rangeland Health and Functionality in the Intermountain West

Renee A. O’Brien Curtis M. Johnson Andrea M. Wilson Van C. Elsbernd

Introduction ______sampled nonforested lands, those with less than 5 percent tree canopy cover or less than 10 percent Rangelands provide vital watershed, multiple-use, stocked by trees of any size. However, as much as 30 and amenity land functions. An estimate of the area of percent of National Forest System lands are classified rangeland in 1992 in the continental United States is as nonforest. Nonforest land is often referred to as 801 million acres (Mitchell 2000), which is about 42 rangeland, but rangeland is not restricted to nonforest percent of the total land area. Currently, we do not types. Therefore, all cover types on the Bridger-Teton, know the status and trend of many of our nation’s both forest and nonforest, were included in this study rangelands, and we lack consistent protocols for de- using the systematic FIA sample selection grid and scribing rangeland system dynamics across land man- the portion of the FIA protocols that were relevant to agement agencies. Various Federal land management rangelands. An analysis was completed to determine agencies have responsibility for rangeland inventory if the information collected on all Bridger-Teton plots and assessments that characterize the health of the could be used to summarize the health and functional- nation’s rangelands. Several efforts have been initi- ity of the Bridger-Teton rangelands. For this pilot ated by these agencies to standardize an approach to study, the interpretation criteria for functionality were large-scale rangeland monitoring, but none are uni- that a site was either in proper functioning condition, versally accepted. There is a need for a rangeland or functioning at risk. Functioning at risk means inventory and assessment protocol that is consistent, health and sustainability are threatened. A quantitative, relatively inexpensive, repeatable, sys- nonfunctioning category was not used in this pilot tematic, statistically sound, and can be accomplished because that threshold has not yet been defined. The with minimal technical skills. threshold for functioning at risk was based on data Qualitative, descriptive rangeland health concepts collected on rangelands in the Intermountain Region, have been described in range health checklists devel- combined with professional judgment (appendix B; oped by the National Research Council (1994) and Johnson and Elsbernd 1997; USDA Forest Service the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (2000). 1996). Taking a more quantitative approach, a study of Riparian areas occupy a small proportion of a land- rangeland health indicators was conducted on the scape (usually less than 2 percent) and are typically Bridger-Teton National Forest by the Interior West linear landscape features. Riparian areas are often Forest Inventory and Analysis (IW-FIA) Program missed using the systematic FIA sample grid and within the Rocky Mountain Research Station of the therefore were not included in this study. Because USDA Forest Service. Forest Inventory and Analysis they are not adequately sampled with the FIA grid, (FIA) is a national program that conducts inventories they must be sampled using other methods. One such for large-scale planning and monitoring on all forest procedure that handles riparian area monitoring and land in the United States, including both public and analysis is outlined in Winward (2000). private ownerships. FIA sampling procedures for forest lands are well documented and standardized Study Objectives nationally (USDA Forest Service 2001). IW-FIA is one of five regional FIA programs and conducts in- 1. Develop indicators of rangeland health and ventories in eight Interior West States as part of its functionality. national FIA responsibilities. 2. Test the value of FIA data for evaluating the IW-FIA conducted an inventory on the Bridger-Teton indicators, and demonstrate use of the FIA grid during 1998 through 2001. FIA has not traditionally and data collection protocol for rangeland health.

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. 2003 1 3. Identify cover types currently in proper func- watersheds for the four Bridger-Teton cover types tioning condition or functioning at risk on the used in this pilot are: Bridger-Teton. Cover type Percent ground cover Indicators of Rangeland Health and Aspen 95 Alpine 90 Functionality Mountain big sagebrush 85 1. Noxious Weeds—These are plants that are des- Tall forb 80 ignated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agricul- The ground cover threshold values for watershed ture or by an appropriate State official. A comprehen- protection used in this study were derived from baseline sive list of state and federally designated noxious material collected throughout the Intermountain Re- weeds for Wyoming is presented in appendix A. For gion from healthy and functional rangelands (appen- this paper, a potential new invader from adjacent dix B). The data were averaged across the Intermoun- States was added to the list. Noxious weeds generally tain Region, modified for the Bridger-Teton, and possess one or more of the following characteristics: summarized in Johnson and Elsbernd (1997). Cover aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, types with ground cover levels below these minimum parasitic, invasive, and new or not common to the thresholds were determined to be functioning at risk United States. for basic watershed protection. Data collection focused on determining the presence A separate study conducted by Hardy (2002) as- or absence of a noxious weed on a sample location. The sessed the applicability of using soil physical and plant interpretation for this indicator was that if any nox- cover categories to predict Erosion Condition Class for ious weed was found on a sample site the acres repre- two major community types, mountain sagebrush and sented by that sample were determined to be at risk mountain grassland, at the broad scale of FIA. Erosion from both a health and sustainability viewpoint, even Condition Class is a tool developed by the BLM to if the ground cover was adequate for a properly func- quantify levels of erosion at a given site. Seventeen tioning watershed. This interpretation was made be- variables were tested for significance in predicting site cause of the aggressive nature of noxious weeds in both scores for Erosion Condition Class. Of those 17 vari- pristine and disturbed landscapes. ables, percent bare ground was the only significant 2. Ground Cover—A stable and sustainable soil variable at the site level (p < .001). base is needed for rangeland watersheds to yield a 3. Species Composition—Determining if the variety of multiple-use products, services, and ameni- proper vegetation is present on a site is the most ties (Ellison and others 1951). The soil base, no matter difficult question in the rangeland health discussion. what the soil classification, needs an adequate ground A general evaluation of ecological status may be con- cover of vegetation, litter, and rock for protection from ducted using a basic species composition list; however, rain, erosion, and use. Qualitative rangeland health species lists would probably need to be revised to and functionality checklists in the literature have a adequately assess a site’s ability to meet more specific majority of indicators and descriptors focusing on health or other management objectives. An attempt various aspects of ground cover. For example, in BLM was made at describing the desired predominant spe- (2000), 11 of the 17 indicators deal with some aspect of cies that should be present if the Society for Range ground cover protection, such as rills, water flow Management cover type was in potential natural com- patterns, bare ground, soil surface resistance to ero- munity ecological status, with the understanding that sion, and litter amount. The other indicators in the a potential natural community species composition literature deal with the vegetation on the site, ad- would not meet all desired plant community composi- dressed below in the species composition indicator tions. For this first approximation, predominant spe- tested in this pilot. cies are defined as species present with at least 5 Using the Society for Range Management (SRM) percent canopy cover. This was done because FIA cover types (Shiflet 1994) as the broad-scale vegeta- protocols limit the field recording of species to those tion classification base, ground cover threshold levels with 5 percent or greater cover. The desired potential were developed to represent the threshold point at natural community plant species components are listed which a site in a particular cover type would begin to for each cover type in appendix C. lose basic functionality defined by increased soil A site was considered to be functioning at risk if at erosion and loss of site sustainability. Ground cover is least one listed potential natural community plant defined as basal vegetation, litter, moss/lichen, or rock species was not present with at least 5 percent cover. 3 greater than ⁄4-inch diameter. The minimum ground These interpretation criteria will change if the goal cover needed for proper functioning sustainable changes from meeting the potential natural community

2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. 2003 criteria to species composition desirable for a specific States, with 3.4 million acres, of which approximately purpose such as forage production, sage grouse habi- 30 percent is nonforest. IW-FIA sample grid plots were tat, low risk wildfire community, or a visually pleasing established on the Bridger-Teton between 1998 and wildflower setting in a sagebrush community. 2001. There were 557 plots, of which 382 were classi- fied with a forest location center, 159 were classified 4. Shrub Cover—Many rangelands across the with a nonforest location center, 15 were inaccessible, United States have a major shrub component. As an and one was water. Each sample on the grid repre- example, much of the Intermountain region is occu- sents approximately 6,000 acres of land. pied by sagebrush (Artemisia spp.). Because of ecologi- Data from both forest and nonforest plots were cal processes such as fire, insects and disease, and used to evaluate the rangeland health indicators, normal life cycles, sagebrush ecosystems naturally with the exception of the shrub cover indicator that have a broad range of self-sustaining communities only used the mountain big sagebrush cover type. with a variety of age classes and structures. Such a The cover types chosen for the pilot study included mix of components provides a variety of habitat and aspen, alpine, mountain big sagebrush, and tall forb. food that benefit an assortment of wildlife and domes- Plots were assigned to the aspen type based on the tic animals, along with a diversity of visual and water- FIA forest type classification. Field crews assigned shed aspects across the landscape. the plots on nonforest types to Society for Range The approach taken with sagebrush cover is slightly Management cover types based on the general de- different from the approach taken with the first three scriptions available in Shiflet (1994). These four indicators. Instead of rating an individual site’s health types were selected for this study based on adequate and aggregating those ratings to represent the health sample size. Forest procedures were adapted to the of the cover type, this indicator only assesses the nonforest (rangeland) plots by using a subset of FIA properly functioning aspect of the entire cover type. It measurement variables (USDA Forest Service 1998) is essentially a landscape level indicator. The desired that were relevant to nonforest conditions. These mix of cover classes for sustainable sagebrush ecosys- included physiographic variables (elevation, slope, tems for all ecological purposes and needs (USDA and aspect), understory vegetation, and ground cover. Forest Service 1996) was determined to be: The layout of the field plot, which comprises four • 10 percent of the sagebrush area has 0 to 5 percent subplots, is shown in figure 1. shrub canopy cover • 50 percent of the sagebrush area has 6 to 15 percent shrub canopy cover • 40 percent of the sagebrush area has greater than 15 percent shrub canopy cover If the mix of sagebrush cover is outside the desired 2 cover class distribution, the cover type may be func- . tioning at risk for the overall ecological health and diversity of a sustainable sagebrush community at a landscape level. Subplot (1/24-acre, Distance between Methods ______24 ft radius) subplot centers is 120 ft FIA inventories provide a statistical-based sample of forest resources across all ownerships that can be Location center . used for planning and analysis at a National Forest or (LC) BLM District; and State, regional, and national levels. .1 The sample was designed to meet national standards for precision in State and regional estimates of forest attributes. IW-FIA uses a two-phase sampling proce- . . dure. Field crews normally conduct the field phase of 3 the inventory only on forest land, but for this study, 4 plots were established on all grid points, including nonforest. The sampling intensity is one field plot every 5,000 m, or about every 3 miles. Four-25 foot ground cover The Bridger-Teton is located in the Greater transects per subplot Yellowstone Ecosystem in western Wyoming. It is the largest National Forest in the continental United Figure 1—Field plot layout.

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. 2003 3 Noxious Weeds—Field crews were trained in the types currently in proper functioning condition, or identification of plants listed as noxious or invasive in functioning at risk on the Bridger-Teton. the State of Wyoming and surrounding States. The presence of any noxious weeds was recorded by species Develop Indicators of Rangeland Health and subplot. and Functionality Ground Cover—Ground cover was identified on The four indicators of rangeland health and func- 400 points per plot. Using a tape measure, 25-foot tionality presented in this paper were shown to be transects were laid out in the four cardinal directions useful for describing rangelands in the Intermountain for each of the four subplot centers. Beginning at the West and could be applicable across the United States. 1-foot mark, the tip of a plot stake or sharply pointed Used together, the four indicators can describe the staff was placed on the ground surface along the side health and functionality of rangelands at many scales. of the tape at each 1-foot mark, and ground cover was recorded at each point by category of cover. The catego- Noxious Weeds—The noxious weed indicator was 1 ries were bare ground, pavement (pebbles between ⁄8 applied to all the cover types on the Bridger-Teton, 3 3 and ⁄4 inches diameter), rocks ( ⁄4 inches diameter or including all the coniferous forest types. Three percent greater), litter, moss/lichens, basal vegetation, and of the sampled locations (14 of 542 plots) had at least other. For this study, pavement cover percentages one noxious weed species present. Five of the locations were combined with bare ground because material with noxious weeds present were in the spruce-fir 1 3 between ⁄8 and ⁄4 inch does not impede raindrop cover type, four were in the Douglas-fir type, two were erosional impact. The transect layout was chosen for in the aspen type; and one each were in the lodgepole, efficiency for field crews and was similar to other FIA tall forb, and mountain big sagebrush types. Weed protocols. The fact that transects radiate out from the occurrence is typically associated with roads and trails, center of the subplot may oversample the center of the and is not spread uniformly across the landscape. It is subplot (see “Recommendations” section for more dis- therefore probably not reasonable to expand these cussion of the transect configuration). For each plot, plot-based detections in the same way that FIA ex- the percent ground cover was estimated by dividing pands other forest attributes to get population esti- the number of points not on bare ground by the total mates. A separate inventory of noxious weeds con- number of sampled points on each plot. The estimate ducted by Bridger-Teton personnel in 2001 indicated was then averaged over all the plots in the cover that about 6,712 acres had noxious weeds present. type to obtain the final estimate. The standard error One noxious weed, Canada thistle, often occurs as of the final estimate was calculated using the as- a disturbance component in many coniferous forest sumption that the plot level estimates were nor- types. Its occurrence fluctuates with canopy closure, mally distributed. and therefore “risk” may not be indicated just by its presence. Species Composition and Shrub Cover—For Tracking the trend of noxious weed plant spread each subplot (four per location), up to four species that through number of plot occurrences could indicate a had 5 percent cover or greater were listed within each trend in rangeland sustainability. Figure 2 shows the life form (tree seedlings/saplings, shrubs, forbs, or rough location of FIA plots having weed species on the graminoids). Percent cover for each species listed was Forest, and table 1 lists the noxious weed species ocularly estimated and recorded. Total percent cover found by number of plots. was also ocularly estimated and recorded for each life form that occurred on each subplot. A maximum of Ground Cover—The percent ground cover results four species were recorded on each subplot per life for the four cover types analyzed on the Bridger-Teton form, so it is possible that some species with 5 percent are compared to the desired ground cover thresholds or greater cover were present on a subplot yet not in figure 3. The results of the FIA estimates of bare recorded. For this study, all the species on all four ground are presented with a 95 percent confidence subplots were combined into one list for each location. range on the estimated mean. The estimated average ground cover for the aspen type on the Bridger-Teton is 90 percent, plus or minus 5, compared to the 95 percent Results and Discussion ______ground cover needed for the type to be considered The objectives of this study were to (1) develop indi- healthy and properly functioning for watershed pro- cators of rangeland health and functionality, (2) test the tection and soil sustainability and recovery. The esti- value of FIA data for evaluating the indicators, and mated average ground cover for the alpine cover type is demonstrate use of the FIA grid and data collection 68 percent, plus or minus 10, compared to the thresh- protocol for rangeland health, and (3) identify cover old value of 90. The estimated average ground cover for the tall forb type is 67 percent, plus or minus 6,

4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. 2003 Figure 2—Noxious weeds on FIA sample locations on the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. 2003 5 Table 1—Noxious weed species found by number period, which may threaten the sustainability of these of locations on the Bridger-Teton National types on a Forestwide scale. Forest. The 14 plots represent 3 percent of the total 542 sample plots. Species Composition—Table 2 depicts the results of the Bridger-Teton plant species sample. These re- Noxious weed Number of sults are based on a comparison of the total species list species found locations for each location, aggregated over all subplots, with Canada thistle the list of potential natural community species. To be (Cirsium arvense)9counted as occurring on the plot, a potential natural Scotch thistle community species had to have at least 5 percent cover (Onopordum acanthium)3 on at least one subplot. The results show that 77 percent Plumeless thistle of aspen sites had at least one of the potential natural (Carduus acanthoides)1 community species present, 42 percent had at least Musk thistle two species present, 25 percent had at least three (Carduus nutans)1 Common St. Johnswort potential natural community species present, and 4 per- (Hypericum perforatum)1 cent had at least four species present. There were no Dyer’s Woad aspen type plots with more than five species from the (Isatis tinctoria)1list. Of the alpine sites, 63 percent had at least one potential natural community species present, and 7 per- cent had two species present. No alpine plots had more than two species from the list. Of the mountain big sage sites, 95 percent had at least one of the potential compared to the threshold value of 80. The estimated natural community species present, 69 percent had at average ground cover for the mountain big sagebrush least two species present, 24 percent had at least three type is 77 percent, plus or minus 5, compared to the species present, and 7 percent had at least four species threshold value of 85. The range of ground cover present. No mountain big sage plots had more than estimates for the alpine, tall forb, and mountain big five listed species present. Only 37 percent of tall forb sagebrush types were all below the desired thresholds, communities had at least one of the potential natural portraying that ground cover might not be high enough community species present, 4 percent had at least two for adequate watershed and soil protection over a long potential natural community species present, and no

Aspen threshold

Aspen estimate

Alpine threshold

Alpine estimate

Mountain Big Sagebrush threshold Cover type Mountain Big Sagebrush estimate Tall forb threshold

Tall forb estimate

0102030405060708090100 Percent

Figure 3—Estimated percent ground cover compared to proper physical functioning threshold by cover type, Bridger-Teton National Forest, 1999.

6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. 2003 Table 2—Number of potential natural community (PNC) species present on four cover types on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, listed as a percentage.

Percent of plots Percent of plots Percent of plots Percent of plots Percent of plots with at least 1 with at least 2 with at least 3 with at least 4 with at least 5 Cover PNC species PNC species PNC species PNC species PNC species type present present present present present Aspen 77 42 25 4 2 Alpine 63 7000 Mountain big sage 95 69 24 7 4 Tall Forb 37 4000

plots had more than two species. According to the minus 5. These proportions indicate that the moun- study criteria, all of the types may be functioning at tain big sagebrush landscape does not meet the de- risk from a species composition point of view. The sired distribution and may be functioning at risk for mountain big sage appears to be in the best health sustainable rangeland sagebrush diversity. based on list species present with 5 percent cover or greater. The interpretation of this indicator is prob- Value of FIA Data and Grid for Evaluating lematic, however, and needs more work. Rangeland Health Shrub Cover—Shrub cover results for the moun- All four indicators used in this determination of the tain big sagebrush cover type on the Bridger-Teton is health and functionality of the Bridger-Teton range- given in figure 4. The desired distribution of the lands can be monitored using FIA protocols. One mountain big sagebrush cover type is a cover class mix criterion cannot stand alone as an ultimate judgment of 10 percent with 0 to 5 percent canopy cover, 50 of any rangeland’s sustainable health or functionality percent with 6 to 15 percent canopy cover, and 40 because of the diversity of rangelands and the com- percent over 15 percent canopy cover. The estimated plexity of the question. These indicators can be used at amount of the mountain big sage type that is in the the project scale by Forest Service Ranger Districts medium class is lower than desired, and the amount in and BLM field offices for site-specific analyses, at the high cover class is higher than desired. The confi- broader scales for Forest and BLM District planning dence interval for estimates of percent shrub cover for efforts, or at the State or national scale for broad the Bridger-Teton at the 95 percent level is plus or strategic-level assessments.

80

70 Desired distribution 60 Estimated 50 distribution

40

Percent area 30

20

10

0 low cover (0-5%) medium cover (6-15%) high cover (>15%)

Figure 4—Estimated area of shrub cover by cover class compared with desired area of shrub cover by cover class for the mountain big sagebrush cover type.

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. 2003 7 Noxious Weeds—The presence of noxious weeds Shrub Cover—Shrub cover arranged in a mosaic of determines whether a rangeland site, landscape, or varying densities over a landscape indicates shrub watershed is at risk from both a functioning and a health regarding sustainability and diversity for a sustainable point of view. The magnitude of the nox- multitude of habitat values and uses. Shrub cover can ious weed problem would influence the questions of be a primary rangeland health and functionality indi- sustainability. The IW-FIA survey is not a census of cator in the Interior West (especially in the sagebrush noxious weeds but rather a systematic sample that ecosystem) and among some places in the West Coast can provide trend over time. and Plains ecosystems. In the national picture it could certainly indicate health and functionality of a large Ground Cover—This indicator shows which cover percentage of the Western rangelands. types are properly functioning by providing enough The use of these indicators for the purpose of deter- cover to protect watersheds and soils above an erod- mining rangeland health and functionality was dem- ibility threshold, and which ones are at risk because of onstrated at the National Forest scale. The indicators inadequate surface cover that does not absorb water can be monitored in the field using FIA protocols. and reduce surface impacts. This rangeland water- Although not demonstrated, the authors believe these shed health and functionality measurement could be indicators could be aggregated for rangeland health used at all scales. determination at a State or national level, and could Species Composition—The most difficult range- also be utilized for more intensive, smaller scale deter- land health criterion to collect and analyze is species minations, such as watersheds, landscapes, or range- composition. Whether or not the appropriate plants land management units. are present over a landscape, watershed, or ecosystem depends on the purpose or objective that is defining a Reliability and Precision of the Indicators health or determination call. For this study, referenc- ing each potential natural community’s plants with 5 Sample estimates are subject to variation. How percent canopy cover or greater answers only the much they vary depends on the inherent variability of ecological status question. If the question centers on the population and on the size of the sample. The FIA health for a threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant sample was designed to meet national standards for that may need an early seral ecological status to State and regional estimates of forest attributes. Stan- remain viable and sustainable, the criterion may be dard errors, which denote the precision of an estimate, quite different or even the opposite of what was used are presented in table 3 for ground and shrub cover in this study. IW-FIA data collection protocols pro- estimates, along with the number of plots from which vide data sufficient for some general ecological status data for each cover type was obtained. The standard evaluation. errors of the estimates were calculated using the The species composition list in appendix C was assumption that plot level estimates were normally developed through examination of ecological distributed. A system of computing and reporting scorecards, and community and habitat type classifi- quality assurance of all FIA variables is currently cation references. This study is intended to be a first under development. approximation. More work is needed to refine the Noxious Weeds—The results of this indicator were species composition lists for each type and to define reported as noxious weeds being either present or not. desired thresholds for different objectives. Another The reliability and precision of this indicator is based approach would be to develop a total cover percentage on the ability of FIA field crews to recognize the plant for a specific group of species.

Table 3—Average cover, standard errors, and number of plots for four cover types on the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

Average shrub Average forb Average grass Average Number of Cover type cover cover cover ground cover plots Aspen 12.54 20.57 17.76 89.89 48 SE 1.69 2.4 2.1 2.36 Alpine 1.65 18.52 19.31 67.54 28 SE .81 4.04 3.5 4.95 Mountain big sagebrush 26.20 17.96 19.11 77.03 56 SE 2.44 1.82 1.82 2.42 Tall forb 3.48 41.01 18.32 66.89 27 SE .94 4.2 3.25 3.21

8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. 2003 species of concern. In Wyoming, field crews went Tall forb—Noxious weeds were present on one tall through 2 days of training on plant identification, forb location. Ground cover averaged 67 percent plus which included recognition of noxious species. They or minus 7, compared to the proper functioning condi- were also provided a weed handbook, with color photos tion threshold of 80 percent. Only 37 percent of tall and detailed description of each plant. forb sites met the minimum species composition re- quirements for potential natural community. Health Ground Cover and Shrub Cover—Confidence in and functionality indicators of ground cover and spe- the ground and shrub cover estimates is presented by cies composition identify this type as being at high risk the standard error of the mean. Standard errors for on the Bridger-Teton. ground and shrub cover are presented in table 3. A confidence interval on the mean was set by multiply- ing the standard error by a “t” value, in this case 1.96 Recommendations ______or 2.0 (depending on sample size) for the 95 percent confidence level. The use of these indicators for the purpose of deter- mining rangeland health and functionality was dem- Species Composition—As with the noxious weed onstrated at the National Forest scale. Health and indicator, the reliability of this indicator is based on functionality can be monitored using FIA protocols. the ability of field crews to correctly identify the Although not demonstrated, the authors believe these common species on FIA plots. The variability within indicators can be aggregated for rangeland health the estimates of cover is presented with standard determination at a State or national level and could errors for each lifeform in table 3. also be utilized for more intensive, smaller scale deter- minations, such as watersheds, landscapes, or range- Bridger-Teton Cover Types at Risk land management units. The summary of these indi- Aspen—Noxious weeds were present on two aspen vidual data into an analytical health and functionality locations. Ground cover averaged 90 percent (plus or judgment at any scale could give a management signal minus 5), which barely encompassed the proper func- of the state of our rangelands. tioning condition threshold of 95 percent for sustained Additional analyses of the ground cover point health and functionality. Of aspen sites, 77 percent transects showed that fewer points may give essen- met the minimum species composition requirements tially the same estimate of bare ground that was for potential natural community. The results of this obtained with the 400-point sample, with only a slight pilot indicate slight risk to health and functionality of decrease in confidence. A more thorough analysis of the aspen type on the Bridger-Teton. quantity of transects needed for estimating percent bare ground by cover type is under development Alpine—None of the alpine sample locations had (O’Brien and Wilson, in preparation). any presence of noxious weeds. Ground cover aver- The species composition indicator needs more work. aged 68 percent, plus or minus 10, compared with the Species lists need to be refined for specific scales and proper functioning condition threshold of 90 percent. purposes. The general lists developed for the cover Of the alpine sites, 63 percent met the minimum types used in this study were meant for use at a broad species composition requirements for potential natu- scale. More specific lists will be more useful at finer ral community. This type is also at risk based on the scales. ground cover and species composition indicators. Additional work is needed to establish thresholds Mountain Big Sagebrush—Noxious weeds were and properly functioning criteria for other types and present on one mountain big sagebrush location. other areas at many scales: other National Forests, Ground cover averaged 77 percent, plus or minus 5, watersheds, ecoregions, and so forth. More work is which is lower than the proper functioning condition also needed to establish thresholds for “nonfunctioning” threshold of 85 percent. Of the mountain big sage- rangeland categories. brush sites, 95 percent met the minimum species The sampling design used in this pilot represents an composition requirements for potential natural com- amalgamation of the Intermountain Region’s stan- munity. Based on the shrub cover indicator, there is dard rangeland assessment techniques and the FIA some risk to the health of the mountain big sagebrush sampling protocols. More work is needed, which may plant community. To achieve the highest sustainable include additional modifications to the design and diversity for multiple uses, the amount of area in the validation of the statistical techniques. Subsequent to 6 to 15 percent canopy cover class needs to increase, the inventory of the Bridger-Teton, to avoid and the amount of area in the greater than 15 percent oversampling the center of the subplot, the configura- class needs to decrease. tion of the ground-cover transects was changed in the FIA protocols to one straight line transect across each

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. 2003 9 subplot, instead of four short transects radiating out National Research Council. 1994. Rangeland health—new methods to classify, inventory, and monitor rangelands. Washington, DC: from the center. More work is also needed on the Committee on Rangeland Classification, Board of Agriculture. subject of adequate sample size. Sample size may need National Academy Press. 182 p. to be increased above the intensity of the FIA grid for O’Brien, Renee A.; Wilson, Andrea, M. [In preparation]. Optimal sample size for estimating bare ground with point transects. some types at some scales in order to decrease vari- Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky ance and increase confidence in the precision of the Mountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory. estimate. Shiflet, Tomas N. (ed). 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Forest survey field procedures. Unpublished field guide on file at Ogden, UT: References ______U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Interior West Ellison, L.; Croft, A.R.; Bailey, R.W. (ed). 1951. Indicators of condi- Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. tion and trend on high range-watersheds of the Intermountain U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998. Forest survey Region. Agric. Handbook. 19. Washington, DC: U.S. Department field procedures. Unpublished field guide on file at Ogden, UT: of Agriculture, Forest Service. 66 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Hardy, Erik M. 2002. Cover, soil, and physiographic variables Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Interior West useful in predicting erosion condition class for mountain sage- Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. brush and mountain grassland communities. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996. Properly Colorado State University. M.S. Thesis. functioning condition process. Report on file at Ogden, UT: U.S. Johnson, Curtis M.; Elsbernd, Van C. 1997. Memorandum to the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Re- Washington Office on the National Rangeland Inventory. On file gion. 76 p. at: Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Intermountain Region. 12 p. 2000. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, version 3. Mitchell, John E. 2000. Rangeland resource trends in the United Technical Reference 1734-6. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the States: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center. 118 p. Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-68. Fort Winward, Alma. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, riparian areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-47. Ogden, UT: U.S. Depart- Rocky Mountain Research Station. 84 p. ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49 p.

10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. 2003 Appendix A—Plant species designated as noxious weeds in Wyoming

Scientific name Common name Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed Ambrosia tomentosa Skeletonleaf bursage Arctium minus Common burdock Cardaria draba Pepperweed whitetop Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle Carduus nutans Musk thistle Centaurea biebersteinii Spotted knapweed Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Cynoglossum officinale Houndstongue Elytrigia repens var. repens Quackgrass Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge Isatis tinctoria Dyer’s woad Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye daisy Linaria dalmatica Dalmation toadflax Linaria vulgaris Toadflax Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle Sonchus arvensis Perennial sowthistle * Hypericum perforatum St. Johnswort

*A new invader in the State but not yet listed as noxious in Wyoming.

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. 2003 11 Appendix B—References for ground cover criteria for threshold watershed protection in the Intermountain West as it relates to properly functioning condition for rangeland health ______

Goodrich, Sherel. 1997. Personal communication. Desired future Tew, Ron K.; Lott, John T.; Bliss, Timothy M. 1988. Ecosystem condition and potential natural community—descriptive input in stratification of the Fishlake National Forest. Misc. Pub. Ogden, Ashley National Forest allotment planning processes, and range UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermoun- trend data sheets for various sites. Vernal, UT: U.S. Department tain Region. 176 p. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1967. Forest and Johnson, Curtis M.; Elsbernd, Van C. 1997. Memorandum to the range hydrology handbook. Agric. Handb. 2536. Washington, DC: Washington Office on the National Rangeland Inventory. On file U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 272 p. at Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996. Ecological Intermountain Region. 12 p. type potential natural community scorecards for Intermountain Lewis, Mont E. 1970. Alpine rangelands of the Uinta Mountains, and Rocky Mountain Region community types. Forest Service. Ashley and Wasatch National Forests. Misc. Pub. Ogden, UT: On file at Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Service, Intermountain Region. Region. 75 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996. Properly Muegglar, W.F.; Stewart, W.L. 1980. Grassland and shrubland functioning condition process. Report on file at Ogden, UT: U.S. habitat types of western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-66. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Re- Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, gion. 76 p. Intermountain Research Station. 154 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1997. A hierarchi- Nelson, Lynda P.; Jensen, Mark P. 1987. Sagebrush-grass commu- cal stratification of ecosystems for the Caribou National Forest. nity types of the Humboldt National Forest. Misc. Pub. Ogden, Misc. Pub. On file at Idaho Falls, ID: U.S. Department of Agricul- UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermoun- ture, Forest Service, Caribou National Forest. 92 p. tain Region. 80 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. O’Brien, Renee A. 1997. Personal communication. FIA ground cover Relationship between soil, plant community, and climate on summaries for the Ashley National Forest. Ogden, UT: U.S. rangelands of the Intermountain West. Tech. Bull. 1669. Wash- Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain ington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Research Station. Service. 123 p. Society for Range Management. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the Weixelman, Dave. 1997. Personal communication. Ground cover United States. Thomas N. Shiflet, editor. Denver, CO: Society for data from the Humboldt-Toyiabe ecology team database. Sparks, Range Management. 152 p. NV: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Humboldt- Tart, Dave. 1996. Big sagebrush plant associations of the Pinedale Toyiabe National Forest. Ranger District. Misc. Pub. Pinedale, WY: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest. 97 p. Tart, Dave. 1997. Personal communication. Ground cover data from the Bridger East ecological unit inventory database. Pinedale, WY: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Bridger- Teton National Forest.

12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. 2003 Appendix C—Plants needed with at least 5 percent canopy cover in each Society for Range Management cover type to be at potential natural community ecological status ______

SRM cover type Predominant associated species Alpine Geum rossi – Ross avens Carex scirpoidea – Canada single-spike sedge Carex elynoides – blackroot sedge Festuca ovina – Sheep Fescue Deschampsia cespitosa – Tuffed hairgrass Danthonia intermedia – Timber oatgrass

Aspen Symphoricarpos oreophilis – Wolfberry Juniperus communis – Common juniper Sheperdia canadensis – Soapberry Thalictrum fendleri – Fendler meadowrue Geranium viscosissium – Sticky geranium Lupinus argenteus – Silvery lupine Lathyrus spp. – Sweetpea Calamagrostis rubescens – Pinegrass Elymus carinatuss – Mountain brome Carex geyeri – Elk sedge Trisetum spicatum – Spike trisetum

Tall Forb Geranium viscossimumi – Sticky geranium Ligusticum filicnum – Fernleaf ligusticum Helianthella uniflora – Single flowered sunflower Valeriana edulis – Tobacco root Bromus carinatus – Mountain brome

Mountain Big Sagebrush Artemisia tridentate var. vaseyana – Mountain big sagebrush Symphoricarpos oreophilis – Wolfberry Purshia tridentate – Bitterbrush Elymus trachycaulus – Slender wheatgrass Festuca idahoensis – Idaho fescue Elymus spicatus – Bluebunch wheatgrass

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-104. 2003 13

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper RMRS ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific informa- tion and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land recla- mation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

ATTACHMENT 8

August 2008 SUBLETTE COUNTY FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Purpose Sublette County’s character is defined by three primary economic influences: agricul- ture, recreation and the mineral extraction industry. All three are heavily dependent on federal and state lands for viability. With 80 percent of Sublette County’s nearly 5,000 square miles consisting of federal and state lands, what happens on these lands has significant impacts on residents of the county.

Management of federal and state lands, including lands administered by the USDI Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest Service, is governed by a system of laws and regulations. Portions of these laws and regulations also provide for in- volvement of local governments in the planning and decision-making processes. Fed- eral land use plans are to be consistent with local land use plans, ordinances and pol- icy to the extent practical. This land use policy represents Sublette County’s recom- mendations and policies for land management and use on federal and state lands within the county.

Principles Federal and state lands are to be managed in a way that protects and improves the health, safety, environment, and well being of our citizens, and improve the perform- ance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs or impacts to local social structure. Sublette County recognizes that the private sector and private markets are the best engine for economic growth; that regulatory policies should re- spect the role of state and local governments; and federal and state lands policies and regulations should be effective, consistent, sensible, and understandable.

In adopting this federal and state land use policy, the Sublette County Commission intends to: • Protect the integrity of environmental systems and natural resources; • Preserve resource-based industries; • Promote a robust, diverse and stable economy; • Minimize conflicts between land uses; • Protect public health, safety and welfare; Promote an understanding of the dynamics and benefits to and from agriculture and other multiple use activities and federal land concerning wildlife; • Preserve culture, customs, heritage, and economic diversity; and • Recognize and protect private rights and interests in federal and state land resources including rights-of-way, grazing permits, water rights, special use permits, leases, contracts, and recreation use permits and licenses.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 1 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Revision As conditions change and new issues arise, the Sublette County Commission’s poli- cies will continue to evolve and change, requiring periodic amendments to this docu- ment. The commission will conduct formal reviews of this document on a two-year basis, but amendments may be made at any time.

Severability Should a court declare any part of this policy void, unenforceable or invalid, the re- maining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 2 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

General land use planning For purposes of land use planning efforts and management decisions on federal lands in Sublette County, federal and state agencies shall develop and maintain cooperating agency status for all major federal land management actions.

Sublette County expects to enter into a memorandum of understanding (with a two- year term, automatically renewable) for all National Environmental Policy Act-related projects or planning document amendments affecting federal lands in Sublette County.

Federal agencies shall coordinate with the county as required by federal law. Land management agencies shall consider the effects proposed actions have on (1) commu- nity stability; (2) maintenance of custom, culture and economic stability; (3) conser- vation and use of the environment and natural resources in the county; and (4) on ex- isting multiple use.

Once a decision on a major federal action affecting federal lands is made, federal land management agencies shall document and track follow-up actions to ensure imple- mentation and compliance with this federal and state land use policy.

Federal land management planners should review all future planning documents for consistency with this Sublette County Federal and State Land Use Policy; identify any inconsistencies or conflicts that may exist; and take practical measures to resolve the conflicts to ensure consistency and compliance with this plan; and describe these findings in the planning or other decision documents.

It is Sublette County’s policy that federal land use planning should: • Involve a high level of cooperation and coordination; • Be multi-jurisdictional to the largest extent possible; • Incorporate the principles of performance-based and adaptive management, while respecting the legal interests and rights granted on federal lands; • Involve a high level of cooperation and coordination with county agencies to iden- tify, disclose and monitor socio-economic effects; • Include a large-scale cumulative analysis of effects, temporally and geographically; • Be based on a holistic view of entire ecosystem, rather than a species-by-species or resource-by-resource approach; and • Use high quality data evaluated by rigorous scientific methodology and principles.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 3 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Waivers Waivers, modifications, and exceptions of existing standards or guidelines should be granted when waiver may result in less impact, reduce the overall footprint of devel- opment or substantially reduce the costs of the project or when the conditions have changed or the restriction is unnecessary to achieve the objectives.

Cooperative conservation Sublette County supports federal land management that is based on cooperative con- servation, meaning actions that relate to use, enhancement, and enjoyment of natural resources, protection of the environment, or both, and that involve collaborative activ- ity among federal, state, local, and tribal governments, private for-profit and nonprofit institutions, other nongovernmental entities and individuals.

Federal land management must facilitate cooperative conservation by fully involving local governmental entities, including the Sublette County Commission and Sublette County Conservation District; take appropriate account of and respect the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land and other natural resources; properly accommodate local participation in federal decision-making; and provide that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting pub- lic health, safety and welfare. Sublette County will not support projects where the federal agency has excluded local government entities and landowners.

Information quality Federal land managers shall take into account the best available unbiased science in planning efforts by: • Documenting how high quality data evaluated by rigorous scientific methodology and principles was considered in the planning process within the context of the issues being considered; • Evaluating and disclosing substantial uncertainties in that science; • Evaluating and disclosing substantial risks associated with plan components based on that science; and • Documenting that the science was appropriately interpreted and applied.

Consultation, coordination and cooperation It is Sublette County’s policy that federal land management agencies shall: • Establish effective government-to-government relationships with Sublette County.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 4 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

• Identify a county relations liaison to serve as the first point of contact with Sublette County Commission and as the person who will generally initiate agency contact with the county. • Implement federal land management programs and activities consistent with and respecting the county’s rights and fulfilling the federal government’s legally man- dated coordination responsibility with the county. • Manage federal lands and resources in coordination with the county. • Work to reduce or remove legal or administrative program impediments that inhibit the agency’s and the county’s capacity to work directly and effectively with each other. • Consult with the county on matters that may affect the public’s rights and interests. • Promptly notify Sublette County at the earliest opportunity of proposed policy, plans, projects or actions that may affect the public’s rights or interests in order to provide Sublette County an opportunity for meaningful dialogue on potential implica- tions and effects. • Develop, in consultation and collaboration with Sublette County, agreements and statements of relationships with the county that help clarify the county’s rights and interests and set forth procedures and protocols for consultation, including the points of contact. • Involve designated county representatives, including staff, consultants and technical representatives, in the consultation process, including development of proposed poli- cies, plans, projects, or actions, where appropriate. • Involve the county early in planning process in the preparation of in-depth socio- economic information. • Fully consider recommendations by Sublette County to address county concerns on proposed decisions. • Inform Sublette County how its information and recommendations were considered in public land management decisions, including explanations particularly in the event that county input was not adopted or incorporated. • Document the process and actions taken to consult with Sublette County, the results of those actions, and how the public land manager’s final decision was communicated to the county. This consultation review and monitoring process shall involve Sublette County officials and representatives. • Participate in a “cooperator working group,” which would focus on implementation of planning decisions on public lands. • Conduct annual planning meetings for specific projects that include participation by livestock permittee, affected adjacent landowners, and other multiple use interests in affected area, as well as Sublette County representatives.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 5 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Custom and culture Major land uses on federal and state lands in Sublette County include livestock graz- ing; harvesting of forest products; oil and gas exploration and production and associ- ated development; and recreation, which includes a broad spectrum from wilderness and primitive use to developed-area recreation, both motorized and non-motorized. It is this myriad of land use that forms the custom and culture of the citizens of the county. The traditions of its citizens are based on continuing these land uses. Other important components of federal and state land include the land’s inherent value as open space available for use by the public at large; providing habitat for flora and fauna; and its role as a vessel for historical and cultural values associated with human use of the land throughout history.

Sublette County will support the maintenance and enhancement of the custom and culture of the county, and oppose any change in land use that does not evaluate, miti- gate, and minimize impacts to custom and culture and the economic stability of the county.

Federal land managers shall incorporate the social, cultural, and economic needs of the county when developing plans or projects and making recommendations that af- fect the custom and culture of the county. Furthermore, the consideration process used to assess impacts to county custom and culture shall be cited in federal and state land management plans and the steps taken to incorporate protection of the county’s cus- tom, culture and heritage into each plan and project.

Sublette County will review federal and state land use and planning issues impacting the county’s custom and culture and make recommendations pertinent to the issue in question. Responsible use of federal lands is use that benefits the custom, culture, heritage and economic base of the county.

Federal and state agencies shall notify Sublette County of any actions, proposals, policies, or regulations which may impact the custom and culture of Sublette County; and Sublette County will review and comment on federal or state actions which im- pact the custom and culture of the county.

Local governmental agencies (including county, towns, school districts, public health care providers, and other local agencies) have important and useful data and other in- formation regarding economic and cultural trends that may not be available from state

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 6 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

or federal data sources. It is Sublette County’s policy that federal and state land man- agers seek out and take into full account data and information available from local sources when developing plans and/or making recommendations.

Management of federal lands will recognize valid existing rights and interests in fed- eral land. Livestock grazing permits and preference, mineral leases, mining claims, recreation permits and concessionaire contracts, and rights-of-way form the backbone of the county’s communities.

Economics Sublette County supports efforts to maintain or improve the overall economic base of the county through the judicious use and enjoyment of federal and state lands in the county.

It is Sublette County’s policy that economic diversity and long-term stability are beneficial to the welfare of county residents.

Sublette County will not support federal and state agencies on land management deci- sions when economics is not carefully considered in the decision. In such cases, Sub- lette County may be forced to appeal or seek other relief.

Any proposed change in land use must evaluate, mitigate, and minimize impacts to custom and culture and the economic stability of the county.

Sublette County recommends federal and state agencies entertain and evaluate oppor- tunities for free trade and enterprise based on their merits and impacts to federal and state lands. While economics should not always be the driving factor in decision- making, it should be part of the balance of interests considered.

Federal land management agencies must work in tandem with Sublette County to ac- curately provide socioeconomic impact analysis and provide socioeconomic impact mitigation recommendations to both the agencies overseeing the development as well as county government officials. Agencies overseeing the development should make every reasonable attempt to implement the socioeconomic impact mitigation recom- mendations while working with local government officials.

Any development that will require the employment of more than 250 workers for a period of more than 90 days will incorporate mitigation to compensate for impacts on

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 7 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

community services and housing.

Sublette County recommends that socio-economic monitoring and analysis be per- formed by experts familiar with the area’s unique history, culture, economy and re- sources. It is Sublette County’s policy that such monitoring and analysis be paid for by the industry creating the impact, and that this requirement be understood by all involved, early in the process.

Large employers whose projects involve federal lands and have more than 50 em- ployees will provide housing facilities such as seasonal RV parks, unless such facili- ties are readily available privately, for regular rotational workers at least for the pe- riod between Memorial Day and Labor Day every year in order to reduce impacts to the tourism-related sector of the county’s economy. Large employers may also be re- quired to pay impact fees or provide supplemental services to reduce the impacts on county and other services.

Mancamps shall be located, as much as possible, within the fields of industrial devel- opment on federal lands in the county in order to reduce impacts to local communi- ties. If not on federal or state land, encourage bussing of employees to and from man- camps located on private property.

Federal land management agencies shall notify Sublette County of any actions or regulations that affect the economic base of the county; and Sublette County will re- view and comment on proposed actions significant to the economic base of the county.

When a negative impact of a proposed action is unavoidable, provisions should be made to mitigation or compensation for those impacts.

It is Sublette County’s policy that analysis of proposed major federal actions must include consideration of the following socioeconomic factors: • An evaluation of the social and economic conditions in the area of site influence. The social and economic conditions shall be inventoried and evaluated as they cur- rently exist, projected as they would exist in the future without the proposed industrial facility and as they will exist with the facility. • A study of the area economy including a description of methodology used. The study may include, but is not limited to, the following factors: Employment projections by major sector

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 8 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Economic bases and economic trends of the local economy Family and per capita income Purchasing power of earnings within the area of site influence Short and long term fluctuations in resource consumption and resource availability Employment dislocation and skill obsolescence Diversity of economy Estimates of basic versus non-basic employment Unemployment rates Population, optionally including demographics and projections Housing, including quantitative evaluations of the number of units in the area and discussion of vacancy rates, costs, and rental rates of the units Transportation Governmental facilities Sewer and water distribution and treatment facilities Solid waste collection and disposal services Health and medical care facilities and services Human service facilities Recreational facilities Schools Mental Health services Problems due to the transition from temporary, construction employees to operating workforces Fiscal analysis over the projection period for all local governments, in- cluding revenue structure, expenditure levels, mill levies, services provided through public financing, and the problems in providing public services Estimate of sales and use taxes and ad valorem taxes generated by the proposed activity Impact controls and mitigating measures proposed by the applicant to alleviate adverse social and economic impacts associated with construction and op- eration of the proposed industrial facility.

Multiple use Federal lands in Sublette County should be managed for multiple use. Multiple use is the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the county citizens: • Making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or re-

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 9 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

lated services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic ad- justments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; • The use of some land for less than all of the resources; • A combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non- renewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and • Harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without perma- nent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not neces- sarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.

The prioritizing of any one multiple use should only occur after the impacts to other multiple uses are fully quantified and mitigated. Any proposal to close the federal lands to a multiple use must be approved by Sublette County after a public hearing.

The public will be fully informed of any land use management proposal and/or deci- sion which affects traditional multiple use status of federal lands in the county.

Sublette County will review federal and state land use and planning issues pertaining to natural resources, such as plan amendments, and make recommendations to appli- cable agencies and parties.

Sublette County recommends federal and state agencies promote public respect for private structures (corrals, fences, water development, etc.) on federal and state land in an effort to reduce vandalism, educate land users, and promote the multiple use concept.

Sublette County recommends federal and state agencies evaluate opportunities for commercial use of federal and state lands for purposes of benefiting the custom and culture of Sublette County as well as the economic base of the county.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 10 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Federal Lands Committee The Sublette County Commission may appoint a Federal Lands Committee to serve as an advisory committee to the county commission on federal land issues. Under the direction of the county commission, the committee will make recommendations to the commission as to management decisions and policies affecting federal and state lands; and participate in the development, coordination, and implementation of the provisions of Sublette County Federal and State Land Use Policy.

The federal lands committee may: • Develop an implementation plan for the Sublette County Federal and State Land Use Policy; • Insure that all relevant provisions of this policy are followed by federal and state agencies in management of federal and state lands; • Receive input from residents who are interested in, and directly impacted by, federal and state land use decisions; • Act as a federal and state land issues clearinghouse; • Insure that guidelines, protocols, and other policies used to direct any activity on federal and state lands do not contain restrictions or protections not provided for by law or regulation; and • Keep the county fully informed of management actions proposed or to be imple- mented on federal and state land and allow the county commission adequate time to develop Sublette County’s position of such action should it not be clearly defined in this policy or subsequent implementation plans.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 11 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Natural, Biological and Cultural Resources Air Air quality is one of Sublette County’s primary concerns.

Sublette County supports the purpose of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 which balance the need to ensure the highest level of environmental protection with the need to maintain economically viable and sustainable communities.

Sublette County supports the goals of the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, which implements the Clean Air Act, as amended. The Wyoming Department of En- vironmental Quality establishes emission standards and permit procedures to protect the public health and welfare that are economically achievable.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality’s recommendations should be fol- lowed when the agency documents a significant risk to human health from a proposed project on federal lands.

Federal land management agencies shall conduct intensive analysis of any action pro- posed on federal lands that would, or could, have the effect of changing the quality of air resources in the county. Such actions shall be critically considered in relationship to the historic and current uses of air resources in the county by humans, vegetation, livestock and wildlife.

Federal agencies shall involve Sublette County in the development of mitigation strategies to reduce air quality impacts. Mitigations must be implemented to reduce or eliminate impacts of activities that are expected to impact air quality and that indi- vidually or cumulatively result in exceeding state or federal air quality standards.

Federal agencies shall involve Sublette County in the development of enforcement strategies and procedures to be implemented in the case of violations. These proce- dures and enforcement strategies shall be agreed upon before a permit or lease for a proposed activity or project is approved.

Federal land management agencies shall coordinate with the county when formulating permitting and leasing stipulations for proposed activities or projects that have sig- nificant impacts to air quality. Permitting and leasing stipulations shall include: pro- visions for the implementation of agreed upon mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate criteria pollutants where state or federal air quality standards are likely to be

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 12 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

violated; and provisions for the implementation of agreed upon enforcement strate- gies to be implemented in the case of a violation.

Dust-suppression measures on roads traversing federal lands are required for indus- trial development projects in order to reduce air quality impacts from traffic. Sublette County strongly suggests any road serving more than 50 wells be surfaced to reduce particulates, with the cost paid by industry.

Maintaining the county’s air quality below state and federal air quality standards is critical to the health and well being of its residents. A high level of air quality is im- portant to future economic development as it reduces the possibility of development restrictions as a result of air quality standards being exceeded.

Air quality baselines for the area must be established with the full participation of the county and the Sublette County Conservation District.

To maintain high air quality, state and federal agencies will work to protect the area’s air from degradation from non-area sources. These non-area sources shall be identi- fied and quantified.

Certain criteria pollutants, such as ozone, are not generally emitted directly from a specific source, but are formed from the combination of precursor compounds. Crite- ria pollutants formed by this process may be in danger of violating air quality stan- dards while their precursor compounds may not be in danger of a violation. If the criteria pollutant is likely to exceed Wyoming and/or National Ambient Air Quality Standards, measures for the reduction of the precursor compounds shall be imple- mented even if they are not likely to exceed standards in and of themselves.

All gas field development plans must provide for air quality monitoring. Data devel- opment must be coordinated with, and the findings provided to, the county commis- sion and the Sublette County Conservation District.

Any development or expansion of an activity known to have an impact or have any reasonably foreseeable impact on air quality shall occur in such a way as to avoid ex- ceeding Wyoming and/or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The determina- tion of whether or not air quality standards will likely be exceeded will be based on quantitative analysis of data gathered from monitoring and the expected emissions of that development or expansion.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 13 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

All air quality studies undertaken by or on behalf of a federal land management agency or the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality must be coordinated with the county and the Sublette County Conservation District.

All air quality analyses for proposed federal projects that have any reasonably fore- seeable impacts to air quality shall be quantitative unless otherwise approved in writ- ing by Sublette County.

Study methods for air quality analysis shall be developed with, and agreed upon by the county. If necessary, a third party consultant approved by the county may be en- listed to complete the required air quality analysis so long as that consultant conforms to the agreed upon methods.

Sublette County shall notify any federal land management agency, in writing, of in- consistencies between county policies and procedures regarding air quality and those policies and procedures of federal guidance, resource management plans and amend- ments to management framework plans.

The individual and cumulative impacts to air quality and the significance thereof, of any proposed actions on federal lands shall be analyzed thoroughly and quantitatively by the federal agency proposing the activity. Analysis of individual and cumulative impacts must be coordinated with, and the findings provided to, the county.

Alternatives for a proposed activity on federal lands must be developed with the co- operation of the county.

Cultural/Historic/Paleontology resources Sublette County supports the protection, study, and/or excavation of unique archeo- logical features that occur in the county, including the responsible stewardship of these resources through balancing resource protection with visitor values.

Sublette County recommends that priority be given to retention and display of locally collected artifacts in Sublette County. State and federal agencies should periodically provide public presentations and reports interpreting new information and theories from the cultural and historical sites located on federal and state lands in the county.

Sublette County will be recognized by federal agencies as a consulting party as de-

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 14 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

scribed in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and subsequent amendments. As a consulting party, Sublette County will request periodic review and comment on classification and management of significant cultural resources on fed- eral lands in the county, and the impact of proposed land use actions on those sites. Sublette County may also periodically suggest endangered cultural resources that should be classified and managed as more significant.

Where practical, federal land management agencies should provide public visitation opportunities to designated public use cultural and archeological sites while providing sufficient site protection.

Federal and state agencies will not jeopardize private property rights or existing land uses, such as oil and gas extraction, mining, logging and harvesting of forest prod- ucts, road maintenance, and grazing, through the protection of cultural and archeo- logical sites. This can be accomplished by carefully assessing the sensitivity and im- portance of the site relative to the economic and cultural impacts associated with land management decisions based around cultural and archeological sites in the county. Sublette County realizes there can be a balance of existing uses and the need to pro- tect cultural sites.

Potential adverse effects to significant and high quality cultural resources will be managed to the extent possible through avoidance and confidentiality of location be- fore other protections are considered.

Many sites represent a unique culture and are closely related to early agricultural set- tlement of the area. They continue to have historical significance and are held by many residents as reverent or consecrated sites. These sites must be preserved and remain accessible.

The maintenance of the resources and their physical attributes such as trails, cabins, livestock facilities, etc., is critical to present and future tourism development.

The land, its people, and their heritage form an inseparable trinity for the majority of the area residents and this relationship must be considered in all proposed actions.

Livestock grazing, the resulting lifestyles and imprint on the landscapes of the West are some of the oldest enduring and economically important cultural and heritage re- sources in the West, and must be preserved and perpetuated.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 15 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Soils The protection of soils from wind and water erosion and the maintenance of produc- tivity and fertility are critical to sustaining a viable agricultural economy, sustaining wildlife populations, and high quality of air and water.

Soil-related activities will be based on all available survey data until a final survey is published. Any deviation from this material and soil data development must be coor- dinated with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Sublette County Conservation District.

Sublette County supports the prioritization of soil survey mapping and the uniform use of ecological site descriptions developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service as the foundation for the inventory, evaluation, settling of monitoring objec- tives, and management of rangelands and forestlands because ecological sites are the basic units of soils and associated plant communities and they provide the basis for setting vegetative management objectives, monitoring and extrapolations of manage- ment impacts to other areas.

Vegetation Sublette County supports efforts to conduct plant surveys to validate existing data and add new plant inventory data.

Recovery planning efforts for sensitive, threatened, and endangered plant species shall evaluate, mitigate, and support the county’s custom and culture and economic viability.

Sublette County supports locally driven efforts to identify desired plant communities that do not compromise the custom and culture and the economy of the county.

Visual Sublette County recognizes that different levels of scenic values on federal lands in the county require different levels of management. While management of an area with high scenic value might be focused on preserving the existing character of the land- scape, management of an area with little scenic value might allow for major modifica- tions to the landscape.

Federal land management agencies shall conduct assessments of visual impacts in

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 16 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

determining how an area should be managed, with the goal of protecting the visual resource while not burdening authorized land uses and maintaining economic stabil- ity.

Federal land management should provide for a wide array of visual resource man- agement objectives on federal lands in the county, including: preserving the existing character of the landscape with very low levels of change; retaining the existing char- acter of the landscape; partial retention of the existing character of the landscape, with moderate levels of change; and major modification of the existing character of the landscape, with high levels of change acceptable.

It is Sublette County’s policy that in considering visual resource management objec- tives, federal and state land management agencies shall recognize the importance of communications sites to the security, health and welfare of Sublette County’s citizens.

Water Baseline water quality sampling and cataloging of that data shall be required for all industrial water wells (including injection wells) drilled on federal or state lands. This information shall be shared with Sublette County.

It is Sublette County’s policy that protection of the county’s groundwater quality and quantity is an issue of utmost importance.

Sublette County shall be officially notified, as an interested party, of all voluntary re- mediation of contaminated sites on federal and state lands in the county.

All oil and gas field development plans must provide for water quality monitoring. The Sublette County Commission and Sublette County Conservation District shall be directly involved in developing monitoring protocol for air quality and water quality. Development must be coordinated with, and the findings provided to the county.

Weed and pest Federal and state land management agencies shall participate in cooperative efforts with federal, state, county and private land managers to enhance cooperative weed management efforts in Sublette County.

Early detection and control of noxious weed and insect infestations are essential to the public health, welfare and economy of the citizens of Sublette County.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 17 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Mosquito control on federal and state lands in the county should be permitted in order to reduce the risk of transmission of West Nile Virus and other diseases that pose a threat to the health of humans, livestock and wildlife.

Wildland fire Fire management strategies shall consider firefighter and public safety and protects human life, property and communities. There shall be a high level of cooperation be- tween agencies and firefighter organizations in the county.

Federal agencies will incorporate local fire department plans and policies into fire suppression and control plans.

Wildlife Recovery planning efforts for sensitive, threatened, and endangered species shall evaluate, mitigate, and support Sublette County’s custom and culture and economic viability.

Wildlife management efforts shall reduce predation of sensitive species, increase hunting and fishing opportunities within appropriate carrying capacities, decrease game damage conflicts, and generally balance wildlife numbers with other factions representing the custom and culture and multiple use values of the county.

Sublette County supports responsible wildlife habitat preservation, development, and management.

It is Sublette County’s policy that federal agencies shall fully quantify and cause mitigation measures to be adopted that would effectively mitigate impact to Sublette County wildlife populations as a result of energy development.

In carrying out animal damage management activities, federal and state land manag- ers shall: • Allow currently recognized methods of predator control, including aerial gunning of predators, as viable options for predator control on federal and state lands in the county. • Rely upon the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Sublette County Predator Management Board to provide the expertise and conduct predator control on public lands, to determine livestock losses,

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 18 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

and to determine methodology for animal damage management. • As needed, conduct non-predator animal damage management, such as controlling small mammal populations, and necessary environmental analysis and disclosure on federal and state lands. • Coordinate with other federal and state agencies to improve effectiveness of control program activities conducted on federal and state lands. • Use an integrated approach to the prevention of animal damage and management of animal damage control programs. Consider a full range of methods, including physi- cal barriers, repellents, habitat manipulation, biological controls, silvicultural methods (for example, fertilizing to improve soil fertility), pesticides, and hunting and trap- ping. Use licensed hunting, fishing, and trapping as a control technique where practi- cable.

Federal and state land management agencies shall allow the continuation of the state’s elk feedground program on federal and state lands, as well as approve the implemen- tation of the recommendations of the Wyoming Brucellosis Coordination Team that pertain to federal and state lands in order to reduce brucellosis in wildlife populations and to reduce the risk of transmitting the disease to cattle herds.

It is Sublette County’s policy to support the goal of eliminating brucellosis in the Sub- lette County elk population as a means to reduce and/or eliminate Brucellosis in the livestock population in the county.

There shall be no imposition of land use restrictions on federal lands for the purpose of protecting species classified as predators under state statute.

It is Sublette County’s policy that land management agencies consider wildlife use in the context of healthy range standards.

Sublette County supports “Executive Order 20070817: Facilitation of Hunting Heri- tage and Wildlife Conservation” and the provisions requiring federal agencies to: (a) Evaluate the effect of agency actions on trends in hunting participation and, where appropriate to address declining trends, implement actions that expand and enhance hunting opportunities for the public; (b) Consider the economic and recreational values of hunting in agency actions; (c) Manage wildlife habitats on public lands in a manner that expands and enhances hunting opportunities, including through the use of hunting in wildlife management planning; and

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 19 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

(d) Work collaboratively with state governments to manage and conserve game spe- cies and their habitats in a manner that respects private property rights and state man- agement authority over wildlife resources.

Wild Horses Designation of any wild horse management areas in Sublette County is inappropriate and federal land managers shall provide for the removal of wild horses from federal lands in the county.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 20 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Resource Uses Forestry The private use of timber products from federal and state lands in Sublette County for fuel, posts and poles, Christmas trees, etc., shall be continued as an allowable use.

A sustainable wood products industry on federal and state lands in the county is an important aspect of economic diversity.

Fire, timber harvesting, and treatment programs are managed in a way to promote forest health, reduce disease and insect infestation and prevent waste of forest prod- ucts while providing opportunities for local businesses and small business.

Federal land management agencies should participate in the National Forest County Partnership Restoration Program to formulate a multi-year plan that encompasses: a) Community-based cooperation with stakeholders; b) Integration of best management practices that incorporate peer reviewed science; c) Expedited implementation of for- est and watershed enhancement projects at the stand and landscape levels; and d) flexibility in authorities and planning.

Conservation forestry conclusions and proposals for action should be consistent with the following: (1) avoid management scenarios that result in a static forest condition; (2) not restrict management actions to a particular size or age of wood material; (3) concentrate activities on current condition as compared to desired condition; (4) con- tains an aggressive time table for management implementation; (5) uses a systemic, diagnostic approach to anticipate forest health problem; (6) works with and not against nature; (7) accurately accounts for forest health costs and uses a long term risk analysis; (8) prepares the forest for inevitable periods of drought and encourages re- search into climate/forest health relationship and the aforementioned forest manage- ment scenarios utilize silviculturally sound harvest of forest products and materials to finance non-commercial management prescriptions to meet desired condition or funded in conjunction with local, state or federal programs.

Lands and realty Federal land management agencies shall make suitable lands available for disposal under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act in resource management plans and upon request by an appropriate entity in accordance with the acts.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 21 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Federal and state land management agencies shall consider local government needs for local resources such as rock, gravel, road base, etc.

Federal lands shall be available for disposal when such disposal meets the important public objective of community expansion or economic development, or when the dis- posal would serve the public interest.

The design and development of all federal land disposals, including land adjustments and exchanges, shall be carried out to the benefit of the citizens of Sublette County in an expeditious manner.

There shall be no net loss of private lands in Sublette County. Federal land manage- ment agencies shall not acquire any private lands or rights in private lands in Sublette County without first ensuring: that at a minimum, parity in land ownership is main- tained; and that private property interests are protected and enhanced. Net loss shall be measured in acreage and fair market value.

Federally managed lands that are difficult to manage or which lie in isolated tracts shall be targeted for disposal.

Sublette County shall be notified of, consulted with, and otherwise involved in all federal and state land adjustments in Sublette County. Sublette County’s concurrence shall be required prior to such adjustments.

Law enforcement Sublette County and the State of Wyoming have primary jurisdiction for law en- forcement throughout Sublette County.

All federal law enforcement activities will be fully coordinated with the Sublette County Sheriff’s Office.

Sublette County will maximize the use of a cooperative law enforcement program, to improve protection of persons and their property when visiting federal and state lands, and to utilize the opportunity to cooperate with land management agencies in carrying out their specific responsibilities related to the land management.

It is Sublette County’s policy to provide protection to the public and their property through cooperation with other law enforcement agencies.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 22 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Federal and state land management agencies will make available sites for the strategic location of communications towers to aid in law enforcement activities.

Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing on federal and state lands in the county shall continue, at levels consistent with customs and culture and proper stewardship of the vegetative re- source.

The continued viability of livestock operations and the livestock industry should be supported on the federal and state lands within the county by management of land and forage resources, by the proper optimization of animal unit months for livestock, in accordance with supportable science and the multiple use provisions of federal and state law.

Federal land management agencies will not adjust animal unit months (AUMs) on federal lands without scientifically based justification and full consultation between the permittee and administering agency.

Federal land management agencies will not permit the relinquishment, transfer or re- tirement of livestock grazing AUMs in favor of conservation, wildlife or other uses besides livestock grazing.

Federal land management agencies will promote public respect for private structures (corrals, fences, water development, etc.) on federal land in an effort to reduce van- dalism, educate land users, and promote the multiple-use concept.

The use of categorical exclusions for issuance or renewal of livestock grazing permits on federal lands should be allowed, if the new grazing permit/lease is consistent with the use specified on the previous permit/lease, such that the same kind of livestock is grazed, this does not exceed the active use previously authorized, and grazing does not occur more than 14 days earlier or later than as specified on the previous permit/ lease; and the grazing allotment(s) is meeting land health standards, or not meeting standards due to factors that do not include existing livestock grazing.

AUMs should not be placed in a suspended use category unless there is a rational and scientific determination that the condition of the rangeland allotment or district in question will not sustain the animal unit months proposed to be placed in suspended

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 23 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

use.

Any grazing AUMs that are placed in a suspended use category be returned to active use when range conditions improve.

Sublette County supports and encourages joint cooperative monitoring programs based on the monitoring Memorandums of Understanding developed between the Na- tional Public Lands Council, USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM.

State-of-the-art monitoring data should be the basis for grazing management deci- sions on BLM and Forest Service grazing allotments.

Proper Functioning Condition Assessment (PFC) will be used as intended by the Na- tional Riparian Team that developed PFC: ie proper monitoring protocol and objec- tives shall be developed and actions shall be implemented when PFC indicates the need.

Minerals Sublette County supports future mineral exploration, extraction and development that is conducted in an environmentally responsible manner (taking into consideration land, air, and water quality and quantity, as well as other resource values) and utiliz- ing public involvement.

Sublette County encourages industry companies to conduct science-based research applicable to mineral and mining industry expansion and new development.

Federal and state land managers should provide consideration to the needs of public and private enterprises relative to gravel, rock for stabilization projects and other ma- terial resources. New gravel pit excavation possibilities should be available on federal and state lands dispersed throughout the county, as well as opportunities for year- round gravel crushing and screening operations, in areas where the materials are needed and where it is economically feasible to extract them.

Federal and state agencies shall consider the potential economic impact of any pro- posed land management changes or natural-resource related plans to the minerals in- dustry, and on the residents of the county, through in-depth economic impact descrip- tions in planning documents.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 24 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Federal lands shown to have reasonable mineral potential should be open to oil and gas leasing with stipulations and conditions that will protect the lands against undue and unnecessary degredation to other significant resource values. This should include reasonable and effective mitigation and reclamation measures and bonding for such where necessary.

Mineral development proposals shall not be approved without complete and proper scientific analysis of the development in compliance of federal environmental laws, regulations and guidelines. The analysis must quantify and disclose all reasonable and foreseeable adverse impacts, offer possible mitigations both on-site and off-site, of the development to all other existing multiple use activities including but not limited to livestock grazing, recreation opportunities, timber harvest, outfitting, hunting, fish- ing, and to the county's natural, economic, socio-economic, and cultural resources.

The ability of private mineral owners to access, extract and transport their mineral resource shall not be limited or infringed upon by federal land managers, including in areas determined set aside for no mineral leasing on federal lands.

An accurate analysis of full-field development scenarios needs be disclosed at the ear- liest feasible stage in the planning process.

Impacts from the pace of mineral development, cumulative impact from all mineral developments in the area, and the impact from a sharp decline in development levels will be fully considered in federal land management decisions involving mineral de- velopment.

Federal and state agencies shall analyze and consider all fiscal and economic impacts to the minerals industry, the county and other local governments, and to the residents of the county from any proposed land management changes or natural-resource re- lated plans.

Planning shall consider up-to-date mineral potential reports.

Mitigation plans must include monitoring and incorporation of county and other local governmental roles in the monitoring program and it must be a condition of approv- ing mineral development proposals.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 25 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Each mineral company operator should designate a contact person to handle concerns of Sublette County, livestock permittees and other stakeholders, and share that contact information with county and its representatives.

Sublette County opposes the waste of fluid and gaseous minerals, and recommends such waste be prohibited.

Federal land managers shall routinely monitor drilling areas to ensure compliance with existing regulations and assist in determining the impacts to air, water, public health and wildlife.

Federal land managers shall aggressively inspect and enforce operating conditions for oil and gas operations since this is critical to the protection of the environment, public health and safety, proper accounting of production, and to ensure oil and gas re- sources are developed in a manner that maximizes recovery while minimizing waste.

Wastewater disposal pits, wastewater disposal/reinjection wells, and other mineral industry infrastructure shall be located within industrialized areas of federal lands and away from fresh water sources.

Disposal of garbage and other wastes, as well as roadkilled-animals, shall be provided for in development planning documents, with the goal to reduce the risk of attracting and expanding populations of ravens and other predators.

Transportation planning for industrial projects should occur at the project level rather than at the individual wellpad level.

Frontage roads longer than half-mile should be discouraged.

Coordination/cooperation with local government will occur at the project level.

Federal land managers shall require the use of environmental best management prac- tices, lease stipulations and other restrictions for oil and gas operations, energy- related activities, and other industrial developments, including, but not limited to: • Interim reclamation of well locations and access roads soon after the well is put into production; • Painting of all new facilities a color that best allows the facility to blend with the background;

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 26 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

• Design and construction of all new roads to a safe and appropriate standard, “no higher than necessary” to accommodate their intended use unless a higher stan- dard is appropriate to control dust and soil erosion; and • Final reclamation recontouring of all disturbed areas, including access roads, to the original contour or a contour that blends with the surrounding topography. Other environmental BMPs, lease stipulations or restrictions should be on a case-by- case basis, depending on their effectiveness; the balancing of increased operating costs vs. the benefit to the public and resource values; the availability of less restric- tive mitigation alternatives that accomplish the same objective; and other site-specific factors. Examples of typical, case-by-case BMPs, lease stipulations or restrictions include, but are not limited to, the following: • Seasonal drilling restrictions; • Avoidance or prohibitions on surface disturbance of sensitive areas (near homes, visual areas, developed recreation sites, migration corridors, grouse leks, rare plant areas, wetlands, crucial winter range, etc.); • Paced development and zone development; • Clustering of new infrastructure to minimize footprint; • Installing raptor perch avoidance; • Burying of distribution power lines and/or flow lines in or adjacent to access roads; • Centralizing production facilities; • Installing submersible pumps; • Directional/horizontal drilling; • Drilling multiple wells from a single pad/clustered development; • Using noise reduction techniques and designs to reduce noise from compressors; • Monitoring wildlife; • Avoiding placement of production facilities on hilltops and ridgelines; • Screening facilities from view or siting facilities to reduce visibility; • Use of remote monitoring of wells; • Minimizing the footprint of development in overall energy infrastructure; • Bioremediating oil field wastes and spills; and • Using common utility or right-of-way corridors.

The use of best available technologies will be required in energy development pro- jects to reduce all pollution impacts during all stages of development.

The analysis, monitoring of air and water, and identification of health risks associated with energy development will be required, with the costs to be paid for by industry.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 27 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Except for Congressional withdrawals, public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative actions are clearly justified in the national interest and withdrawal procedures are fol- lowed.

Certain areas of federal land may be withdrawn from mineral leasing in an adminis- trative process, so long as such designation is for the term of a resource planning document, and not a permanent designation.

Mitigation Mitigation and other conditions established in an environmental impact statement or during its review and committed as part of a decision shall be implemented by the lead agency or other appropriate consenting agency.

The lead agency shall condition funding of actions on mitigation, and upon request, inform cooperating agencies on progress in carrying out mitigation measures which they have proposed and which were adopted by the agency making the decision.

Mitigation includes avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the ac- tion and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or re- storing the affected environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and compensat- ing for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

When considering mitigation measures, land managers must consider the range of impacts of the proposal, and must include such things as design alternatives that would decrease pollution emissions, construction impacts, esthetic intrusion, as well as relocation assistance, possible land use controls that could be enacted, and other possible efforts. Mitigation measures must be considered even for impacts that by themselves would not be considered “significant.” Once the proposal itself is consid- ered as a whole to have significant effects, all of its specific effects on the environ- ment (whether or not “significant”) must be considered, and mitigation measures must be developed where it is feasible to do so.

Mitigation measures which could reduce adverse impacts or enhance beneficial im- pacts and which have not been incorporated into the proposed action or an alternative

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 28 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

must be identified and analyzed. The analysis should address the anticipated effec- tiveness of these mitigation measures in reducing adverse impacts or enhancing bene- ficial impacts. Analyze any residual impacts or unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after mitigation measures have been applied as well as any further impacts caused by the mitigation measures themselves.

Federal land managers shall identify and adopt measures that may reduce or avoid potential adverse economic or social effects of the alternatives considered, and maxi- mize their positive effects.

For the development of all new management plans (or revisions or amendments to existing plans), it is Sublette County’s policy that federal land managers host at least one economic strategies workshop to provide an opportunity for local government officials, community leaders, and other citizens to discuss regional economic condi- tions, trends, and strategies. Such workshops shall provide for imparting skills on analyzing local and regional economic and social conditions and trends; assisting community members to identify desired economic and social conditions; and collaborating with agency staff to iden- tify opportunities to advance local economic and social goals through planning and policy decisions within the authority of BLM, its cooperating agencies, or other part- ners.

Any initiative, mitigation or compensatory mitigation programs or studies must be coordinated with, and provide for full participation of the county and other local gov- ernment agencies, including the Sublette County Conservation District.

All disturbances of surface resources, including fish and wildlife habitats, must be reclaimed as soon as feasible after impacts have been created.

All mitigation of surface disturbances must be accomplished on or adjoining the site of disturbance. No off-site mitigation may be considered until onsite opportunities have been exhausted or until proper analysis shows that habitat losses cannot be miti- gated on site.

Off-site mitigation should be required, if on-site mitigation is not sufficient.)

Off-site mitigation must provide for the full involvement of the county.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 29 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Off-site mitigation should be of duration appropriate to the anticipated impacts being mitigated.

The most cost-effective method of mitigation or habitat improvement is to pool com- mitted mitigation funds to address mitigation on a county-wide landscape scale, so long as the county and other local agencies are directly involved in the approval and management of a compensatory mitigation fund.

Sublette County supports the use of a mitigation banking system that provides for the banking of dollars or mitigation credits.

Sublette County favors habitat improvement projects that are jointly sponsored by various resource interests and involve treatments such as disking and seeding, re- moval of decadent vegetation, logging, seeding, burning, and other direct soil and vegetation prescriptions that are demonstrated to restore forest and rangeland health, increase forage, and improve watersheds for the mutual benefit of domestic livestock, wildlife, and watersheds.

In order to mitigate impacts from energy development on federal and state lands in Sublette County, it is the county’s policy that: • Annual operator meetings be held with permittees. • Compensation for cattle lost to oil and gas activities, including deaths from pits and animals hit on roads) be provided. • A fund be established to develop range improvement projects away from industrial activity, or in the alternate, a commitment to fund these projects as development is proposed. • Cattle movement corridors shall not be impacted to the point livestock can’t get through the area. • Pipeline projects shall be coordinated to lessen the impact cattle’s natural movement through the field, including leaving gaps in the trenches to allow cows to move, or completion of pipeline work while cattle are not on allotments. • Standardized fencing of pits shall be required to prevent wildlife and livestock from drinking contaminated water. This should include wooden H braces, a fence support structure to keep hoses from knocking down fence, and the closure of gates. • Maintenance of cattle guards on all roads shall be required to keep cattle from get- ting onto highways, drill pads or other allotments. • Speed limits be enforced to lessen the chance of animals getting hit on roads.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 30 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

• A provision that when/if the level of industrial activity dominates the field to a point that it is uneconomical for the permittees to continue grazing these allotments, opera- tor mitigation may include replacement of feed, provide for spring grazing pasture, hay, etc, for the duration of the impact period.

Recreation Federal lands offer a broad range of recreational opportunities on public lands, includ- ing, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, camping, nature apprecia- tion, interpretive trips, wildlife watching, boating, and other tourism-related activities. Federal and state lands also support businesses that offer such opportunities to the public, including outfitters and guides, outdoor camps, wilderness/survival schools, dude ranches, etc.

Federal and state land management shall support recreation and tourism and associ- ated businesses in Sublette County, including the broad range of activities included, from off-road vehicle use to primitive outdoor adventures.

Federal land outdoor recreational access shall not discriminate in favor of one particu- lar mode of recreation to the exclusion of others.

Existing levels of motorized public access to traditional outdoor recreational designa- tions in the county shall be continued, including both snowmachine and off-highway vehicle use.

Traditional levels of group camping, group day use and all other forms of outdoor recreation – motorized and non-motorized, shall be continued.

The permitting process for commercial recreational permits on federal lands in the county shall be streamlined and expedited.

Permitting of commercial business enterprises on federal lands that reflect the custom and culture of the county in terms of recreation and outdoor lifestyles/uses shall be encouraged.

Motorized, human, and animal-powered outdoor recreation should be integrated into a fair and balanced allocation of resources within the historical and cultural frame- work of multiple-uses in rural Wyoming, and outdoor recreation should be supported as part of a balanced plan of state and local economic support and growth.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 31 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Potential developments should include family oriented activities and developments that are accessible to the general public and not limited to special interest groups.

Recreational facility development that supports and cultivates maintenance partner- ships with other entities, agencies and special interest groups shall be encouraged.

Outfitting and lodge operations are an important part of local history and tradition as well as contribute substantially to the local economies. Management decisions must provide for the continuation or expansion of these activities and fully disclose the im- pacts to them.

Recreational residences Existing recreational residences, and access to them, on federal lands in Sublette County shall continue to be reauthorized.

Search and rescue Search and rescue (SAR) efforts on federal and state lands will be closely coordinated between the local SAR organization, Sublette County Sheriff’s Office and federal and state land managers and other agencies; be outlined through mutual aide and assis- tance agreements as much as possible; and be facilitated by access.

Transportation and Access Access to or across federal lands shall not entail encumbrances or restrictions on pri- vate property rights or privileges.

There shall be no closure of existing roads or R.S. 2477 rights-of-way without scien- tific justification, support of the Sublette County Commission, and support of the citi- zens of the affected area.

Prior to any road closures on federal land within the county, the deciding officer shall conduct full consultation with the county and local citizens.

The development of multiple use trail systems on federal lands in the county shall provide a wide range of recreational opportunities and experiences for all users and shall be permitted, with emphasis on looped trails.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 32 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Federal land managers shall provide for the development of access areas on federal lands for the elderly and physically impaired.

No roads, trails, rights-of-way, corridors, easements or other traditional access for the transportation of people, products, recreation, energy or livestock may be closed, abandoned, withdrawn, or have a change of use without full public disclosure and analysis.

County roads on federal lands shall remain open unless it has been determined by the county that the subject road is no longer needed as part of the county’s transportation system.

Water use It is Sublette County’s policy that the Wyoming Constitution and Wyoming statutes are the legal basis for all water use in the county and all planning efforts need to re- flect this reality. Specifically, the county recognizes: • A water right is a right to use the water of the state, when such use has been ac- quired by the beneficial application of water under the laws of the state; • Beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure and limit of the right to use water at all times; • Water being always the property of the state, rights to its use shall attach to the land for irrigation, or to such other purposes or object for which acquired in accordance with the beneficial use made; and • Preferred water uses shall have preference rights in the following order: (i) Water for drinking purposes for both man and beast; (ii) Water for municipal purposes; (iii) Water for the use of steam engines and for general railway use, water for culi- nary, laundry, bathing, refrigerating (including the manufacture of ice), for steam and hot water heating plants, and steam power plants; and (iv) Industrial purposes.

Sublette County supports additional water storage facilities on federal and state lands in the county that assure future growth and protection of Wyoming’s water rights pur- suant to the Colorado River Compact.

All water rights desired by the federal government must be obtained through the state water appropriations system.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 33 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Management and resource-use decisions by federal land management and regulatory agencies concerning the vegetative resources within the county should reflect serious consideration of the proper optimization of the yield of water within the watersheds of the county.

Proper management of federal and state land watersheds that supply the majority of the agricultural, domestic, and industrial water use in this water-short area is critical.

An adequate supply of clean water is essential to the health of county residents and the continued growth of its economy.

Agencies must analyze the effect of decisions on water quality, yields, and timing of those yields. Any action, or lack of action, or permitted use that results in a significant or long-term decrease in water quality or quantity will be opposed.

Agency actions must analyze impacts on facilities such as dams, reservoirs, delivery systems, monitoring facilities, etc., located on or down stream from land covered by any water related proposal.

Movement toward nationalization or federal control of Wyoming’s water resources or rights will be opposed.

Privately held water rights should be protected from federal and/or state encroach- ment and/or coerced acquisition.

The quality and quantity of water shall not be reduced below current levels.

Sublette County will support projects that improve water quality and increases quan- tity and dependability of the water supply.

Wind Energy Sublette County encourages development of wind energy in acceptable areas, consis- tent with the National Energy Policy of 2001 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 34 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Special designations

General Sublette County will only support special designations of federal or state lands where there is substantial local input and support, and the designation is documented by sound, scientifically based research to support their need.

Sublette County supports special land designations that coincide (rather than conflict) with multiple use concepts, and the custom and culture of Sublette County.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) It is Sublette County’s policy that ACECs must meet relevance and importance crite- ria and must require special management to protect the area and prevent irreparable damage to resources or natural systems.

The county’s support for designation of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern within federal land management plans will be withheld until: • It is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area satisfies all the definitional re- quirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; • It is clearly demonstrated that the area proposed for designation as an ACEC is lim- ited in geographic size and that the proposed management prescriptions are limited in scope to the minimum necessary to specifically protect and prevent irreparable dam- age to the relevant and important values identified, or limited in geographic size and management prescriptions to the minimum required to specifically protect human life or safety from natural hazards; • It is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area is limited only to areas that are al- ready developed or used or to areas where no development is required; • It is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area contains relevant and important his- toric, cultural or scenic values, fish or wildlife resources, or natural processes which are unique or substantially significant on a regional basis, or contain natural hazards which significantly threaten human life or safety; • The federal agency has fully analyzed regional values, resources, processes, or haz- ards for irreparable damage and its potential causes resulting from potential actions which are consistent with the multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and the analy- sis describes the rationale for any special management attention required to protect, or prevent irreparable damage to the values, resources, processes or hazards; • It is clearly demonstrated that the proposed designation is consistent with the plans and policies of the county where the proposed designation is located.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 35 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

• It is clearly demonstrated that the proposed ACEC designation will not be applied redundantly over existing protections provided by other state and federal laws for federal lands or resources on federal lands, and that the federal statutory requirement for special management addition to those specified by the other state and federal laws; • The difference between special management attention required for an ACEC and normal multiple-use management has been identified and justified, and that any de- termination of irreparable damage has been analyzed and justified for short- and long- term horizons.

Byways Sublette County supports maintaining the intrinsic qualities of the Wyoming Centen- nial Scenic Byway as it traverses federal lands in the county.

Critical habitat Preparation of an environmental impact statement is necessary to consider impacts of proposed critical habitat designations, including a detailed analysis of local economic and social impacts of such designations on the local community.

Where analysis indicates economic impacts or socio-economic impacts will be sub- stantial, these areas shall be excluded from critical habitat designations.

Historic Trails With the exception of a proposed pipeline adjacent to existing pipelines, federal and state land management agencies shall provide for a quarter-mile protective buffer for designated historic trails on public lands in the county in which no new disturbance would be allowed except where existing improved roads and pipelines currently cross the trail, and no construction activities would be allowed unless screened from the trail by topography.

Special status species There shall be no introduction or reintroduction of threatened or endangered species into the county unless the county is involved in the effort as a cooperating agency and the county is satisfied with the analysis and mitigation measures.

Federal land planning efforts shall differentiate between special status species and those formally listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act because special status species do not require the same levels of protection.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 36 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Once population goals set out in recovery plans have been reached, species shall be delisted.

Sublette County supports alternatives to listing under the ESA, including conserva- tion plans, initiatives or agreements to address threats to species and their habitats.

Decisions to list any species shall be based on quantifiable monitoring data that proves the threat to the species supports listing.

Wild & Scenic No waterways in Sublette County are suitable for designation pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Sublette County opposes any further such designations in the county.

Wild and Scenic River classifications and recommendations must be appropriate and reflect the existing conditions and uses of bordering lands and must meet all the crite- ria for listing contained in enabling legislation.

Sublette County must be provided an opportunity to participate in the management of any river proposed or designated in the Wild and Scenic River system.

Wilderness The legal requirements and qualifications of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984 shall be upheld, including those providing for the continuation of existing uses and the regulation of existing uses only so as to prevent necessary or undue degradation of the environment.

No additional federal lands in Sublette County are suitable for wilderness designation other than the vast expanse of existing wilderness areas in the county. Sublette County opposes any such further designations.

Sublette County supports the expeditious resolution of pending congressional wilder- ness designation proposals for BLM Wilderness Study Areas in Sublette County and supports the release of Wilderness Study Areas not recommended for wilderness des- ignation from non-impairment management.

There shall be no protective perimeters or buffer zones around wilderness areas. The

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 37 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

fact that non-wilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from within any wil- derness area should not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 38 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

APPENDIX 1 Statutory framework General authority This Sublette County Federal and State Land Use Policy is adopted pursuant to the county’s authority under state law and recognition of its role in federal land use plan- ning under federal law. Wyoming law {including Titles 18 & 24}confers broad authority on the counties to provide governmental services, to regulate land uses, and to control the construction of buildings and facilities on unincorporated land within the county. Wyoming counties are also authorized to provide important local govern- ment services.

BLM The Federal Land Policy Management Act (“FLPMA”) was passed by Congress in 1976 and applies to lands administered by the US Secretary of Interior through the Bureau of Land Management. This federal law commands that public lands be man- aged under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

These are some of the specific planning provisions of FLPMA: Sec. 202. [43 U.S.C. 1712] “(a) The Secretary shall, with public involvement and consistent with the terms and conditions of this Act, develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands. Land use plans shall be developed for the public lands regardless of whether such lands previously have been classified, withdrawn, set aside, or otherwise designated for one or more uses.

(b) In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary of Agriculture shall coordinate land use plans for lands in the National Forest System with the land use planning and management programs of and for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approval tribal land resource management pro- grams.

(c) In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall – (1) use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield set forth in this and other applicable law; (2) use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences; (3) give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern;

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 39 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

(4) rely, to the extent it is available, on the inventory of the public lands, their re- sources, and other values; (5) consider present and potential uses of the public lands; (6) consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability of alterna- tive means (including recycling) and sites for realization of those values; (7) weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term benefits; (8) provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans; and (9) to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are located, including, but not limited to, the statewide outdoor recreation plans developed under the Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 897), as amended [16 U.S.C. 460l–4 et seq. note], and of or for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approved State and tribal land resource management programs. In im- plementing this directive, the Secretary shall, to the extent he finds practical, keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans; assure that consideration is given to those State, local, and tribal plans that are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands; assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies be- tween Federal and non-Federal Government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials, both elected and ap- pointed, in the development of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions which may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands. Such officials in each State are authorized to furnish advice to the Secretary with respect to the development and re- vision of land use plans, land use guidelines, land use rules, and land use regulations for the public lands within such State and with respect to such other land use matters as may be referred to them by him. Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consis- tent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.”

The law defined the term “multiple use” to mean “the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most judi- cious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the re-

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 40 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

sources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non- renewable re- sources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combina- tion of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.”

The BLM’s regulations for instituting the law are found in the Code of Federal Regu- lations. 43CFR1610.3-2 relates to BLM’s resource management planning.

“ (a) Guidance and resource management plans and amendments to management framework plans shall be consistent with officially approved or adopted resource re- lated plans, and the policies and programs contained therein, of other Federal agen- cies, State and local governments and Indian tribes, so long as the guidance and re- source management plans are also consistent with the purposes, policies and pro- grams of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, including Federal and State pollution control laws as implemented by applicable Federal and State air, water, noise, and other pollution standards or implementation plans.

(b) In the absence of officially approved or adopted resource-related plans of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes, guidance and re- source management plans shall, to the maximum extent practical, be consistent with officially approved and adopted resource related policies and programs of other Fed- eral agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes. Such consistency will be accomplished so long as the guidance and resource management plans are consistent with the policies, programs and provisions of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, including, but not limited to, Federal and State pollution control laws as implemented by applicable Federal and State air, water, noise and other pollution standards or implementation plans.

(c) State Directors and District and Area Managers shall, to the extent practicable, keep apprised of State and local governmental and Indian tribal policies, plans, and programs, but they shall not be accountable for ensuring consistency if they have not been notified, in writing, by State and local governments or Indian tribes of an appar- ent inconsistency.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 41 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

(d) Where State and local government policies, plans, and programs differ, those of the higher authority will normally be followed.

(e) Prior to the approval of a proposed resource management plan, or amendment to a management framework plan or resource management plan, the State Director shall submit to the Governor of the State(s) involved, the proposed plan or amendment and shall identify any known inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies or pro- grams. The Governor(s) shall have 60 days in which to identify inconsistencies and provide recommendations in writing to the State Director. If the Governor(s) does not respond within the 60-day period, the plan or amendment shall be presumed to be consistent. If the written recommendation(s) of the Governor(s) recommend changes in the proposed plan or amendment which were not raised during the public participa- tion process on that plan or amendment, the State Director shall provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the recommendation(s). If the State Director does not accept the recommendations of the Governor(s), the State Director shall notify the Governor(s) and the Governor(s) shall have 30 days in which to submit a written ap- peal to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. The Director shall accept the recommendations of the Governor(s) if he/she determines that they provide for a rea- sonable balance between the national interest and the State's interest. The Director shall communicate to the Governor(s) in writing and publish in the Federal Register the reasons for his/her determination to accept or reject such Governor's recommen- dations.”

US Forest Service The National Forest Management Act of 1976, [16 U.S.C. §§1600 et seq.] (“NFMA”) requires the USDA Forest Service to develop management plans that “provide for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services obtained therefrom in accordance with the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, and in particular, in- clude coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness; and timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness.”

NFMA requires the Forest Service to consult with other interested governmental de- partments and agencies on certain actions, and calls for public participation in the “development, review, and revision of land management plans.”

The National Forest System is in the process of revising its regulations regarding planning processes. What role local governments may have in planning remains un- clear.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 42 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

The federal regulations for implementing the NFMA are found at 36 CFR Part 219. The proposed revisions to the regulations were published August 23, 2007 and do in- clude the following pertinent provisions concerning collaboration:

“The responsible official must use a collaborative and participatory approach to land management planning, in accordance with this sub- part and consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policies, by engaging the skills and interests of appropriate combinations of Forest Service staff, consultants, contractors, other Federal agencies, federally recognized Indian Tribes, State or local governments, or other inter- ested or affected communities, groups, or persons.”

“The responsible official must provide opportunities for the coordina- tion of Forest Service planning efforts undertaken in accordance with this subpart with those of other resource management agencies. The responsible official also must meet with and provide early opportuni- ties for other government agencies to be involved, collaborate, and participate in planning for National Forest System lands. The respon- sible official should seek assistance, where appropriate, from other State and local governments, Federal agencies, and scientific and aca- demic institutions to help address management issues or opportuni- ties.”

Other Laws There are a myriad of other federal laws that call for cooperation between govern- ments on specific actions – from protection of cultural and historic resources, to im- plementing the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, and consultations on determina- tions of critical habitats for endangered species. Administration of the National Trail System is to occur in consultation with various governments.

In addition, the National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. §4331, 40 C.F.R. §1506.6] (“NEPA”) established federal policy to promote public input into federal decision-making. This is the law that established the environmental impact statement process for major federal actions. Local governments like county commissions can be named cooperating agencies in preparation of federal environmental documents. NEPA provides that each federal agency shall: (C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 43 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on: (I) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be in- volved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

NEPA established the Environmental Quality Council, which issued regulations for implementing provisions of the law. Some of these provisions require the identifica- tion of “possible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned.” [40 C.F.R. §1502.16].

The Wyoming Constitution and state laws also address certain matters pertinent to this planning process. The Constitution declares, “Water being essential to industrial prosperity, of limited amount, and easy of diversion from its natural channels, its con- trol must be in the state, which, in providing for its use, shall equally guard all the various interests involved.”

The Wyoming Environmental Quality Act [Wyo. Stat. §§35-11-101 -103] declares the following purpose. “Whereas pollution of the air, water and land of this state will imperil public health and welfare, create public or private nuisances, be harmful to wildlife, fish and aquatic life, and impair domestic, agricultural, industrial, recrea- tional and other beneficial uses; it is hereby declared to be the policy and purpose of this act to enable the state to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution; to preserve, and enhance the air, water and reclaim the land of Wyoming; to plan the development, use, reclamation, preservation and enhancement of the air, land and water resources of the state; to preserve and exercise the primary responsibilities and rights of the state of Wyoming; to retain for the state the control over its air, land and water and to secure cooperation between agencies of the state, agencies of other states, interstate agencies, and the federal government in carrying out these objectives.”

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 44 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

Wyoming Conservation District statute states: “Agencies of the state, county or any political subdivision of the state which have jurisdiction over or are charged with the administration of any state, county or other publicly owned lands lying within the boundaries of any district organized hereunder, shall cooperate to the fullest extent with the supervisors of the district to effect the programs and operations undertaken by the supervisors under this act and may lease such lands to a district. The supervi- sors of the districts shall be given free access to enter and perform work upon the publicly owned lands. The provisions of conservation ordinances have the force and effect of law over all publicly owned lands, and shall be in all respects observed by the agencies administering the lands.”

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 45 August 2008FEDERAL & STATE LAND USE POLICY

CONTENT DIRECTORY Purpose/Principles 1 Revision/Severability 2 General land use planning 3 Waivers/Cooperative conservation 4 Information quality/Consultation, coordination and cooperation 4 Custom and culture 6 Economics 7 Multiple Use 9 Federal lands committee 11 Natural, Biological and Cultural Resources 12 Air 12 Cultural/Historic/Paleontology resources 14 Soils/Vegetation/Visual 16 Water/Weed and pest 17 Wildland fire/Wildlife 18 Wild horses 20 Resource Uses 21 Forestry/Lands and realty 21 Law enforcement 22 Livestock grazing 23 Minerals 24 Mitigation 28 Recreation 31 Recreational residences/Search & rescue/Transportation & access 32 Water use 33 Wind Energy 34 Special Designations 35 General/Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 35 Byways/Critical habitat/Historic trails/Special status species 36 Wild & Scenic/Wilderness 37 Appendix 1: Statutory framework 39

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING 46

ATTACHMENT 9

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan: County Vision, Goals and Policies

A Citizen-based Planning Effort For the Future of Sublette County

Sublette County Comprehensive PlanPage 1 of 68

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Update 1999-2003

The 2003 Sublette County Comprehensive Plan update was a “grassroots” planning effort that actively involved County residents and communities. A special thanks to all the Sublette County residents, Sublette County and community officials, and the Sublette County departments and organizations that participated in this project.

Sublette County Board of Commissioners Sublette County Planning Commission Amended November 18, 2005

Sublette County Comprehensive PlanPage 2 of 68

SUBLETTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Table of Contents

Introduction and Background

Introduction ...... Page 1 Plan Development Process and Public Involvement ...... Page 1 Using and Amending the Sublette County Comprehensive Plan ...... Page 3

Sublette County Vision ...... Page 4

County Vision, Goals and Policies: A Framework for Action ...... Page 5 List of Comprehensive Plan Policies ...... Page 6

A. Plan and Policy Implementation ...... Page 20 Plan Consistency and Conformity ...... Page 20 Inter-jurisdictional Coordination and Cooperation ...... Page 20

B. Land Use and Development ...... Page 21 General Land Use Approach and Philosophy ...... Page 21 County/Community Fringe Area Development ...... Page 22 Residential Land Uses and Development ...... Page 23 Agricultural Lands and Uses...... Page 23 Commercial Land Uses and Development...... Page 24 Industrial Land Uses and Development ...... Page 24 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 25

C. Natural Hazards/Environmental Considerations ...... Page 26 General Approach and Philosophy...... Page 26 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 27

D. Facilities and Services...... Page 29 Community Services ...... Page 29 County-provided Services ...... Page 29 Water (Culinary, Irrigation and Fire Protection) ...... Page 29 Sewer and Solid Waste Disposal ...... Page 30 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 31

E. Transportation...... Page 34 Alternative Transportation Modes ...... Page 34 Transportation Planning ...... Page 34 Roadway Construction, Maintenance and Improvements ...... Page 34 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 36

F. Recreation ...... Page 38 General Approach and Philosophy...... Page 38 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 40

G. Natural Environment/Cultural Resources...... Page 44 County Approach and Philosophy ...... Page 44

G. Natural Environment/Cultural Resources (cont.) Integration of Resources and the Economy ...... Page 44 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 45 Air Resources ...... Page 46 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 46 Water Resources ...... Page 47 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 49 Soils and Vegetation ...... Page 51 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 52 Oil and Gas Resources ...... Page 53 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 54 Mining and Quarrying ...... Page 55 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 56 Wildlife Resources ...... Page 57 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 58 Forestry/Timber Resources ...... Page 59 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 60

H. Public Lands and Resources ...... Page 61 County Approach and Philosophy ...... Page 61 Element Background Information/Data ...... Page 63

SUBLETTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2003 County Plan Update Process

Introduction

The 2003 Sublette County Plan update to revise the Sublette County Comprehensive Plan was an effort by County leaders and citizens to address the County’s present and future land use needs. The 2003 Comprehensive Plan updates the County’s 1978 Comprehensive Plan, clarifies and reconfirms the County’s land use and development goals and policies.

Wyoming State statutes provide for the development of county-level comprehensive plans under Title 9-8-301 and Title 18-5-202. As stated, locally developed, adopted and implemented county plans apply to the unincorporated areas within the county and may address public health, safety, moral and general welfare issues. These statutes also highlight the expectation that county governments will coordinate their land use plans and planning efforts with incorporated communities and other local entities. In addition, through Title 18-5-208, Wyoming planning statutes encourage the coordination of county planning efforts with federal land and resource management agencies. The 2003 Sublette County Comprehensive Plan focuses on these issues as prioritized, and discussed by County leaders and residents, through an extensive public involvement and plan development process.

Primary benefits of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan are two-fold. First, the County again possesses a document that articulates a consistent and clear direction for its future land use decisions and development guidelines. It is anticipated that the Plan will be proactively supported by County decision makers and further implemented through County land use regulations. For the Plan to function and remain a valuable planning tool, it should be reviewed and amended as necessary to address emerging County issues and interests.

Second, the planning process itself was a valuable learning experience for Sublette County citizens. A diverse group of County residents actively participated in various stages of the project. Through this process, County residents have truly planned for Sublette County's future. The revised Sublette County Comprehensive Plan is the result of their combined expertise and experience. Public ownership of the Plan and familiarity with the accompanying policies will be invaluable as County leaders adopt the document and begin Plan implementation.

Plan Development Process and Public Involvement

Sublette County leaders recognized the need for proactive County-level planning and land use regulations. As noted, Wyoming State law allows local plans and development guidelines to address public health, safety, moral and general welfare issues. The law also requires a minimum level of public participation through adequate public notice and open public meetings/hearings.

By design, this Plan update went beyond the minimum level of public participation required by law and involved County residents and other interested parties throughout the process. The initial step began with a Planning and Zoning Commission solicitation for volunteers to assist the County in updating and revising the plan. It was decided that volunteers should be full-time residents and/or registered voters in Sublette County. Forty-three individuals responded and were assigned to one of five focus groups addressing land use, natural hazards, public facilities, recreation and natural resources. Two other volunteers, representatives of the County’s two newspapers, were asked to report on the planning process. An eight-member volunteer steering Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 1 of 64

committee was also formed to oversee the project and assist County planning staff throughout the process.

As charged by the Planning Commission, the focus groups met individually over the next eighteen months. Using the 1978 Comprehensive Plan as a guide, the groups reviewed the County-adopted goals and policies for their respective area of focus and discussed potential revisions and additions. When a group’s recommendations were compiled, one or more members of that group presented their results to the steering committee. The steering committee then reviewed all the chapters and made some additional changes.

After compiling the various focus group reports into a single document, the steering committee and County Planning and Zoning Commission worked with County planning staff and project consultants to improve clarity, establish consistency from section to section, and reconcile conflicting goals and policies as necessary. Although a challenging task, every effort was made to respect all thoughts and positions proposed by the various focus groups. In the end, steering committee members were responsible with providing, for Planning Commission consideration, an organized compilation of goals and policies that could be embraced by Sublette County citizens as the vision for the future.

Ultimately, elements of the emerging draft Plan provided goals and policies addressing plan implementation, land use and development, natural hazards and environmental considerations, facilities and services, transportation, recreation, natural and cultural resources, and public lands and resources. Combined with the County confirmed “vision”, these statements were reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended for broader public review and comment as the draft 2003 Sublette County Comprehensive Plan. As outlined in Wyoming State statute, the draft Plan is subject to public review and comment through an open Planning Commission and County Commission public hearing and adoption process.

Initial public review and comment on the updated plan began with two public open houses, one held in Pinedale and one held in Big Piney. These outreach efforts provided an opportunity for County residents to ask questions concerning the updated County goals and policies and provide comments prior to the formal adoption process. After Planning Commission review of the comments, a revised draft Sublette County Comprehensive Plan was made available for public review and Planning Commission public hearings were scheduled.

The Sublette County Planning Commission held two public hearings on the draft Comprehensive Plan. The first public hearing was conducted on August 21, 2003. The Planning Commission incorporated public comments received at this meeting and created a revised draft Comprehensive Plan. The revised draft Plan was made available for public comment and review via the Internet (www.SublettePZ.org) and by distributing copies in the Sublette County Libraries and in the Planning & Zoning Office. A second public hearing was conducted on November 10, 2003. At the conclusion of the second public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft Comprehensive Plan, with the inclusion of specific public comments, to the Sublette County Board of Commissioners.

A final draft of the Sublette County Comprehensive Plan was prepared and disseminated for public comment. On December 16, 2003, the Sublette County Board of Commissioners conducted a public hearing on the proposed final draft. After the public hearing, the Board of Commissioners adopted the revised Sublette County Comprehensive Plan as presented.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 2 of 64

Using and Amending the Sublette County Comprehensive Plan

Sublette County officials and citizens are to be commended for their proactive commitment to planning and updating the Comprehensive Plan. It is intended that the 2003 Plan will serve as a framework for County decision-makers as they consider future private and public land use and development decisions. The Plan is also designed to provide a policy foundation for improving County and community cooperation, fostering County (government) and citizen relations, coordinating infrastructure planning and pursuing economic development activities.

To successfully implement specific portions of the Comprehensive Plan, County leaders will need to take action beyond formal Plan adoption. In the 2003 Plan, specific policies accompany each stated County goal.

While this Plan, upon adoption, reflects the thoughtful direction of Sublette County in 2003, it is anticipated that the Plan will be updated and revised as circumstances change and new challenges arise. The process for amending the Plan, as outlined in Wyoming State statute and County regulations, requires adequately noticed public hearings and formal action by both the Sublette County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 3 of 64

Sublette County Vision

Sublette County remains a relatively undiscovered treasure. The elements of this treasure include clean air and water, vast open spaces, rich natural resources, accessible public lands, private property and dramatic beauty. Of equal importance, though less visible, are the independent character of its people, the security of its small, close knit communities and its traditional, rural culture.

The residents of Sublette County recognize this, and through open and public dialogue, have identified specific critical and mutually dependent values, which describe a vision for Sublette County’s future:

1. Sublette County’s unique, local culture shall be preserved and enriched - characterized by a rural, Wyoming flavor; a thriving private business community; an atmosphere friendly to working families; and the security of friendly, crime-free communities.

2. There shall be an abundance of economic freedom, and diverse opportunities for residents old and new to pursue prosperity and happiness - complemented and sustained by a business friendly atmosphere, reasonable taxation, a low cost of living, limited regulation, wise development of its natural resources and a strong tradition of a good work ethic.

3. Our environment shall reflect the high value Sublette County residents place on clear air and water; the wide open, rural landscape; and a healthy, diverse base of natural resources including water, land, minerals, oil, gas, plants and animals.

4. Sublette County shall remain free from excessive land use regulation and shall continue to be vigilant in the protection of private property rights.

This comprehensive plan calls upon policy makers in Sublette County to be ever mindful of this vision, and asks that these values be used as guidelines in order to make decisions that are socially, economically and ecologically sound.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 4 of 64

County Vision, Goals and Policies: A Framework for Action

This section includes Sublette County Goals and Policies, as recommended by the Sublette County Planning and Zoning Commission, and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.

County Goals and Policies have been developed for the following issues:

Plan and Policy Implementation Land Use and Development Natural Hazards/Environmental Considerations Facilities and Services Transportation Recreation Natural Environment/Cultural Resources Public Lands and Resources

An all-inclusive listing of the Comprehensive Plan policies is provided on the following pages (pgs. 6 - 19) for quick reference. The policies, which were developed to accomplish the County’s Vision and Goals, are further detailed in their respective sections, beginning on page 20.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 5 of 64

SUBLETTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES

Plan and Policy Implementation:

Plan Consistency and Conformity

a. County Policy: Utilize County-adopted plans, policies and regulations as guides for all land use and development decisions.

b. County Policy: Maintain current and applicable County land use plans, policies and regulations. County-adopted land use plans, policies and regulations will be reviewed and updated by the Sublette County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Sublette County Planning Administrator.

c. County Policy: Provide an annual public forum to discuss the County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related regulations.

Inter-jurisdictional Coordination and Cooperation

a. County Policy: Coordinate and cooperate with other local, state and federal entities and interests to pursue mutually beneficial land use planning and development issues and opportunities.

Land Use and Development:

General Land Use and Development Approach and Philosophy

a. County Policy: Encourage orderly growth and land use development patterns.

b. County Policy: Maintain a professional and well-trained County planning staff/office and planning commission. Continue to provide accessible and responsive public assistance.

c. County Policy: Work with developers to coordinate the adequate and efficient provision and delivery of services (e.g. utilities, water, sewer, solid waste).

d. County Policy: Plan and locate new development carefully to avoid excessive costs in providing public services.

e. County Policy: Encourage new development in a manner that minimizes environmental pollution and disruption of natural resources.

f. County Policy: Require developers to provide legal right-of-ways and easements for roads and public utilities (including power, telephone, water and sewer).

g. County Policy: Encourage new development in areas that are capable of sustaining private water and sewer, either through individual systems or by community/central water and sewer systems.

h. County Policy: Require all new or upgraded utilities be placed underground unless crossing a river or highway.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 6 of 64

i. County Policy: Require developers to provide assurance at the preliminary plat stage that he/she is adequately financed to fulfill capital outlay upon approval of the final plat. Developers will not be required by the County to make capital outlay for roads, facilities and utilities until the final plat is approved.

j. County Policy: Encourage architectural designs and styles that complement the County’s character and are consistent with the area’s rural setting and landscape.

k. County Policy: Encourage developers to adopt covenants and development standards consistent with the County’s land use and development objectives.

l. County Policy: Encourage and support semi-annual County-sponsored beautification days and property owner-initiated removal of nuisance factors.

m. County Policy: Continue to work with landowners to bring non-compliant land uses into compliance with adopted planning and zoning regulations.

n. County Policy: Require developers to provide a written statement of the rights and obligations of the person buying land in the development (issues noted may include road maintenance, ditch rights and easements, covenants, development standards, etc.).

o. County Policy: Encourage development which preserves open vistas.

p. County Policy: Evaluate development of irrigated and non-irrigated land for its impact on the amount and quality of grazing and crop producing lands lost to the local agriculture community.

County/Community Fringe Area Development

a. County Policy: Cooperate with incorporated municipalities to coordinate the planning and development of community “fringe areas”.

b. County Policy: Incorporate community land use and development plans (as they are adopted) into the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

c. County Policy: Encourage high-density (1/4-acre or smaller lot size and multiple family dwellings) residential development within a 1-mile radius of the County's incorporated towns. The County could provide incentives to facilitate this goal.

Residential Land Uses and Development

a. County Policy: Plan and locate new residential development carefully to avoid excessive costs in providing public services.

b. County Policy: Encourage residential development to occur in a manner that minimizes environmental pollution and disruption of natural resources.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 7 of 64

c. County Policy: Maintain a two-acre minimum lot size for residential development in areas without central water and sewer.

d. County Policy: Require development proposals to demonstrate the availability of an adequate, safe water supply and a safe, reliable method of sewage disposal.

e. County Policy: Maintain land use regulations that promote and encourage a variety of housing types and residential development options.

f. County Policy: Encourage the provision of adequate, affordable housing.

g. County Policy: Require compliance with adopted County subdivision policies and regulations.

Agricultural Lands and Uses

a. County Policy: Encourage conservation of agricultural and ranch lands and related land uses through various voluntary and incentive-based programs and policies.

b. County Policy: Allow subdivision of lands with adjudicated water rights only after determination that such development will not present major water delivery problems to neighboring water users or adversely affect the interests of an irrigation district or canal/ditch company.

c. County Policy: Discourage residential development deemed likely to create significant disruption of livestock movement or grazing. An appropriate buffer zone should be placed between residential structures and any stock driveway. Per State law, it is the landowner's responsibility to fence out livestock.

d. County Policy: Continue support for locally-accepted, traditional agricultural management practices and land uses.

e. County Policy: Support educational and technical efforts to improve the ability of land custodians, large and small, to retain and enhance the quality of natural resources and agricultural land uses.

f. County Policy: Evaluate development of irrigated and non-irrigated land for its impact on the amount and quality of grazing and crop producing lands lost to the local agriculture community.

g. County Policy: Discourage residential and recreational development on lands of high agricultural value. This category is understood to include high quality grazing lands as well as hay meadows. Commercial Land Uses and Development

a. County Policy: Locate commercial properties in or near existing towns and/or near other commercial property.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 8 of 64

b. County Policy: Encourage commercial property development along major thoroughfares.

c. County Policy: Review commercial zoning districts to ensure that rules don't inhibit logical commercial development.

e. County Policy: Ensure commercial land uses take priority in commercially zoned properties (when conflicts with non-commercial land uses arise).

e. County Policy: Require commercial properties to be maintained and provide adequate parking, taking into consideration the type of business.

f. County Policy: Encourage appropriate landscaping of commercial properties, taking into consideration the type of business.

g. County Policy: Encourage clustering of commercial development, as appropriate.

h. County Policy: Encourage diversified commercial development.

Industrial Land Uses and Development

a. County Policy: Identify and recommend areas appropriate for industrial land uses.

b. County Policy: Encourage public/private partnerships to stimulate economic opportunity.

c. County Policy: Encourage public/private partnerships to identify and develop appropriate areas for additional light industrial areas.

d. County Policy: Encourage diversified industrial development.

e. County Policy: Encourage the recruitment and development of value-added industries to stimulate economic activity.

f. County Policy: Encourage industrial/commercial development in or near existing commercial and industrial sites.

g. County Policy: Encourage property maintenance to assure a clean, safe and orderly work site with adequate parking, taking into consideration the type of industry.

h. County Policy: Encourage appropriate and diversified industrial uses when doing so does not conflict with other County goals and policies.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 9 of 64

Natural Hazards/Environmental Considerations: General Approach and Philosophy

a. County Policy: Consider site-specific environmental features as part of land use planning decisions and in the review of development proposals. Factors to consider include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) natural hazards (as noted in County Policy b., pg. 10), (2) topography, (3) soil types, (4) wildlife habitat and migration routes, (5) municipal watersheds/culinary water sources, (6) riparian areas, (7) wetlands, (8) depth to water table, (9) surface drainage patterns, (10) groundwater recharge/discharge areas (including springs), and (11) quantity and quality of surface and underground water resources.

b. County Policy: Discourage development in known and potentially hazardous areas.The demonstration of adequate/appropriate mitigation measures may be required before development can occur. Types of areas to be avoided include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) flood plains, (2) unstable slopes and soils, and (3) areas with high wildfire potential.

c. County Policy: Inform the public and developers of known environmental/natural limitations potentially making areas unsuitable for development.

d. County Policy: Require site-specific soils analysis as part of the subdivision development application, as deemed appropriate and necessary to protect public safety.

e. County Policy: Require persons/interests wishing to develop land to demonstrate the suitability of such ground for development.

f. County Policy: Require demonstration of adequate/appropriate mitigation measures before development on hazardous and/or environmentally sensitive areas is approved.

Facilities and Services: Community Services

a. County Policy: Maintain and encourage high quality general and emergency medical facilities, personnel and services throughout the County.

b. County Policy: Maintain good fire protection service by supporting training programs and recruiting an adequate supply of volunteers.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 10 of 64

c. County Policy: Maintain efficient, cost effective law enforcement service that covers the whole County.

d. County Policy: Encourage the grouping of public buildings close together whenever possible in order to foster community cohesiveness and convenience.

e. County Policy: Support agencies and programs that provide services to residents of the County that are in need.

f. County Policy: Encourage and support educational, cultural and recreational opportunities.

County-provided Services

a. County Policy: Maintain that rural areas/residents of the County should not anticipate “urban type/level” services.

b. County Policy: Include the following public utility/service considerations when reviewing proposed land use and development plans and applications: (1) the proposed development's proximity to available facilities and services; (2) the anticipated demand for County-provided services; and (3) the developer's plans for provision and maintenance of required services.

Water (Culinary, Irrigation and Fire Protection)

a. County Policy: Require development proposals to demonstrate the availability of an adequate, safe water supply and a safe, reliable method of sewage disposal. In addition, the availability of suitable quality water in sufficient quantity for the proposed land use(s) must be demonstrated before such uses are permitted.

b. County Policy: Require development proposals to identify potential impacts to existing irrigation systems, as relevant.

b. County Policy: Require development proposals to provide a specific water supply for year-round fire suppression purposes.

Sewer and Solid Waste Disposal

a. County Policy: Require development proposals to demonstrate the availability of adequate and safe sewer and solid waste disposal systems.

b. County Policy: Discourage development on lands that are not suited for on-site absorption systems, unless other acceptable provisions are approved by the County.

c. County Policy: Encourage the location of solid waste disposal sites in areas with minimal environmental constraints (high-water table, ground water, high wind, etc.) Facilities will be designed in a manner that prevents adverse impacts to air quality (including odor) and aesthetics.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 11 of 64

d. County Policy: Encourage recycling efforts and programs within the County.

Transportation: Alternative Transportation Modes

a. County Policy: Encourage the diversification of public and private sector transportation services.

b. County Policy: Encourage shuttle bus service between Sublette County towns and neighboring Counties.

Transportation Planning

a. County Policy: Develop and maintain a master transportation plan to identify and accommodate the current and future transportation needs of the County.

b. County Policy: Coordinate County road planning efforts with the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), United States Forest Service (USFS), and Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD).

c. County Policy: Require all new roads and streets to be consistent with the approved County transportation plan with regard to classification, right-of-way, design and construction.

d. County Policy: Encourage education on the appropriate use of County roads, i.e., “safe and lawful use and travel” for snowmobiles, ATVs, horses, bikes, etc.

e. County Policy: Encourage/support construction of additional pathways and expansion of existing pathways.

Roadway Construction, Maintenance and Improvements

a. County Policy: Maintain/enforce standards for new County roads and work to improve existing roads already in the County roads system.

b. County Policy: Identify and prioritize a list of County roads needing maintenance or upgrades. This task includes developing a schedule of anticipated completion dates.

b. County Policy: Conduct traffic counts to investigate the feasibility of surfacing County roads.

d. County Policy: Consider the provision of services to the greatest number of County residents and the development of the County’s economic potential as primary factors when establishing road maintenance and improvement priorities.

e. County Policy: Consider potential effects that building or improving County roads may have on neighborhoods, residential areas, subdivisions and natural resources.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 12 of 64

f. County Policy: Require development proposals for year-round housing to demonstrate adequate primary road construction and maintenance.

g. County Policy: Require County approval prior to the construction of private approaches with direct access to County roads. Considerations of approval include, but are not limited to, compatible grades, anticipated traffic patterns (egress/ingress) and adequate drainage.

h. County Policy: Maintain provisions in the County’s Subdivision Resolution that require the developer to be responsible for initial road construction. All roads must be built according to County standards.

i. County Policy: Ensure that future road construction and maintenance of subdivision roads is clearly defined on the plat and in covenants to identify the responsible parties.

j. County Policy: Encourage special improvement districts to help pay for road improvements in existing subdivisions.

Recreation: General Approach and Philosophy

a. County Policy: Maintain the County position that no single recreational user group should receive preferential treatment in wilderness areas.

b. County Policy: Coordinate with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) to encourage appropriate management of game and non-game fish and wildlife resources.

c. County Policy: Encourage migratory routes be kept open or established/reestablished where possible, to assist in maintaining game populations.

d. County Policy: Coordinate with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) to preserve the quantity and quality of wildlife and wildlife habitat and provide sustainable hunting and fishing opportunities.

e. County Policy: Maintain viewsheds in areas of high scenic value.

f. County Policy: Monitor river use and work with appropriate agencies to maintain the quality of the rivers. g. County Policy: Coordinate with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS) to prepare a balanced, coordinated interagency river floating plan intended to allow for gradual, controlled growth while preserving the quality fishing experience of all river floaters.

h. County Policy: Encourage the development of privately owned recreational facilities.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 13 of 64

i. County Policy: Encourage recreational development that is compatible with County characteristics and values.

j. County Policy: Foster, support and carefully manage recreational uses while respecting the rights of property holders.

k. County Policy: Manage recreational growth in a manner sensitive to and consistent with community values and character of the area.

l. County Policy: Manage recreational vehicles and uses (including off-road and river related) in a manner sensitive to private property rights and the environment.

m. County Policy: Promote educational programs regarding stewardship of natural resources and recreation-related effects.

n. County Policy: Support and encourage Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS) decisions that are consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

o. County Policy: Encourage further development and proliferation of hiking trails, walking paths, and other facilities for the pedestrian recreationist.

p. County Policy: Support the development of additional bike routes as doing so becomes important. This would include linking existing routes and working with relevant agencies to develop new ones.

q. County Policy: Consider development/expansion of recreational activities and facilities as the need/desire develops.

Natural Environment/Cultural Resources:

County Approach and Philosophy

a. County Policy: Ensure that all land use and development proceed in accordance with local, state and federal laws and regulations.

b. County Policy: Evaluate all relevant federal and state land use proposals and plans and provide comments representing the interests of the County.

c. County Policy: Utilize the best science and technical information available when making land use planning decisions.

d. County Policy: Participate, in an official capacity and at the earliest opportunity, in any public land/resource issue affecting the ecological, economic, cultural, or social wellbeing of Sublette County citizens; even to the point of acquiring cooperating agencystatus.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 14 of 64

Integration of Resources and the Economy

a. County Policy: Recognize the importance and strength of a diversified economy.

b. County Policy: Enhance the economic impact of the use and production of our natural resources through value-added enterprises. c. County Policy: Encourage development of amenities and the secondary or alternative economic opportunities that make the County attractive to families.

d. County Policy: Support the creation of jobs and business opportunities that will help sustain the workforce during periods of limited natural resource development.

Air Quality and Resource Development

a. County Policy: Ensure that Sublette County industries adhere to federal and state air quality standards. Within County budgetary constraints, utilize the best available technology to evaluate present air quality/conditions and the impact of existing and potential pollution sources.

b. County Policy: Consider, as deemed relevant and as information is readily available, the frequency of atmospheric inversions, meteorology, topography, present ambient air quality, significant deterioration limits and applicable local, state and federal laws, when evaluating land use proposals and any other development issues.

Water Resource Development

a. County Policy: Support/encourage water quality monitoring programs.

b. County Policy: Contact the appropriate agency to investigate any potential or detected water quality degradation.

b. County Policy: Discourage land uses which may result in impaired water quality, particularly municipal water sources.

d. County Policy: Oppose the transfer of waters out of the drainage basins of the County (trans-basin diversions).

e. County Policy: Encourage and establish more watering systems on all grazing lands for livestock, wildlife and game and non-game birds where appropriate.

f. County Policy: Encourage the building of small reservoirs and off-channel storage facilities where they may be effective in striking a harmonious balance of use values and conservation values.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 15 of 64

g. County Policy: Allow subdivision of lands with adjudicated water rights only after determination that such development will not present major water delivery problems to neighboring water users or adversely affect the interests of an irrigation district or canal/ditch company.

h. County Policy: Encourage the building and maintenance of sewage disposal systems for RV use. Signs should be posted identifying the location of these facilities.

i. County Policy: Consider the potential effects on surface and underground water quality/resources when land uses are planned or proposed, particularly near water courses and lakes.

j. County Policy: Consider potential human impacts associated with proposed land uses, particularly in and around watersheds.

k. County Policy: Discourage land uses and developments that have the potential to accelerate long term groundwater depletion.

l. County Policy: Actively participate in water resource planning, allocation and decisionmaking processes to protect County water resource interests.

Soil and Vegetation

a. County Policy: Consider the suitability of soil composition in all land use decisions.

b. County Policy: Encourage land use practices that reduce erosion of topsoil. Encourage land management practices that build topsoil.

c. County Policy: Consider the effect any land use change may have on the water catchment capabilities of the specific parcel of land in question.

d. County Policy: Consider the effects any land use changes may have on the larger watershed in which the parcel is located.

e. County Policy: Consider the long and short-term effects of any disruption of the soil, natural topography, or herbaceous ground cover associated with the proposed land uses or development. An expert analysis from the Conservation District should be obtained for subdivisions.

f. County Policy: Seek both public and expert opinion of air quality, hydrology, and soil scientists in assessing impact on environmental quality when considering acceptance of out-of-County refuse or waste.

g. County Policy: Monitor and manage encroachment of invasive weeds.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 16 of 64

Oil and Gas Development

a. County Policy: Encourage and welcome responsible, orderly, staged energy development. Similarly, discourage the intrusion of the impact of exploration and development activities into the peace and harmony of other land uses.

b. County Policy: Encourage and support the use of best available technologies that are economically, socially and environmentally sound.

c. County Policy: Encourage use of and exploration of alternative energy sources.

d. County Policy: Support the enforcement of state and federal regulations to prevent surface and underground abuses by seismic and exploratory drilling.

e. County Policy: Participate in official capacity at the earliest opportunity regarding oil and gas development on public lands through the official designation of a representative of the County. This representative would aid in the development of a coordinating mechanism between Sublette County, the State and federal agencies.

f. County Policy: Encourage and participate in advance planning between the County, the State, property owners and the oil and gas industry to assure that proactive measures are taken to mitigate impacts on the community.

Mining and Quarrying

a. County Policy: Consider participating in decisions regarding mining on public lands as a cooperating agency.

b. County Policy: Implement buffer zones if active mineral extraction enterprises would present a nuisance or hazard to adjacent residents.

c. County Policy: Encourage and participate in advance planning between the County, the State, property owners and the mineral extraction enterprise to assure that proactive measures are taken to mitigate impacts on the community.

d. County Policy: Encourage the implementation of mitigation measures incorporating the best available technological and management practices to control fugitive dust, particulates, undue noise, and exotic weeds to ensure the safety of the general public and protection of other natural resources.

e. County Policy: Support adherence to State and federal regulations within prescribed time frames.

Wildlife Resources

a. County Policy: Consider wildlife habitat values as part of any new development proposals.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 17 of 64

b. County Policy: Encourage close coordination with all federal and State agencies on all issues affecting populations and habitats of all species.

c. County Policy: Consider migration corridors, crucial winter ranges, and other important habitats when evaluating land use proposals. In some cases, the migration corridors that link summer and winter ranges are already tightly constricted. These areas are recognized as being very sensitive and their integrity should be protected. There are many tools available, beyond County zoning regulation, to shelter the function of important wildlife areas.

d. County Policy: Advance and employ those tools and techniques which enhance wildlife friendly developments. Encourage early coordination among Sublette County, Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and project proponents to enhance the inclusion of wildlife friendly recommendations into proposed developments.

e. County Policy: Encourage/support maintaining wildlife populations that are in balance with available habitat and other uses.

f. County Policy: Support wildlife management techniques that minimize conflicts with agricultural operations and/or practices.

g. County Policy: Encourage close cooperation between the Wyoming Game & Fish Department (WGFD) and private landowners in dealing with game damage on private property, particularly in winter.

h. County Policy: Promote healthy fish populations, particularly native species, by maintaining or improving fisheries habitat.

i. County Policy: Encourage County cooperation/coordination with State and federal agencies concerning the management of wildlife resources.

j. County Policy: Support proactive wildlife conservation efforts.

k. County Policy: Minimize conflicts between wildlife and domestic pets. Forestry/Timber Resources

a. County Policy: Support proper forest management, including timber harvest, while at the same time taking into consideration watershed, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic values.

b. County Policy: Encourage the use of resource/environmentally sensitive harvesting methods/techniques, particularly when harvesting areas with fragile soils and marginal slopes.

c. County Policy: Maintain accessibility to an adequate fuel wood supply for County residents.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 18 of 64

d. County Policy: Encourage timber sales sized to be attractive to small operators.

Public Lands and Resources:

a. County Policy: Designate a County representative to foster cooperative relationships with public land and resource agencies and to participate in relevant public land and resources planning and decision-making processes.

b. County Policy: Evaluate private development plans, proposals and decisions for potential impacts on public lands/resources. Evaluate public land/resource plans, proposals and decisions for potential impacts on private lands and interests.

c. County Policy: Evaluate developed access points to public lands to minimize adverse effects on adjacent private and public lands, e.g., river access points, camp grounds, trail-head parking, etc.

d. County Policy: Ensure that the designation of special use areas are carefully considered for both their benefits to a healthy recreation industry and other possible economic impacts.

e. County Policy: Support grazing as an important and compatible use on public lands, including wilderness. Recognize that grazing and associated animal impacts can be beneficial to public rangelands if implemented appropriately.

f. County Policy: Advocate that land use plans adopted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS) are coordinated and consistent with the Sublette County Comprehensive Plan and the Sublette County Conservation District Natural Resource Statement.

g. County Policy: Schedule, through the designated County representative, regular reporting and informational updates with entities of County, State and federal government, thus enabling all interested parties to participate in public land planning and decision-making processes.

h. County Policy: Support/encourage multiple-use policy implementation on federal and State lands, thus assuring a strong sustained economic base for the County.

i. County Policy: Require public land and resource management agencies to protect County residents' safety, health and property as part of providing/allowing development of non-renewable resources.

j. County Policy: Support the maintenance of healthy wildlife populations as an appropriate and desired use of public lands.

k. County Policy: Recognize that overuse of the wilderness can compromise the amenities that we value in this resource. Good conservation policies should be encouraged.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 19 of 64

County Vision, Goals and Policies: A Framework for Action

A. PLAN AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION - Sublette County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Develop Sublette County in an orderly manner consistent with the goals and policies of this plan.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Encourage County coordination and cooperation with other local, state and federal entities and interests to effectively plan for and address land use and development issues.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to plan implementation and interjurisdictional cooperation:

Plan Consistency and Conformity

a. County Policy: Utilize County-adopted plans, policies and regulations as guides for all land use and development decisions.

b. County Policy: Maintain current and applicable County land use plans, policies and regulations. County-adopted land use plans; policies and regulations will be reviewed and updated by the Sublette County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Sublette County Planning Administrator.

c. County Policy: Provide an annual public forum to discuss the County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related regulations.

Inter-jurisdictional Coordination and Cooperation

a. County Policy: Coordinate and cooperate with other local, state and federal entities and interests to pursue mutually beneficial land use planning and development issues and opportunities.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 20 of 64

B. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT - Sublette County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Encourage orderly growth and land use development patterns which: - provide a compatible/complementary arrangement of various land uses, - promote the efficient and cost-effective delivery of services, - protect sensitive areas and the environment, and - provide for the proper use and conservation of renewable and non-renewable resources.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Maintain County land use plans, policies and regulations designed to protect property values and balance private property rights with the general health, safety and welfare interests of present and future County residents.

3. COUNTY GOAL: Maintain County land use plans, policies and regulations that meet the residential needs of Sublette County.

4. COUNTY GOAL: Encourage the development of commercial and industrial zoning districts to support diversification of the local and regional economy.

5. COUNTY GOAL: Recognize and value the historical significance of agricultural lands and uses.

6. COUNTY GOAL: Encourage economic stability and opportunity of the agricultural sector.

7. COUNTY GOAL: Foster mutually beneficial relationships between agriculture and wildlife.

8. COUNTY GOAL: Encourage the preservation of working agricultural/ranching landscapes to maintain the dominant open character of Sublette County.

9. COUNTY GOAL: Optimize beneficial use and retention of water resources.

10. COUNTY GOAL: Promote ecological stewardship of natural resources to increase the health and biodiversity of the land beneficial to agriculture, wildlife, and society as a whole.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to land use, growth and development:

General Land Use and Development Approach and Philosophy

a. County Policy: Encourage orderly growth and land use development patterns.

b. County Policy: Maintain a professional and well-trained County planning staff/office and planning commission. Continue to provide accessible and responsive public assistance.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 21 of 64

c. County Policy: Work with developers to coordinate the adequate and efficient provision and delivery of services (e.g. utilities, water, sewer, solid waste).

d. County Policy: Plan and locate new development carefully to avoid excessive costs in providing public services.

e. County Policy: Encourage new development in a manner that minimizes environmental pollution and disruption of natural resources.

f. County Policy: Require developers to provide legal right-of-ways and easements for roads and public utilities (including power, telephone, water and sewer).

g. County Policy: Encourage new development in areas that are capable of sustaining private water and sewer, either through individual systems or by community/central water and sewer systems.

h. County Policy: Require all new or upgraded utilities be placed underground unless crossing a river or highway.

i. County Policy: Require developers to provide assurance at the preliminary plat stage that he/she is adequately financed to fulfill capital outlay upon approval of the final plat. Developers will not be required by the County to make capital outlay for roads, facilities and utilities until the final plat is approved.

j. County Policy: Encourage architectural designs and styles that complement the County’s character and are consistent with the area’s rural setting and landscape.

k. County Policy: Encourage developers to adopt covenants and development standards consistent with the County’s land use and development objectives.

l. County Policy: Encourage and support semi-annual County-sponsored beautification days and property owner-initiated removal of nuisance factors.

m. County Policy: Continue to work with landowners to bring non-compliant land uses into compliance with adopted planning and zoning regulations.

n. County Policy: Require developers to provide a written statement of the rights and obligations of the person buying land in the development (issues noted may include road maintenance, ditch rights and easements, covenants, development standards, etc.).

o. County Policy: Encourage development which preserves open vistas.

p. County Policy: Evaluate development of irrigated and non-irrigated land for its impact on the amount and quality of grazing and crop producing lands lost to the local agriculture community.

County/Community Fringe Area Development

a. County Policy: Cooperate with incorporated municipalities to coordinate the planning and development of community “fringe areas”.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 22 of 64

b. County Policy: Incorporate community land use and development plans (as they are adopted) into the County’s Comprehensive Plan. c. County Policy: Encourage high-density (1/4 acre or smaller lot size and multiple family dwellings) residential development within a 1-mile radius of the County’s incorporated towns. The County could provide incentives to facilitate this goal.

Residential Land Uses and Development

a. County Policy: Plan and locate new residential development carefully to avoid excessive costs in providing public services. b. County Policy: Encourage residential development to occur in a manner that minimizes environmental pollution and disruption of natural resources. c. County Policy: Maintain a two-acre minimum lot size for residential development in areas without central water and sewer. d. County Policy: Require development proposals to demonstrate the availability of an adequate, safe water supply and a safe, reliable method of sewage disposal. e. County Policy: Maintain land use regulations that promote and encourage a variety of housing types and residential development options. f. County Policy: Encourage the provision of adequate, affordable housing. g. County Policy: Require compliance with adopted County subdivision policies and regulations.

Agricultural Lands and Uses

a. County Policy: Encourage conservation of agricultural and ranch lands and related land uses through various voluntary and incentive-based programs and policies. b. County Policy: Allow subdivision of lands with adjudicated water rights only after determination that such development will not present major water delivery problems to neighboring water users or adversely affect the interests of an irrigation district or canal/ditch company. c. County Policy: Discourage residential development deemed likely to create significant disruption of livestock movement or grazing. An appropriate buffer zone should be placed between residential structures and any stock driveway. Per State law, it is the landowner's responsibility to fence out livestock. d. County Policy: Continue support for locally accepted, traditional agricultural management practices and land uses. e. County Policy: Support educational and technical efforts to improve the ability of land custodians, large and small, to retain and enhance the quality of natural resources and agricultural land uses.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 23 of 64 f. County Policy: Evaluate development of irrigated and non-irrigated land for its impact on the amount and quality of grazing and crop producing lands lost to the local agriculture community. g. County Policy: Discourage residential and recreational development on lands of high agricultural value, e.g. high quality grazing lands as well as hay meadows.

Commercial Land Uses and Development

a. County Policy: Locate commercial properties in or near existing towns and/or near other commercial property. b. County Policy: Encourage commercial property development along major thoroughfares. c. County Policy: Review commercial zoning districts to ensure that rules don't inhibit logical commercial development. d. County Policy: Ensure commercial land uses take priority in commercially zoned properties (when conflicts with non-commercial land uses arise). e. County Policy: Require commercial properties to be maintained and provide adequate parking, taking into consideration the type of business. f. County Policy: Encourage appropriate landscaping of commercial properties, taking into consideration the type of business. g. County Policy: Encourage clustering of commercial development, as appropriate. h. County Policy: Encourage diversified commercial development.

Industrial Land Uses and Development

a. County Policy: Identify and recommend areas appropriate for industrial land uses. b. County Policy: Encourage public/private partnerships to stimulate economic opportunity. c. County Policy: Encourage public/private partnerships to identify and develop appropriate areas for additional light industrial areas. d. County Policy: Encourage diversified industrial development. e. County Policy: Encourage the recruitment and development of value-added industries to stimulate economic activity.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 24 of 64

f. County Policy: Encourage industrial/commercial development in or near existing commercial and industrial sites. g. County Policy: Encourage property maintenance to assure a clean, safe and orderly work site with adequate parking, taking into consideration the type of industry. h. County Policy: Encourage appropriate and diversified industrial uses when doing so does not conflict with other County goals and policies.

Background Information/Data (Land Use)

Preserving Private Property Rights Sublette County recognizes its citizens' inalienable, natural rights to private property. The people who make up the citizenry of Sublette County are reliant upon the land and its productive uses. Private ownership and the incentive to provide such ownership are the driving forces which support the livelihood, culture, custom and economic stability of Sublette County citizens.

County/Community Cooperation The incorporated cities of Big Piney, Marbleton, and Pinedale have their own planning and zoning commissions. The County shall continue to work with the towns to further organize development within the County.

As mandated by Wyoming State law, planning and zoning commissions shall continue to require that all plans for development within one mile of city limits be submitted to the planning commission or governing body of that town for review, comment and approval.

Agricultural Land Uses In the context of this plan, agriculture is more than an industry. It is also the guardian of resources and the underpinning of our culture. Sublette County residents desire that agriculture continue to be a dominant element in Sublette County's identity. Agricultural lands used for ranching and grazing have provided the historical foundation for community development and economic growth since the late nineteenth century. These lands are valued for their economic significance as well as their natural resources, scenic beauty and support of cultural and ecological diversity. In addition, Sublette County is well suited for cattle production. Annually, more than 31 million pounds of beef are exported from the County.

Data for Sublette County Agriculture is available from the United States Census of Agriculture, which is completed every five years. Employment information is available from the Wyoming Division of Economic Analysis. Agriculture, in 1998, provided 401 of the County's 3,912 jobs.

Private lands tend to cluster along the County's waterways, an artifact of early settlement of the County when settlers acquired lands adjacent to water sources for stock water and irrigation purposes.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 25 of 64

Industrial Land Uses and Development Appropriate and diversified industrial uses, including oil and gas development, are vital components of Sublette County's economic base. Growth in this sector can be expected to yield additional employment opportunities and enhance overall economic activity. Public entities can assist in the development of these activities. Well-planned industrial development and sites can minimize adverse impacts and encourage the most efficient use of available properties.

C. NATURAL HAZARDS/ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS - Sublette County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Protect public health, safety and welfare by discouraging development in areas of potential environmental/natural hazards.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Generate and provide data on development limitations.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to natural hazard and environmental considerations:

General Approach and Philosophy

a. County Policy: Consider site-specific environmental features as part of land use planning decisions and in the review of development proposals. Factors to consider include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) natural hazards (as noted in County Policy b., below), (2) topography, (3) soil types, (4) wildlife habitat and migration routes, (5) municipal watersheds/culinary water sources, (6) riparian areas, (7) wetlands, (8) depth to water table, (9) surface drainage patterns, (10) groundwater recharge/discharge areas (including springs), and (11) quantity and quality of surface and underground water resources. b. County Policy: Discourage development in known and potentially hazardous areas. The demonstration of adequate/appropriate mitigation measures may be required before development can occur. Types of areas to be avoided include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) flood plains, (2) unstable slopes and soils, and (3) areas with high wildfire potential. c. County Policy: Inform the public and developers of known environmental/natural limitations potentially making areas unsuitable for development.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 26 of 64

d. County Policy: Require site-specific soils analysis as part of the subdivision development application, as deemed appropriate and necessary to protect public safety. e. County Policy: Require persons/interests wishing to develop land to demonstrate the suitability of such ground for development. f. County Policy: Require demonstration of adequate/appropriate mitigation measures before development on hazardous and/or environmentally sensitive areas is approved.

Background Information/Data (Natural Hazards/Environmental Considerations)

In an effort to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, development on certain lands must be regulated. Of specific concern are natural hazards which arise owing to the topography of the site itself. Among these are hazards associated with (1) flooding and high ground water, and hazards found with (2) steep slopes and adverse soils. In an effort to minimize losses-both public and private-from such hazards, considerable mitigation efforts may be required before such lands are deemed suitable for development.

Flood Plains Flood plains are areas which are periodically susceptible to flooding. While commonly associated with stream and river bottoms, dry gulches, which channel runoff or large areas, may also pose hazards to development.

Flood plain maps are available which delineate the boundaries of known flood plains. Adequate mitigation efforts may be possible to permit development in such areas. For example, elevated roads, anchored buildings, alteration of stream channels and protective barriers may be used to lessen hazards associated with development in flood plains. Clear demonstration that such mitigation efforts are effective may be required before development can proceed. It should be noted that such efforts may not adversely affect adjacent land owners.

Wetlands Many areas surrounding streams and rivers also pose hazards stemming from high ground water. Wetlands are defined as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

Wetlands not only provide wildlife habitat but also improve water quality by holding sediment and taking up pollutants. In many cases, wetlands decrease flooding by storing surface water and recharging ground water. The development of these areas should be discouraged. In addition to Sublette County's mitigation requirements, it should be noted that both the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) extensively regulate activities on wetlands.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 27 of 64

Maps delineating flood plains and wetlands are available. As with flood plains, development in wetlands shall occur only when all responsibility for damage is borne by the land owners.

Steep Slopes Extreme caution must be exercised when attempting to develop areas on or accessed via steep slopes. Such slopes pose numerous hazards, among them slope stability, i.e. land slides. In addition to land slide hazards, slopes represent barriers to ongoing and emergency services. Extensive engineering to minimize erosion and slope failure may be required. Likewise revegetation and storm water management may be required to mitigate hazards associated with development of steep slopes. It should be noted that the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality regulates septic tanks on steep slopes. Slumps evident in steep slopes indicate poor slope stability. Such areas may require geotechnical analysis to determine if development may be permitted.

Adverse Soils

Any particular piece of land may, to some extent, be defined by the soil of which it is composed. With this in mind it must be cautioned that some soil types may require extensive mitigation to make access and development possible. For example, increased seasonal soil moisture may cause some soils to swell and shift, while other soils may heave and expand. Any developer may be required to demonstrate that the soils on the site are suitable for the proposed use. Adverse soils may pose substantial hazards to roadways and structures alike.

In summary, natural hazards such as flood plains, wetlands, steep slopes, slumps and adverse soils may represent substantial detriments to the public's health, safety and welfare. In addition, other hazards such as high winds and wildfires may also require mitigation.

It is not within the scope of this comprehensive plan, nor within Sublette County's capabilities to identify every natural hazard which may be associated with a particular proposed development. Suffice it to say, persons wishing to develop land may be required to demonstrate the suitability of such ground for development.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 28 of 64

D. FACILITIES AND SERVICES - Sublette County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Promote and provide for the health, safety and well being of people in Sublette County.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Promote and provide for the administrative, educational, cultural and community needs of the people in Sublette County.

3. COUNTY GOAL: Coordinate and cooperate with local government entities and service providers to plan, design and provide public services and facilities in an effective and efficient manner.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to public facilities and services:

Community Services

a. County Policy: Maintain and encourage high quality general and emergency medical facilities, personnel and services throughout the County.

b. County Policy: Maintain good fire protection service by supporting training programs and recruiting an adequate supply of volunteers.

c. County Policy: Maintain efficient, cost effective law enforcement service that covers the whole County.

d. County Policy: Encourage the grouping of public buildings close together whenever possible in order to foster community cohesiveness and convenience.

e. County Policy: Support agencies and programs that provide services to residents of the County that are in need.

f. County Policy: Encourage and support educational, cultural and recreational opportunities.

County-provided Services

a. County Policy: Maintain that rural areas/residents of the County should not anticipate “urban type/level” services.

b. County Policy: Include the following public utility/service considerations when reviewing proposed land use and development plans and applications: (1) the proposed development's proximity to available facilities and services; (2) the anticipated demand for County-provided services; and (3) the developer's plans for provision and maintenance of required services.

Water (Culinary, Irrigation and Fire Protection)

a. County Policy: Require development proposals to demonstrate the availability of an

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 29 of 64

adequate, safe water supply and a safe, reliable method of sewage disposal. In addition, the availability of suitable quality water in sufficient quantity for the proposed land use(s) must be demonstrated before such uses are permitted.

b. County Policy: Require development proposals to identify potential impacts to existing irrigation systems, as relevant.

c. County Policy: Require development proposals to provide a specific water supply for year-round fire suppression purposes.

Sewer and Solid Waste Disposal

a. County Policy: Require development proposals to demonstrate the availability of adequate and safe sewer and solid waste disposal systems.

b. County Policy: Discourage development on lands that are not suited for on-site absorption systems, unless other acceptable provisions are approved by the County.

c. County Policy: Encourage the location of solid waste disposal sites in areas with minimal environmental constraints (highwater table, ground water, high wind, etc.). Facilities will be designed in a manner that prevents adverse impacts to air quality (including odor) and aesthetics.

d. County Policy: Encourage recycling efforts and programs within the County.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 30 of 64

Background Information/Data (Facilities and Services)

The County's public facilities include fire and law enforcement protection; public health; schools; civic, community and senior citizen centers; fairgrounds and parks; and cemeteries. While many of the actual facilities are located in incorporated towns or rural centers, they are included in this section because they potentially benefit all County residents.

Fire Protection Pinedale, Big Piney, Bondurant, Boulder, and Daniel have volunteer fire departments that protect property in incorporated and unincorporated Sublette County. Funding is obtained from the towns, Sublette County, and through their own fund-raising efforts. The United States Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) fight fires with their own personnel on federal land, with local assistance as requested.

Law Enforcement The Sublette County Sheriffs Office polices the incorporated towns, rural centers, and the rest of the County. Deputies are based in Pinedale and Marbleton. The Wyoming Highway Patrol has an office in Pinedale. State officers patrol Wyoming State and federal roads and provide assistance as requested.

Public Health Two medical clinics service the County: the Marbleton-Big Piney Clinic, and the Pinedale Medical Clinic. Each facility includes helicopter pads for the quick transport of patients. Both clinics are staffed with physicians, patient associates, and nurses. Contracts with physicians and clinic operation are under the jurisdiction of the Rural Health Care District, a board of locally elected members.

The Health Care District also oversees County ambulance service. Ambulances are based in Big Piney and Pinedale and are staffed by paid personnel and volunteers. The Public Health Nurse maintains offices in Big Piney and Pinedale, as does the Community Counseling Services. A privately-operated physical rehabilitation service is available in Pinedale and Big Piney. In Pinedale that facility is housed next to the Sublette Center, a nursing home that offers long-term care, post acute care, and independent living quarters.

The State Family Services Department has an office in Pinedale and Big Piney. There is also the Sublette County Sexual Assault Family Violence Task Force and Sublette County Victim Assistance.

Schools School District No. I encompasses the northern portion of the County. An elementary, middle, and high school are located in Pinedale. School District No. 9 serves the southern part of the County, and the elementary, middle, and high school are located in Big Piney. Bondurant has an elementary school, with middle and high school aged children being bused to Pinedale.

Additional educational facilities exist that offer private education, special education, kindergarten, and preschool. They include: Sublette County Christian School, the Learning Center, Head Start, Children's Discovery Center, and Pinedale Preschool. All are located in Pinedale. Western Wyoming Community College also offers outreach programs to County residents through long distance learning.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 31 of 64

Civic, Community and Senior Centers The three incorporated towns have municipal public offices that serve their residents. Sublette County's courthouse is in the County seat, Pinedale. The County courthouse annex is in Marbleton. Federal offices are maintained in Big Piney and Pinedale for the United States Forest Service (USFS). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) maintains an office in Pinedale. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (US Department of the Agriculture) is based in Pinedale.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) has an office in Pinedale, along with the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). The State Water Commissioner and County Extension Office are housed in the County Courthouse in Pinedale. The State Engineer Board of Control maintains an office in Big Piney.

Post offices are located in Big Piney-Marbleton, Bondurant, Boulder, Cora, Daniel, and Pinedale.

The Museum of the Mountain Man on the eastern edge of Pinedale showcases the history of the mountain man era and includes displays about early Sublette County. Green River Valley Museum in Big Piney features a historical collection that covers the early days of this region.

Boulder and Daniel hold community events in former school buildings. Bondurant area residents use a local church to host community functions. An indoor arena was constructed at the County Fairgrounds near Marbleton-Big Piney, and while limited because of its dirt floor, it too can be used for some community functions. A community center is proposed for Pinedale. County libraries are found in Big Piney and Pinedale.

Two senior citizens' service organizations are in operation at each end of the County to provide assistance to seniors, including meals and social activities. Pinedale and Marbleton both have senior centers. A new facility is being built in Pinedale to replace the existing center. Senior activities also occur at the Sublette Center in Pinedale.

Fairgrounds and Parks See the Recreation section of the County Comprehensive Plan for complete information about area parks and recreation facilities. The County Recreation Board plans to complete a Countywide master plan for recreation. The plan will include discussion about a multi-use recreational facility, which would be the first of its kind in the County.

The County Fairgrounds are located north of Marbleton. The complex includes an outdoor rodeo arena, indoor arena, show ring, display and livestock buildings, and a baseball diamond. The County Sporting Association has 35 acres southeast of Pinedale that are used as a rodeo arena and for the annual Green River Rendezvous pageant.

Cemeteries Several cemeteries remain in operation in the County, including ones found in the vicinity of Pinedale, Big Piney, Daniel, Boulder, and Bondurant. A number of small cemeteries are also found throughout the County, such as Silvercreek and another outside of Cora.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 32 of 64

Landfill and Transfer Station Solid waste disposal becomes more important as the County's population continues to grow. Currently, the County has a waste disposal site (landfill) near Marbleton and a transfer facility located near Pinedale. The County is presently engaged in an agreement with Teton County which allows the deposition of Teton County origin refuse in the Marbleton facility. At current rates, the anticipated storage capacity of the Marbleton landfill is approximately 100 years.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 33 of 64

E. TRANSPORTATION - Sublette County Goals and Objectives

1. COUNTY GOAL: Encourage multi-modal transportation availability.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Provide adequate County road system to safely move people and vehicles.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to transportation:

Alternative Transportation Modes

a. County Policy: Encourage the diversification of public and private sector transportation services.

b. County Policy: Encourage shuttle bus service between Sublette County towns and neighboring Counties.

Transportation Planning

a. County Policy: Develop and maintain a master transportation plan to identify and accommodate the current and future transportation needs of the County.

b. County Policy: Coordinate County road planning efforts with the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), United States Forest Service (USFS), and Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD).

c. County Policy: Require all new roads and streets to be consistent with the approved County transportation plan with regard to classification, right-of-way, design and construction.

d. County Policy: Encourage education on the appropriate use of County roads, i.e., “safe and lawful use and travel” for snowmobiles, ATVs, horses, bikes, etc.

e. County Policy: Encourage/support construction of additional pathways and expansion of existing pathways.

Roadway Construction, Maintenance and Improvements

a. County Policy: Maintain/enforce standards for new County roads and work to improve existing roads already in the County roads system.

b. County Policy: Identify and prioritize a list of County roads needing maintenance or upgrades. This task includes developing a schedule of anticipated completion dates.

c. County Policy: Conduct traffic counts to investigate the feasibility of surfacing County roads.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 34 of 64

d. County Policy: Consider the provision of services to the greatest number of County residents and the development of the County’s economic potential as primary factors when establishing road maintenance and improvement priorities.

e. County Policy: Consider potential effects that building or improving County roads may have on neighborhoods, residential areas, subdivisions and natural resources.

f. County Policy: Require development proposals for year-round housing to demonstrate adequate primary road construction and maintenance.

g. County Policy: Require County approval prior to the construction of private approaches with direct access to County roads. Considerations of approval include, but are not limited to, compatible grades, anticipated traffic patterns (egress/ingress) and adequate drainage.

h. County Policy: Maintain provisions in the County’s Subdivision Resolution that require the developer to be responsible for initial road construction. All roads must be built according to County standards.

i. County Policy: Ensure that future road construction and maintenance of subdivision roads is clearly defined on the plat and in covenants to identify the responsible parties.

j. County Policy: Encourage special improvement districts to help pay for road improvements in existing subdivisions.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 35 of 64

Background Information/Data (Transportation)

Federal, State, and County roads serve as the primary method for moving people, goods, and services through the County. Local airports provide additional transportation services. Taxi and special transport services and pathways round out the transportation network for the County.

Roadway System The road system has three functions: to serve residents and funnel traffic through the County, support economic and commercial activities, and support area recreational activities. US Highways 191 and 189 are part of the federal system of highways. State Highways 350,351, 352, 353, and 354 are also found in the County. All of these roadways are maintained by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS) provide approximately 3095 and 865 miles of unpaved roads respectively. These roads provide access to public lands for recreation, grazing, natural resource extraction, and other uses.

Sublette County has 107 County roads which cover approximately 444 miles. These roads are maintained by the County Road and Bridge Department. The majority of the roads are gravel-based. Steps are underway to stabilize the soil on a number of roads by quasi-paving them. When considering road maintenance and improvement priorities, the primary consideration should be provision of the greatest service to the most residents and development of the County's economic potential. The roads that serve the greatest number of people should be improved first, with consideration made for citizens with special needs. The County should also coordinate their road plans with the State, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), United States Forest Service (USFS) and Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD).

Subdivision roads are designated as either private for the use of the subdivision property owners and their guests, or public. Even though they are dedicated for public use, these roads are not part of the County-maintained system. It is the responsibility of property owners to maintain the roads within their subdivisions. At the time a subdivision is approved, the County Subdivision Resolution requires the developer to be responsible for the initial construction of the road. The roads must be built according to County specifications. Typically a property owners' association is formed to oversee the maintenance of the roads after their initial construction.

Public Transportation Public transportation is limited to a private taxi service based in Pinedale and a senior citizen van used to transport seniors to events. In addition, private bus service is available.

Airports Two airports are located in the County. Appointed airport boards are used to oversee each airport operation. Airport master plans are routinely prepared and updated, in association with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The southern part of the County has an airport north of Marbleton, and the northern section has an airport southeast of Pinedale. Neither offers commercial passenger service. No plans are in place to initiate such service. Both facilities have hangers and support buildings for air traffic.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 36 of 64

In a few cases, private landowners with airstrips on their property have agreed that the airstrips will be available for emergency use. Helitec pads are located at the Pinedale Clinic and Marbleton-Big Piney Clinic for emergency evacuation of patients.

Pathways Volunteer efforts and federal funding have been used to construct three asphalt paths in the County. One path that is approximately 1 mile long links Marbleton and Big Piney. A second path, also several miles in length, begins on the northeastern outskirts of Pinedale and ends at the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) ponds by Fremont Lake. A third path links Tyler Avenue, Pine Creek, and the Pinedale Town Park. All paths are usable by pedestrians, joggers, bicyclists, rollerbladers, cross country skiers, and any other non-motorized user.

Continental Divide Snow Machine Trail The multi-county trail is located in the vicinity of Green River Lakes in the Upper Green area through the Boulder region. It's designated as a snow machine trail that will provide users with numerous drop-off points for riding and sight-seeing along the route.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 37 of 64

F. RECREATION - Sublette County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Consider the County's natural beauty, rural atmosphere, wildlife, and recreational resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Support and encourage the development of recreational facilities, events, and activities that are not in conflict with the quality of life as espoused in the County Vision Statement.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to recreational land uses and development:

General Approach and Philosophy

a. County Policy: Maintain the County position that no single recreational user group should receive preferential treatment in wilderness areas.

b. County Policy: Coordinate with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) to encourage appropriate management of game and non-game fish and wildlife resources.

c. County Policy: Encourage migratory routes be kept open or established/reestablished where possible, to assist in maintaining game populations.

d. County Policy: Coordinate with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) to preserve the quantity and quality of wildlife and wildlife habitat and provide sustainable hunting and fishing opportunities.

e. County Policy: Maintain viewsheds in areas of high scenic value.

f. County Policy: Monitor river use and work with appropriate agencies to maintain the quality of the rivers.

g. County Policy: Coordinate with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS) to prepare a balanced, coordinated interagency river floating plan intended to allow for gradual, controlled growth while preserving the quality fishing experience of all river floaters.

h. County Policy: Encourage the development of privately-owned recreational facilities.

i. County Policy: Encourage recreational development that is compatible with County characteristics and values.

j. County Policy: Foster, support and carefully manage recreational uses while respecting the rights of property holders.

k. County Policy: Manage recreational growth in a manner sensitive to and consistent with community values and character of the area.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 38 of 64

l. County Policy: Manage recreational vehicles and uses (including off-road and river related) in a manner sensitive to private property rights and the environment.

m. County Policy: Promote educational programs regarding stewardship of natural resources and recreation-related effects.

n. County Policy: Support and encourage Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS) decisions that are consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

o. County Policy: Encourage further development and proliferation of hiking trails, walking paths, and other facilities for the pedestrian recreationist.

p. County Policy: Support the development of additional bike routes as doing so becomes important. This would include linking existing routes and working with relevant agencies to develop new ones.

q. County Policy: Consider development/expansion of recreational activities and facilities as the need/desire develops.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 39 of 64

Background Information/Data (Recreation)

Recreation, both dispersed/noncommercial and organized/commercial, represents a valuable renewable resource available to Sublette County residents facing the challenges of growth in the 21st century. Properly managed, recreation can provide income and quality of life to County residents in perpetuity. For this reason, recreation should be fostered, supported, and carefully managed in a manner that respects the rights of property holders.

It is anticipated that Sublette County, by virtue of its physical setting, will continue to grow as a recreation destination in the west for residents of the United States and international visitors. This is a role offered by geography and geology. Recreational growth cannot be avoided but must be actively managed in a manner sensitive to and consistent with community values and characteristics of the area.

Further, it is probable that recreation will play an ever increasing, year-round role in the economy of the County. One goal should be to consider the County's natural beauty, rural atmosphere, wildlife, and recreational resources for the benefit of present and future generations. This should be a factor when the County is presented with recreational opportunity proposals.

When appropriate, recreational land use decisions should be linked with economic factors affecting the County. Considerable lifestyle and economic benefit is derived from a majority of the following categories of recreation.

Camping and Picnicking A wide variety of public and private camping and picnicking facilities are available in the County. The majority of existing facilities are administered by federal and state agencies, although several private, commercial campgrounds are located throughout the County.

Wilderness Recreation The Bridger-Teton Wilderness area of the Wind River Range includes 428,169 acres of Sublette County. The area has become increasingly popular both nationally and internationally with visitors and recreational users. Growing demands impact County residents and resources, as well as the natural resources. The backpacker, horse, and llama enthusiasts as well as backcountry skiers and snowshoers enjoy the wilderness experience.

Hunting and Fishing Various types of game and fish sports are available. With regard to hunting, the County has a plethora of game animals for those choosing to pursue this form of recreation. The trophy game that reside here draw a substantial number of hunters to the County. In turn, those hunters contribute a great deal to the County's economic well being.

Our lakes, streams, and rivers attract numerous anglers all year long. Anglers from all over the globe come in pursuit of Lake, Brook, Rainbow, Golden and Cutthroat trout. Kokanee Salmon and Mountain Whitefish and Grayling are also present in some lakes and streams. Like hunters, anglers also contribute to the economic welfare of the County.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 40 of 64

Wildlife and Scenic Viewing Increasing numbers of residents and visitors take advantage of the natural beauty and wildlife found in the County for photography and to observe both wildlife and the local scenery. Photography in particular has become a very popular form of recreation among people of all ages. Amateurs and professionals alike are often seen taking photos from vehicles along roads, at scenic overlooks, hiking in the backcountry, or anywhere else that offers a photographic opportunity. In addition, wildlife observation is enjoyed by both locals and visitors to the County.

River Floating and Boating The Green and New Fork rivers are used for floating, boating, and fishing. Several access points have been established to guarantee public access to these rivers. It is anticipated that river use will increase in the coming years. Commercial river floating can and must be carefully managed by the federal and state agencies charged with this important public trust.

Sublette County also has a variety of lakes inside and outside of the wilderness area. Some of the larger lakes have boat ramps and/or docks to accommodate larger boats.

Private Guest Ranches, Resorts, Lodges, and Outfitters These privately owned facilities provide a variety of recreational opportunities in Sublette County throughout the year. These facilities are popular with people from all sections of the nation.

Outdoor camps and programs are operated by private individuals, groups such as the Boy Scouts, and church organizations. They provide recreation opportunities for youth from all over the U. S. and other countries.

Licensed big game outfitters offer facilities and quality hunting experiences to County visitors. The outfitters contribute to game management by controlling hunter density and guiding hunters to areas away from roads to effect proper harvest.

Guided fishing and sightseeing trips are also available and provide the recreationist with exceptional opportunities for outdoor enjoyment.

Golf A nine hole golf course is located west of Pinedale. There is a plan to expand it to 18 holes in the future. Golf is an increasingly popular pastime, and its economic impact can be appreciable.

Horse-Related Activities Many County residents own and use horses for recreation activities, such as hunting, trail riding, rodeo and show competition, cutting, driving (carriage, buggy, and wagons), youth gymkhana events, and general pleasure riding.

There is one County-owned horse facility at the Sublette County Fairgrounds in Big Piney. There are two outdoor arenas and one indoor arena, commonly referred to as the Ag Center.

An arena in Pinedale is owned by the Sublette County Sporting Association, a private entity. It is used for many public horse-related events throughout the year. In addition, there are

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 41 of 64

many privately owned arenas through the County.

Fitness Activities and Facilities Both high schools offer a variety of facilities and activities to the public, i.e. open gym, lap swim, swim lessons, weight rooms, tennis courts, etc. There is a private fitness club located in Pinedale. The Retirement Center in Pinedale also has fitness equipment and training available. Martial arts classes are offered in Pinedale and Big Piney. In addition, USA swimming, hockey, and wrestling have clubs in Big Piney and Pinedale.

Snow Machine/All Terrain Vehicles (ATV) Snow machining and ATV riding are very popular in Sublette County. There are several hundred miles of marked and groomed snow machine trails and motorized vehicle trails available to users on United States Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands and on State land.

Use is increasing on existing trails. It is important to manage recreational vehicle/off-road vehicle use in a manner that is sensitive to private property rights and the environment. Also, the County is encouraged to promote additional educational programs/activities regarding responsible stewardship of natural resources. Sublette County will support and encourage Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS) decisions that are consistent with the adopted County Comprehensive Plan.

Skiing Sublette County offers cross-country skiing, down-hill skiing, and snowboarding. Several groomed cross country ski trails access the Bridger-Teton Forest. There is a privately operated, groomed cross-country track on private property north of Pinedale. White Pine ski area is located in the Bridger-Teton Forest, a short drive north of Pinedale. The addition of the new alpine facility will bring an economic boost to Sublette County in the form of ski rentals, lodging, meals, and other services.

Historic And Cultural Sites Sublette has a rich cultural heritage and colorful history. Many significant historic and cultural sites have been established, and commemorative markers or signs have been erected at several locations. Additional archaeological or geological sites may yet be discovered and established in the future.

Sites currently on the Wyoming Registry of Historic Sites include:

Bondurant Church Bridge Over New Fork River Chambers Lodge Circle Ranch Daniel School New Fork Fort Bonneville Jensen Ranch Lander Cutoff of the Oregon Trail Log Cabin Motel Steele Homestead Wardell Buffalo Trap Father De Smet's Prairie Mass Location Upper Green River Rendezvous Site (also on the National Historic List)

Two museums, the Museum of the Mountain Man (Pinedale) and the Green River Valley Museum (Big Piney) operate in Sublette County. These resources are highly valued.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 42 of 64

Archery And Shooting Sports There are two archery clubs located in Sublette County, one in Pinedale and one in Big Piney. Both clubs have membership open to the public. Each club sponsors a number of outdoor silhouettes shoot each year. Pinedale Sporting Clay's, Inc. also sponsors a wide variety of shoots during the year. The Fremont Lake Gun Club sponsors black powder and conventional firearm shoots at their facility, and the firing range is open to the public. Big Piney has trap, skeet, and rifle facilities located west of Big Piney.

Baseball, Softball, Soccer Baseball and softball are popular with the youth and adults of Sublette County. Pinedale and Big Piney have lighted fields for night games. Both towns offer a range from tee ball to Little League play. Climate has a profound effect on the baseball/softball season.

There is a Men's Softball Association. This group sponsors a tournament in mid-July, which brings in teams from several out-of-County towns.

Soccer has found its place in Sublette County. Presently there is a youth program in Pinedale. At the present time there are no dedicated fields to play on.

Hiking A wide variety of vistas abound in Sublette County. Hikers are attracted to the mountain ranges and high plains deserts. Numerous trails access the Wind River and Wyoming Ranges.

Further development and proliferation of hiking trails, walking paths, and other facilities for the pedestrian recreationist should be encouraged. As with all forms of recreation, consideration should be given to the education of hikers who use the mountains and the plains.

Hockey Hockey is a popular winter sport that attracts both the youth and adults of Sublette County. Both Pinedale and Big Piney have hockey programs. Pinedale's indoor ice-skating rink is well lit for night practice and evening hockey games. Figure skaters also share ice time with the hockey association. There have been a number of tournaments held in Pinedale, and as time passes there will undoubtedly be more demand put on the hockey facilities.

Mountain Biking Mountain biking currently has a small role in the recreation picture of Sublette County. The County will support the development of additional bike routes as doing so becomes important. This would include linking existing routes and working with relevant agencies to develop new ones.

Rollerblading & Skateboarding The communities of Big Piney and Pinedale have facilities for roller/skate boarding. The County will consider development/expansion of “alternative” recreation activities and facilities as the need/desire develops.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 43 of 64

G. NATURAL RESOURCES - County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Provide guidance for orderly development, use and conservation of the County’s natural resources.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Ensure that all land use decisions made by County officials are ecologically, economically, socially and culturally sound.

3. COUNTY GOAL: Balance between the conservation and the use of the County’s natural resources in order to support our economy and social fabric.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to natural resource use and development:

County Approach and Philosophy

a. County Policy: Ensure that all land use and development proceed in accordance with local, state and federal laws and regulations.

b. County Policy: Evaluate all relevant federal and state land use proposals and plans and provide comments representing the interests of the County.

c. County Policy: Utilize the best science and technical information available when making land use planning decisions.

d. County Policy: Participate, in an official capacity and at the earliest opportunity, in any public land/resource issue affecting the ecological, economic, cultural, or social well- being of Sublette County citizens; even to the point of acquiring cooperating agency status.

Integration of Resources and the Economy

a. County Policy: Recognize the importance and strength of a diversified economy.

b. County Policy: Enhance the economic impact of the use and production of our natural resources through value-added enterprises.

c. County Policy: Encourage development of amenities and the secondary or alternative economic opportunities that make the County attractive to families.

d. County Policy: Support the creation of jobs and business opportunities that will help sustain the workforce during periods of limited natural resource development.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 44 of 64

Background Information/Data (Natural Resources)

Our high quality air, water and land resources provide Sublette County residents with a rich quality of life, a working tradition, and a western heritage. Environmental quality is of concern to the citizens of Sublette County, as is an active economy.

To provide wise guidance to land use, there must be recognition of more than the physical attributes of Sublette County. There must be a balance between the conservation and the use of those physical attributes in order to support our economy and social fabric. In this section, the situation, trend, and community values for several primary land uses are discussed. They are accompanied by the goals describing the desired relationship between those uses and the environment. Finally, the policies guiding land use decisions are presented.

Sublette County recognizes the importance and strength of a diversified economy. To reach this end, value-added enterprises which enhance the economic impact of the use or production of our natural resources should be encouraged when possible.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 45 of 64

G(a). AIR RESOURCES - County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Maintain excellent air quality in the County.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to protecting the County’s air resources:

Air Quality and Resource Development

a. County Policy: Ensure that Sublette County industries adhere to federal and state air quality standards. Within County budgetary constraints, utilize the best available technology to evaluate present air quality/conditions and the impact of existing and potential pollution sources.

b. County Policy: Consider, as deemed relevant and as information is readily available, the frequency of atmospheric inversions, meteorology, topography, present ambient air quality, significant deterioration limits and applicable local, state and federal laws, when evaluating land use proposals and any other development issues.

Background Information/Data (Air Resources)

Clean air and blue skies are among Sublette County’s most valuable natural resources. Residents and visitors alike delight in spectacular distant views. In addition to providing spectacular views, clean air contributes to the health of residents. Sublette County enjoys excellent air quality and it is the County’s desire to maintain that quality. Air quality is currently undergoing extensive monitoring by the United States Forest Service (USFS) and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The purpose of the monitoring is to prevent any degradation of air quality as measured by odor, visibility, flora, fauna, soil, and water. Air quality monitoring data for the Green River Basin is available on the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) web site.

In recognition of the fact that air quality impacts can cross state and county borders, Sublette County authorities should employ their influence with state and federal authorities when Sublette County air quality is impacted.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 46 of 64

G(b). WATER RESOURCES - County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Maintain and protect our high quality water resources.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Develop strategies to put Wyoming’s apportioned share of Colorado River Compact waters to beneficial use.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to protecting the County’s water resources:

Water Resource Development

a. County Policy: Support/encourage water quality monitoring programs.

b. County Policy: Contact the appropriate agency to investigate any potential or detected water quality degradation.

c. County Policy: Discourage land uses which may result in impaired water quality, particularly municipal water sources.

d. County Policy: Oppose the transfer of waters out of the drainage basins of the County (trans-basin diversions).

e. County Policy: Encourage and establish more watering systems on all grazing lands for livestock, wildlife and game and non-game birds where appropriate.

f. County Policy: Encourage the building of small reservoirs and off-channel storage facilities where they may be effective in striking a harmonious balance of use values and conservation values.

g. County Policy: Allow subdivision of lands with adjudicated water rights only after determination that such development will not present major water delivery problems to neighboring water users or adversely affect the interests of an irrigation district or canal/ditch company.

h. County Policy: Encourage the building and maintenance of sewage disposal systems for RV use. Signs should be posted identifying the location of these facilities.

i. County Policy: Consider the potential effects on surface and underground water quality/resources when land uses are planned or proposed, particularly near watercourses and lakes.

j. County Policy: Consider potential human impacts associated with proposed land uses, particularly in and around watersheds.

k. County Policy: Discourage land uses and developments that have the potential to accelerate long term groundwater depletion.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 47 of 64

l. County Policy: Actively participate in water resource planning, allocation and decision- making processes to protect County water resource interests.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 48 of 64

Background Information/Data (Water Resources)

Water is central to the County’s topography, economy, and lifestyle. In addition to the benefits we receive in the County, we recognize that Sublette County is a major watershed for the upper Colorado River System. There are conflicting issues and demands being placed on this valuable resource which threaten its availability, quantity, and quality. Water management issues will become increasingly complex and important.

Water resources of Sublette County consist of surface and ground water, and precipitation that replenishes the supply each year. The bulk of water comes in the winter in the form of snow. Annual precipitation ranges from eight to more than 60 inches, depending upon proximity to mountains. The Upper Green River and its tributaries in the Wyoming and Wind River Ranges form the largest and most complex river system in Wyoming. Sublette County's portion of the system contributes annually 1.2 million-acre feet to the Colorado system. The Green River, which begins high in the Wind River Mountains above Green River Lakes, flows southward about 290 miles through Wyoming before entering Utah and eventually joining the Colorado River some 300 miles downstream. As the river traverses the County, many tributaries enter the river, the preponderance from the Wyoming Range side.

More than 1,000 glacially formed lakes of varying size are in the headwaters of streams that rise on the west slope of the Wind River Mountains. The higher and more numerous of these lakes are small, with surface areas of less than 500 acres. Glacial lakes formed by terminal moraines at lower elevations are considerably larger, with surface areas of up to 5,000 acres.

The Hoback River basin comprises a significant portion of the northwestern portion of the County. A tributary of the Snake River, the Hoback is estimated to deliver approximately 500,000 acre-feet of water per year to the Snake River.

The southeast portion of the County is in the Big Sandy River basin, delivering water to the Green River below Fontenelle Reservoir. Small portions of the County also lie in tributary basins of the Platte and Wind River.

The shallow surface aquifers generally discharge directly into the streams and are the major source for base flow. Recharge areas of the deeper aquifers appear to occur in the adjacent mountain ranges. The depth of shallow groundwater near flowing streams varies from ground level to about 300 feet. Within this depth interval are the unconsolidated aquifers such as flood plain and fan alluvium, terrace gravel, lake deposits, glacial deposits, and shallow consolidated sandstones.

Potable water can generally be obtained down to 2,000 feet deep in the northern part of the County and 1,000 feet in the southern part of the County. Groundwater has been encountered over the major portion of the basin. The yields of most wells in Sublette County range between 10 and 100 g.p.m. Yields greater than 500 g.p.m. could probably be obtained from wells penetrating thick sandstone sections in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations, and from shallow wells tapping some of the well-sorted alluvial and gravel deposit near Pinedale and east of Boulder. Water well static water levels are part of records kept in the County zoning office.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 49 of 64

All domestic water in the County is obtained from ground water except for the Town of Pinedale which obtains its unfiltered supply from Fremont Lake. This practice is rare and under EPA scrutiny due to increasing commercial and recreational uses. Sublette County enjoys high quality in its surface and ground waters. Water quality is excellent in those portions of the Green River and Hoback Basin which lie in Sublette County. Currently limited, but expanding, ground and surface water quality monitoring programs are in place for Sublette County, conducted under the auspices of the Sublette County Conservation District.

Subsurface water quality monitoring is also being conducted in association with the Pinedale Anticline gas field development. Credible data, in the form of chemical, biological and physical parameters, are being collected to document and monitor water quality. In 2000, the County Health Officer reports little incidence of illness as a result of waterborne pathogens.

Sewage treatment is regulated at several levels. Municipal systems are permitted and monitored via the auspices of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Rural residential systems are regulated by County resolutions, permitted and designed by the County Health Officer.

Primary uses of water in Sublette County include domestic, stock, industrial, storage, irrigation, recreation, wildlife and fisheries habitat.

More than 170,000 acres are irrigated in the County making agriculture a significant user of water. There are six significant water control structures providing supplemental irrigation supplies. The Green River Basin Advisory Group has undertaken a comprehensive basin water planning effort which will become a part of the State's water plan. The product will drive the State's priorities into the next decades.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 50 of 64

G(c). SOIL AND VEGETATION - County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Minimize topsoil erosion.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Maintain or increase highly diverse native plant communities.

3. COUNTY GOAL: Enhance the water, mineral and solar absorption and cycling capabilities of the land.

4. COUNTY GOAL: Reduce the number and spread of invasive plant species.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to protecting the County’s land resources:

Soil and Vegetation

a. County Policy: Consider the suitability of soil composition in all land use decisions.

b. County Policy: Encourage land use practices that reduce erosion of topsoil. Encourage land management practices that build topsoil.

c. County Policy: Consider the effect any land use change may have on the water catchment capabilities of the specific parcel of land in question.

d. County Policy: Consider the effects any land use changes may have on the larger watershed in which the parcel is located.

e. County Policy: Consider the long and short-term effects of any disruption of the soil, natural topography, or herbaceous ground cover associated with the proposed land uses or development. An expert analysis from the Conservation District should be obtained for subdivisions.

f. County Policy: Seek both public and expert opinion of air quality, hydrology, and soil scientists in assessing impact on environmental quality when considering acceptance of out-of-County refuse or waste.

g. County Policy: Monitor and manage encroachment of invasive weeds.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 51 of 64

Background Information/Data (Soil and Vegetation)

Sublette County is a land of high desert, sagebrush steppe, mountain foothills, mountain forests, and alpine tundra. With annual precipitation rates ranging from 8 inches in our lowest elevations, to more than 60 inches at the highest elevations, and growing seasons among the shortest in the nation, native vegetation consists of a diverse complement of the hardiest of species. The environmental factors which require vegetation to be hardy also limit revegetation of disturbed areas. The County is among the cleanest counties in the nation with regard to invasive species.

Soil is a living organism, and the biodiversity of the organic material in the soil determines the health of the land in any particular area. Also, healthy and abundant topsoil is vital in the absorption and cycling of water, minerals, and solar energy. Because of this, it should be incumbent on all landowners, large and small, to use land management practices that will build topsoil. Erosion, that is, loss of topsoil, at any rate should be minimized. Soil type is the best single indicator of development limitations such as shrink-swelling properties, bearing strength, erodibility, drainage, and soil depth. While a soil map of sufficient detail to be of use cannot be included in this plan, information on soils for a specific location can be obtained from the Conservation District. Steep slopes and fragile soils warrant special protection, as they are especially susceptible to erosion if disturbed or improperly developed. Limitations are discussed in detail in the section entitled "Lands Unsuitable for Development" in the Natural Hazards section (page 26) of this plan.

General topography and herbaceous ground cover of the land are also important contributing factors in the absorption and cycling of water. Disruption of either, by excavation for roads, walkways, building sites or any other purpose, will diminish the natural water catchment capabilities of any land parcel.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 52 of 64

G(d). OIL AND GAS - County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Encourage the oil and gas industry to develop in an orderly, sustained fashion that will be cognizant of the economic benefit and general welfare of Sublette County residents while preserving the environmental quality we presently enjoy.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Recognize and value the contribution the oil & gas industry makes to the economy of Sublette County, both in terms of tax revenue and the creation of jobs for a significant number of Sublette County residents.

3. COUNTY GOAL: Optimize the potential development of value added industries derived from oil & gas resources.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to oil and gas development:

a. County Policy: Encourage and welcome responsible, orderly, staged energy development. Similarly, discourage the intrusion of the impact of exploration and development activities into the peace and harmony of other land uses.

b. County Policy: Encourage and support the use of best available technologies that are economically, socially and environmentally sound.

c. County Policy: Encourage use of and exploration of alternative energy sources.

d. County Policy: Support the enforcement of state and federal regulations to prevent surface and underground abuses by seismic and exploratory drilling.

e. County Policy: Participate in official capacity at the earliest opportunity regarding oil and gas development on public lands through the official designation of a representative of the County. This representative would aid in the development of a coordinating mechanism between Sublette County, the State and federal agencies.

f. County Policy: Encourage and participate in advance planning between the County, the State, property owners and the oil and gas industry to assure that proactive measures are taken to mitigate impacts on the community.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 53 of 64

Background Information/Data (Oil and Gas)

For the past 50 years, the oil and gas industry has provided a majority of the tax base and has been a principal industry affecting the economy of Sublette County. After an initial "Boom Period" in the late 1950's, similar to that of many industrially impacted areas in the State, the extraction of these two non-renewable resources has provided an economic basis upon which the County's infrastructure is built.

Historically, the industry has been concentrated in the southwest section of the County. There, the industry has matured to a dynamic balance of exploration, development and production stages and is no longer associated with the heavy influx of new people common to early exploration. Most employees of the long-established businesses are permanent residents of the County and are valuable contributors to the community.

More recently, large-scale exploration and development is occurring in the southeast and central portions of the County. Accompanying this new growth in oil and gas exploration and development are new environmental and social concerns. These developments have increased employment and tax base in the County.

Sublette County's contribution to energy production has national significance, and that contribution is expected to grow. Price structure and advanced technology will drive the development of much gas that heretofore has been uneconomical. Also, coal bed methane (CBM) potential is large, given improved extraction technology. The development of a CBM industry brings a new set of concerns to the development of gas resources. Impacts perhaps unique to CBM in the gas industry include disturbances to aquifers and the management of large volumes of produced water.

Since most oil and gas production is on public land, the level and intensity of activity is often determined by regulations imposed by State and federal government agencies. Therefore, it is important that Sublette County participates in an official capacity, so that the interests of Sublette County are represented.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 54 of 64

G(e). MINING AND QUARRYING - County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Extract minerals in such a way that will not detract from the quality of life in Sublette County.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Proceed with mineral extraction in a manner that will be socially, economically and environmentally sound.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating mining and quarrying:

a. County Policy: Consider participating in decisions regarding mining on public lands as a cooperating agency.

b. County Policy: Implement buffer zones if active mineral extraction enterprises would present a nuisance or hazard to adjacent residents.

c. County Policy: Encourage and participate in advance planning between the County, the State, property owners and the mineral extraction enterprise to assure that proactive measures are taken to mitigate impacts on the community.

d. County Policy: Encourage the implementation of mitigation measures incorporating the best available technological and management practices to control fugitive dust, particulates, undue noise, and exotic weeds to ensure the safety of the general public and protection of other natural resources.

e. County Policy: Support adherence to State and federal regulations within prescribed time frames.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 55 of 64

Background Information/Data (Mining and Quarrying)

Sand and gravel operations are by far the most extensive mining activities in the County. Sand and gravel production may include rock and stone crushing, washing, transportation, handling and storage.

Much of Sublette County is underlain by coal deposits, and oil shale beds extend into the southern portion of the County.

Although there is no known mineral exploration at this time, a small number of mineral occurrences do exist. The table on the following page identifies specific areas within the County and the associated minerals.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 56 of 64

G(f). WILDLIFE RESOURCES - County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Attain and maintain appropriate fish and wildlife populations, together with the habitat to sustain those populations.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Recognize and respect the economic activity generated through the use of the wildlife resource, ensuring its future in the ecology, economy, and culture of the County.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to wildlife resource issues:

a. County Policy: Consider wildlife habitat values as part of any new development proposals.

b. County Policy: Encourage close coordination with all federal and State agencies on all issues affecting populations and habitats of all species.

c. County Policy: Consider migration corridors, crucial winter ranges, and other important habitats when evaluating land use proposals. In some cases, the migration corridors that link summer and winter ranges are already tightly constricted. These areas are recognized as being very sensitive and their integrity should be protected. There are many tools available, beyond County zoning regulation, to shelter the function of important wildlife areas.

d. County Policy: Advance and employ those tools and techniques which enhance wildlife friendly developments. Encourage early coordination among Sublette County, Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and project proponents to enhance the inclusion of wildlife friendly recommendations into proposed developments.

e. County Policy: Encourage/support maintaining wildlife populations that are in balance with available habitat and other uses.

f. County Policy: Support wildlife management techniques that minimize conflicts with agricultural operations and/or practices.

g. County Policy: Encourage close cooperation between the Wyoming Game & Fish Department (WGFD) and private landowners in dealing with game damage on private property, particularly in winter.

h. County Policy: Promote healthy fish populations, particularly native species, by maintaining or improving fisheries habitat.

i. County Policy: Encourage County cooperation/coordination with State and federal agencies concerning the management of wildlife resources.

j. County Policy: Support proactive wildlife conservation efforts.

k. County Policy: Minimize conflicts between wildlife and domestic pets.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 57 of 64

Background Information/Data (Wildlife)

Sublette County possesses an abundance and diversity of wildlife found in few other places. The wildlife resource in Sublette County represents a great aesthetic value, but also provides significant recreational values. Resident wildlife includes big game such as mule and white-tailed deer, antelope, elk, moose, and bighorn sheep.

Large predators such as mountain lions, black bears, grizzly bears, lynx, and wolves are also found in the County. A diversity of bird species also call Sublette County home or migrate through the area. These include: sage-grouse, blue and ruffed grouse, Canada geese, sandhill cranes, trumpeter swans, bald and golden eagles, prairie and peregrine falcons, ospreys, great gray owls, long-billed curlews, Harlequin ducks, horned larks, and mountain bluebirds are just a few. The numerous lakes and streams of Sublette County provide habitat for native Colorado River cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, lake trout, golden trout, kokanee salmon, grayling, and mountain whitefish. Hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing for these species represent a significant recreational attraction. A number of species are being closely monitored and information regarding species trend and condition are available through agencies with wildlife management responsibilities.

The changing seasons experienced in Sublette County necessitate substantial migrations for many species. Seasonal movements of animals traverse both public and private lands. Annual migrations of mule deer and antelope can exceed 100 miles while trumpeter swans that summer in Sublette County may winter as far away as the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The ability of animals to move freely as environmental conditions change is part of what allows Sublette County to be home to such a diversity and abundance of wildlife.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 58 of 64

G(g). FORESTRY/TIMBER RESOURCES - County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Encourage the orderly harvest of timber while at the same time assuring a continued supply of this renewable resource by utilizing reforestation and management techniques.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Encourage appropriate forestry management practices that will serve to protect watershed, wildlife habitat and aesthetic values.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to timber resources:

a. County Policy: Support proper forest management, including timber harvest, while at the same time taking into consideration watershed, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic values.

b. County Policy: Encourage the use of resource/environmentally sensitive harvesting methods/techniques, particularly when harvesting areas with fragile soils and marginal slopes.

c. County Policy: Maintain accessibility to an adequate fuel wood supply for County residents.

d. County Policy: Encourage timber sales sized to be attractive to small operators.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 59 of 64

Background Information/Data (Timber)

The forested areas found within the Bridger-Teton National Forest, the foothills of the Wind River Mountains and the Wyoming Range on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, and many private lands throughout Sublette County, provide a variety of uses and values. From the sale of saw timber, posts, and poles for local and out of County sawmills, to commercial and personal firewood cutting, to the protection and maintenance of valuable watersheds, to maintenance and improvement of a wildlife habitat, to our unmatched mountain landscapes, Sublette County forests are a key component. Native tree species found within the County range from junipers at lower elevations and narrow-leaved cottonwoods along riparian corridors, aspen, lodgepole pine, and in some cases Douglas Fir at lower to mid elevations, to engelmann spruce and subalpine fir, and limber pine at most elevations, to whitebark pine stands at higher elevations.

Timber as a source of economic enterprise in the County has been severely limited. The individual household use of the resource for home heating fuels and posts and poles continue to be important to the County.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 60 of 64

H. PUBLIC LANDS AND RESOURCES - County Goals and Policies

1. COUNTY GOAL: Maintain open communication and cooperative relationships between the Board of County Commissioners, Planning and Zoning Commission and the federal and State agencies, chiefly, the United States Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Office of State Lands and Investments, and the Wyoming Game & Fish Department (WGFD). The County will actively participate in all relevant public land and resource planning and decisionmaking processes.

2. COUNTY GOAL: Encourage /support the management of federal and State lands and resources under a multi-use policy.

3. COUNTY GOAL: Encourage/support the development of renewable and nonrenewable resources in an orderly manner.

4. COUNTY GOAL: Ensure County economic, social and cultural interests and values are adequately and appropriately considered in all relevant federal and State land and resource planning and decision-making processes.

5. COUNTY GOAL: Balance/consider the conservation and enhancement of natural resources with the economic benefit of resource development.

6. COUNTY GOAL: Encourage federal and State land and resource management agencies to recognize the important benefits of recreational uses to local economies. Encourage recreational enterprise.

Sublette County will pursue the following policies relating to public lands and resources:

County Approach and Philosophy

a. County Policy: Designate a County representative to foster cooperative relationships with public land and resource agencies and to participate in relevant public land and resources planning and decision-making processes.

b. County Policy: Evaluate private development plans, proposals and decisions for potential impacts on public lands/resources. Evaluate public land/resource plans, proposals and decisions for potential impacts on private lands and interests.

c. County Policy: Evaluate developed access points to public lands to minimize adverse effects on adjacent private and public lands, e.g., river access points, camp grounds, trail-head parking, etc.

d. County Policy: Ensure that the designation of special use areas are carefully considered for both their benefits to a healthy recreation industry and other possible economic impacts.

e. County Policy: Support grazing as an important and compatible use on public lands, including wilderness. Recognize that grazing and associated animal impacts can be

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 61 of 64

beneficial to public rangelands if implemented appropriately.

f. County Policy: Advocate that land use plans adopted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS) are coordinated and consistent with the Sublette County Comprehensive Plan and the Sublette County Conservation District Natural Resource Statement.

g. County Policy: Schedule, through the designated County representative, regular reporting and informational updates with entities of County, State and federal government, thus enabling all interested parties to participate in public land planning and decision-making processes.

h. County Policy: Support/encourage multiple-use policy implementation on federal and State lands, thus assuring a strong sustained economic base for the County.

i. County Policy: Require public land and resource management agencies to protect County residents' safety, health and property as part of providing/allowing development of non-renewable resources.

j. County Policy: Support the maintenance of healthy wildlife populations as an appropriate and desired use of public lands.

k. County Policy: Recognize that overuse of the wilderness can compromise the amenities that we value in this resource. Good conservation policies should be encouraged.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 62 of 64

Background Information/Data (Public Lands and Resources)

From the time of the fur trappers and the tie-hacks, Sublette County's now public lands have opened the doors to prosperity. Their abundant natural resources, scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, and world-class recreational opportunities have drawn presidents and paupers alike. Within Sublette County lie pristine rivers, streams and mountain lakes fed by the melting snows of the Continental Divide. Native fish thrive here, and our rangelands support great herds of deer, elk and antelope as well as domestic animals. Our hundred-mile gaze has beheld little change in our frontier character and wide, open spaces.

As the human population grows, all resources on our public lands face increasing pressure to fulfill a host of demands. It is increasingly important to recognize the need for communication and cooperation between the public and the administering agencies. County residents wishing to participate in guiding policy that affects them need a known source for information and an avenue through which to communicate their preferences. Because 78% of Sublette County is federal land, agency decisions have far-reaching consequences. Communication and cooperation between the public and the administering agencies is mutually beneficial.

Sublette County's United States Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands saw 335,298 total visitor days in 1995.

The bulk of extractive industries, currently generating 80% of the County’s tax base through mineral extraction, occurs on public lands.

Annually, approximately 228,000 AUMs of grazing are generated on public lands by the 128 ranches which have grazing permits. Those ranches with grazing permits have woven that forage base into their operations.

Congressionally designated wilderness covers over 500,000 acres in Sublette County, providing use for recreation (particularly backpacking), livestock grazing, and wildlife habitat. Wilderness is a valuable natural and economic resource to this County, and exemplary conservation policies will assure the sustainability of the important amenities that wilderness provides.

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 63 of 64

ATTACHMENTS (to be provided in final document)

County/Community Populations

County Workforce Trends

Sublette County Comprehensive Plan Page 64 of 64

ATTACHMENT 10

1 2 SUBLETTE COUNTY CONSERVATION 3 DISTRICT PUBLIC LAND USE POLICIES 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Prelude 12 13 This Public Land Use Policies document is entirely intended for use in requiring Federal 14 and Public Land Management Agencies and the State of Wyoming to recognize the 15 “Sublette County Conservation Districts” responsibilities and rights when these 16 agencies are developing and implementing Annual and Long Range Management Plans, 17 Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), Environmental Assessment Study (EAS) etc. 18 19 These statements of policy also outline the “Sublette County Conservation Districts” 20 Natural Resource priorities and are utilized in developing the Districts Annual and Long 21 Range Plans. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Page 1 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 Table of Contents 2 3 Introduction ……………………………………………………………... Page 3 4 Purpose ………………………………………………………………….. Page 4 5 Objective ………………………………………………………………… Page 5 6 Management Actions ……………………………………………………. Page 7 7 Accomplishing These Objectives ……………………………………….. Page 9 8 Position Statements: 9 Soils ……………………………………………………………… Page 11 10 Air Quality ……………………………………………………….. Page 12 11 Water Resources …………………………………………………. Page 13 12 Forage Allocation/Livestock Grazing ……………………………. Page 16 13 Timber …………………………………………………………….. Page 20 14 Land Exchanges, Acquisitions, and Sales ………………………… Page 21 15 Recreation and Tourism …………………………………………… Page 22 16 Wildlife ……………………………………………………………. Page 23 17 Wilderness Designations/Roadless ………………………………. Page 25 18 Other Special Designations ……………………………………….. Page 28 19 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ………………………… Page 29 20 Wild and Scenic Rivers …………………………………………… Page 31 21 Introduced, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species ……… Page 33 22 Public Access/Transportation …………………………………….. Page 35 23 Cultural and Heritage Resources ………………………………….. Page 36 24 Off Highway Vehicles …………………………………………….. Page 37 25 Paleontology/Archeology/Geology ……………………………….. Page 38 26 Wild Horses ……………………………………………………….. Page 39 27 Energy and Mineral Resource …………………………………….. Page 40 28 Mitigation/Habitat Improvement ………………………………….. Page 43 29 Transportation ……………………………………………………... Page 44 30 Adoption of Policies………………………………………………………...Page 47

Page 2 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 INTRODUCTION 2 3 The District is a local governmental subdivision of the state as defined and established by 4 the Wyoming Conservation Districts Law. Wyo. Stat. Title 11, Art. 16. The voters of 5 Sublette County elect the five-member Board of Supervisors to the District during the 6 general election by popular vote. The elected members represent both the rural and urban 7 populations within Sublette County. The District supervisors are the only locally elected 8 board specifically charged with the responsibility of representing the citizens of Sublette 9 County on natural resource issues. A conservation district supervisor serves the 10 community voluntarily. The District Board of Supervisors administers and implements 11 projects and programs funded through local, state, federal, and private partnerships. 12 13 The District, pursuant to the Wyoming Conservation Districts Law, is authorized to 14 develop plans and policy for the District and file said plans in the office of the Sublette 15 County Clerk. Wyo. Stat. §11-16-122 (iv) and (xvi) 16 The District has a broad mandate to assist, promote, and protect public lands and natural 17 resources, soil, water, and wildlife resources, to develop water and to prevent floods, to 18 stabilize the ranching and agriculture industry, to protect the tax base, and to provide for 19 the public safety, health, and welfare of the citizens. The District is charged with 20 conserving, protecting, and developing these resources on all lands within the District 21 and, thus, it is one of the few governmental entities with express authority to address 22 resource issues, in cooperation with private landowners or state or federal land 23 management agencies on private, state, and federal lands. State law also gives the 24 District broad powers to accomplish these policies and mandates, through research and 25 education, implementation of erosion control, water, and range projects with landowners, 26 development of comprehensive plans, demonstration projects, providing financial and 27 other assistance to landowners, management of flood control projects or lands under 28 cooperative agreements with the United States, and adoption of rules and ordinances. 29 Both federal and state laws authorize intergovernmental coordination and cooperation, 30 which provide a mechanism for the District to meet its mandate and polices for all lands 31 within the District.

Page 3 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 PURPOSE 2 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Forest Management 3 Act and the Council on Environmental Quality, as well as other federal and state 4 management and planning regulations provide local governments various opportunities to 5 participate and influence planning and decision making processes associated with 6 managing state, federal and public lands. 7 In the case of federally managed lands, managers are required, to varying degrees, 8 to ensure that management, planning, and decision making are consistent with local 9 government plans, policies, and ordinances. 10 The public lands portion of the District’s Long Range Plan reflects the District’s 11 position on the management and use of public lands, within the District or, that impact 12 the District’s interests. The plan clearly and concisely states the District policies, goals 13 and objectives that relate to federal and state public land management, planning efforts, 14 and decision-making processes. 15 The intent of the plan is to protect the interest of the District, its customs and 16 culture, the health and safety of its residents, and to communicate District interest and 17 concerns regarding management of public lands. It is designed to ensure that the spirit 18 and intent of the laws, regulations and policies that govern management and use of public 19 lands are followed and provides the basis for productive communication, consistency 20 review, and analysis. 21 This policy and subsequent implementation plans are to be followed unless it is 22 impermissibly inconsistent with any statute or duly promulgated regulation. Should any 23 part of this policy or implementation plan be inconsistent with statute or regulation, or 24 declared void, unenforceable, or invalid by a court with competent jurisdiction, the 25 remaining provisions or parts shall remain in full force and effect. 26 For purposes of this policy and subsequent implementation plans, all reference to

27 analysis means NEPA analysis, unless otherwise specified.

28 29 30

Page 4 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 Objectives

2 The following objectives and subsequent policies shall be the basis for public land

3 management and implementation plan that will further define this policy.

4 The District’s objectives are:

5 • To Support the wise use, conservation and protection of public lands and its

6 resources including well-planned, outcome based, management prescriptions. It

7 acknowledges the need, on occasion, to place strict requirements on the

8 management of some resources to provide needed protection, when it has been

9 determined through scientific and supportable analysis that such needs exist, to

10 protect such resources from irreparable harm.

11 • To ensure public lands are managed for multiple use, sustained yield, and 12 prevention of natural resource waste. Further, these lands should be managed to 13 prevent loss of resources, private property and to protect the safety and health of 14 the public. 15 • To ensure management decisions are accomplished with full participation of the

16 District and supported by tested and true scientific data. Decisions shall fully

17 analyze and disclose impacts on the areas economy tax base, culture, heritage, and

18 life styles and rights of area residents.

19 • To provide policies, plans, and other documents for governmental agency use to 20 ensure management and planning consistency with the District. 21 • To ensure agriculture and grazing lands remain available to produce the food and 22 fiber needed by the citizens of the state and the nation, and to preserve the rural 23 character and open landscape of rural Wyoming through a healthy and active 24 agricultural and grazing industry, consistent with private property rights and state 25 fiduciary duties. 26

Page 5 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 • To support agriculture on private and public lands as part of the local economy, 2 custom, culture, heritage as well as the provision of a secure national food supply. 3 • To support national energy needs relative to the nation’s increasing dependency 4 on foreign oil, all public lands must remain open to the greatest extent possible for 5 the exploration and production of energy and other energy related products. 6 • To ensure mitigation and compensation for impacts to the District and its

7 residents. If action results in a taking, all applicable law must be applied.

8 • To ensure public and private access and rights-of-way for utilities and

9 transportation of people and products on and across public lands. Access must be

10 provided to meet such needs.

11 • To ensure that special designations do not influence the use of resources on lands 12 outside those listed in the designation. The District opposes the use of a buffer 13 zone management philosophy that dictates land use practices and influences 14 decisions beyond the scope and boundaries of the designations. 15 • To ensure that restrictions placed on any resource are based on analysis of trends, 16 need, and imposed only after a complete analysis. 17 • To ensure that lands designated open for various specified uses are available on a 18 timely basis and permits for such use are processed promptly. Extended delays or 19 no action shall not be used as a method to accomplish restrictions or protections. 20 Waivers modification or exception to restrictions must be provided for when 21 conditions exist or impacts can be mitigated to prevent irreparable damage to the 22 subject resource.

Page 6 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

2 • Federal Agencies shall recognize and comply with the following principles when

3 preparing any policies; plans, programs, process, or desired outcomes relating to

4 federal lands and natural resources on federal lands pursuant to this section.

5 o The citizens of the state are best served by applying multiple-use and

6 sustained-yield principles.

7 • Multiple-use and sustained-yield management means that federal agencies should

8 develop and implement management plans and make resource-use decisions that:

9 o achieve and maintain in perpetuity a high level annual or regular periodic

10 output of various renewable resources from public lands;

11 o support valid existing transportation, mineral, and grazing rights privileges

12 at the highest reasonably sustainable levels;

13 o are designed to produce and provide the desired vegetation for the

14 watersheds, timber, food, fiber, livestock forage, and wildlife forage, and

15 minerals that are necessary to meet present needs and future economic

16 growth, community expansion, without permanent impairment of the land;

17 o meet the personal and business-related transportation needs of the citizens

18 of the state;

19 o meet the recreational needs of the citizens of the county, state and nation;

20 o provide for the preservation of cultural resources, both historical and

21 archaeological;

22 o meet the needs of economic development;

Page 7 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 o is conducive to well planned and measured community and economic

2 development; and

3 o provide for the protection of water rights;

4 o ensures proper stewardship of the land and natural resources necessary to

5 ensure the health of the watersheds, timber, forage, and wildlife resources.

6 This should provide for a continuous supply of resources for the people of

7 the District who depend on these resources for a sustainable economy;

8 • Forests, rangelands, timber, and other vegetative resources;

9 o provide forage for livestock;

10 o provide forage and habitat for wildlife;

11 o provide resources for the state’s timber and logging industries;

12 o contribute to the state’s timber and logging industries;

13 o contribute to the state’s economic stability and growth;

14 o are important for a wide variety of recreational pursuits

Page 8 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 To accomplish these objectives:

2 • To fully address the counties concerns and articulate them to the appropriate

3 agencies and to resolve differences or points of contention, the District will

4 work with public land management agencies in a collaborative or cooperative

5 manner.

6 Where feasible, or as provided by law, the District will enter into formal

7 agreements such as memorandums of understanding, memorandums of

8 agreement, or partnerships to codify expectations and processes agreed to by the

9 parties.

10 Such agreements must provide that in the processes of coordination or

11 cooperation, the District is consulted as appropriate or required:

12 o Provided a written report detailing how consistency with this policy

13 analyzed with respect to their purpose action or plan. The report must

14 identify where inconsistencies exist, any plausible way to correct the

15 inconsistencies, and why consistency is not possible.

16 o Provided a detailed economic analysis of the impact of agency action or

17 proposed action on the County tax base and area economy. When more

18 than one action is proposed the report must analyze cumulative impacts.

19 o Provided a certification that applicable data used in development of a

20 proposal or plan meets the requirements of the Environmental Quality

21 Data Act and the Wyoming Credible Data Statute.

22 o Notified of any proposed action that may affect local culture, social

23 structure, and heritage values.

Page 9 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 o Provided an opportunity for meaningful participation in the development,

2 monitoring, and analyses of any studies conducted on resources associated

3 with our public lands.

4 o Queried to determine the impacts of proposed actions on traditional uses

5 of resources such as recreation, grazing, energy development, wildlife, etc.

6 o To the extent provided by law, provide the District cooperator status in the

7 development of any NEPA analysis associated with proposed actions,

8 public land management, or planning.

9 o Keep the District fully informed of all management action proposed and

10 allow adequate time to develop its position should it not be clearly defined

11 in the District’s plans or policies or subsequent Implementation Plans.

12 o Provided in writing intentions for formal communications or consultation

13 at the onset of any such discussions. Unless so stated, all communication

14 will be considered to be informal.

Page 10 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 POSITIONS STATEMENTS

2 The following position statements were developed to communicate the District’s

3 position on various public land management issues and provide suggestions on how

4 concerns may be addressed.

5

6

7 SOILS

8 It is the District’s position that:

9 • Soil is the basic building block for virtually all land uses. The protection of

10 soils from wind and water erosion and the maintenance of fertility are critical to

11 sustaining a viable agricultural economy, sustaining wildlife populations, and

12 high levels of air and water quality.

13 • The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey is the basis for

14 all public land soil related activities.

15 • It supports the need for completion of a NRCS soil survey that includes both

16 public and private lands in the District.

17 • Soil related activities will be based on all available survey data until a final

18 survey is published. Any deviation from this material and soil data

19 development must be coordinated with the District and NRCS. .

20 • Management programs and initiatives that improve watersheds, forests, and

21 increase forage for the mutual benefit of wildlife and livestock will be

22 emphasized.

Page 11 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 AIR QUALITY

2 It is the District’s position that:

3 • Maintaining the District’s air quality at its current level is critical to the health

4 and well being of its residents.

5 • A high level of air quality is important to future economic development as it

6 reduces the possibility of restrictions being placed on that development due to

7 air quality standards being exceeded.

8 • Air quality baselines for the area must be established with the full participation

9 of the District.

10 • All air quality related plans and decisions must be based on deviation from a

11 baseline standard established for the District.

12 • To maintain high air quality the District must work to protect the area’s air from

13 degradation from non-area sources.

14 • All field development plans must provide for air quality monitoring. Data

15 development must be coordinated with, and the findings provided to the

16 District.

17 • All air quality studies undertaken by or on behalf of a public land management

18 agency or the Wyoming DEQ-AQD must be coordinated with the District.

19 • Non-area sources need to be identified and quantified prior to being used in

20 determining air quality in Sublette County and especially over Class I Air

21 Sheds.

Page 12 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 WATER RESOURCES

2 It is the District’s position that:

3 • All waters of the state are:

4 o Subject to appropriation for beneficial use;

5 o The district recognizes that the protection and development of its water

6 resources are essential to its short and long term economic and cultural

7 viability.

8 o Essential to the future prosperity of the state and the quality of life

9 within the state;

10 • All water rights desired by the federal government must be obtained through the

11 state water appropriations system.

12 • Management and resource-use decisions by federal land management and

13 regulatory agencies concerning the vegetative resources within the county

14 should reflect serious consideration of the proper optimization of the yield of

15 water within the watersheds of the District.

16 • Proper management of public land watersheds which supply the majority of the

17 agricultural, domestic, and industrial water use in this water-short area is

18 critical.

19 • An adequate supply of clean water is essential to the health of District residents

20 and the continued growth of its economy.

21 • Agencies must analyze the affect of decisions on water quality, yields, and

22 timing of those yields. Actions, or lack of action, or permitted use that results in

23 a significant or long term decrease in water quality or quantity will be opposed.

Page 13 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 • Agency actions must analyze impacts on facilities such as dams, reservoirs,

2 delivery systems, monitoring facilities, etc., located on or down stream from

3 land covered by any water related proposal.

4 • Movement toward nationalization or federal control of Wyoming’s water

5 resources or rights will be opposed.

6 • Privately held water rights should be protected from federal and/or state

7 encroachment and/or coerced acquisition.

8 • The quality and quantity of water shall not be reduced below current levels.

9 • It will support projects that improve water quality and increases quantity and

10 dependability of the water supply.

11 • All potential reservoir sites and delivery system corridors shall be protected

12 from any federal or state action that would inhibit future use.

13 • To seek to amend that the Wilderness Act allow for the temporary storage of

14 water using natural methods on existing lakes or ponds.

15 • Any proposed sale, lease, exchange or transfer of water must adequately

16 consider and satisfy the District’s interest and concerns and fully analyze the

17 effect on existing ground water, return flows, riparian and wetlands.

18 • It will oppose any proposal that fails to benefit the District or compensate for

19 losses to the District and/or its residents.

20 • It recognizes and will protect the existence of all legal canals, laterals, or ditch

21 rights-of-way.

22 • All federal and state mandates governing water or water systems shall be 23 developed in cooperation with the District and be funded by those agencies.

Page 14 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 • It supports livestock grazing and other managed uses of watershed and holds 2 that, if properly planned and managed, multiple use is compatible with 3 watershed management. 4 • It endorses Wyoming State water laws as the legal basis for all water use within 5 the District. 6 • Beneficial use is the basis for the appropriation of water in the State of 7 Wyoming. 8 • It will support all reasonable water conservation efforts. Water conserved 9 should be allocated to those persons or entities whose efforts created the 10 savings. 11 • When wetlands are created by fugitive water from irrigation systems and law 12 requires mitigation of impacts from conservation and other projects, the creation 13 of artificial wetlands should be considered only after all other mitigation 14 possibilities have been analyzed. Creation of artificial wetlands is contrary to 15 the intent of conservation of water. 16 • Managers of public lands must protect watersheds with respect to water quality, 17 with the assurance that water yield will not be decreased but improved. 18 • All field development plans must provide for water quality monitoring. Data 19 development must be coordinated with, and the findings provided to the 20 District. 21 o All water quality studies undertaken by or on behalf of a public land 22 management agency must be coordinated with the District.

Page 15 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 FORAGE ALLOCATION/LIVESTOCK GRAZING

2 It is the District’s position that:

3 • Management of public lands must maintain and enhance agriculture to retain its

4 contribution to the local economy, customs, cultural and heritage as well as a

5 secure national food supply.

6 • Forests, rangelands, and watersheds, in a healthy condition, are necessary and

7 beneficial for wildlife, livestock grazing, and other multiple-uses.

8 • Management programs and initiatives that increase forage for the mutual benefit

9 of the watersheds, livestock operations, and wildlife species should utilize all

10 proven techniques and tools.

11 • Most of the public lands in the District were classified as chiefly valuable for

12 livestock grazing and were withdrawn from operation of most of the public land

13 laws. The available forage was then allocated between wildlife and grazing

14 preference holders, such that the established grazing preference represented the

15 best professional judgment of the Bureau of Land Management at that time.

16 The government cannot properly change these decisions without amending the

17 original withdrawal and revising the land use plan based upon sound and valid

18 monitoring data.

19 • Forage allocated to livestock may not be reduced for allocation to other uses.

20 Current livestock allocation will be maintained.

21 • The government agencies should support financially the needed structural and

22 vegetation improvements to ensure there is sufficient forage, especially when

23 there is pressure from other land uses.

Page 16 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 • The continued viability of livestock operations and the livestock industry should

2 be supported on the federal lands within the District by management of the

3 lands and forage resources, by the proper optimization of animal unit months for

4 livestock, in accordance with supportable science and the multiple use

5 provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C

6 1701 et seq., the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 43 U.S.C. 1901

7 et seq.

8 • Land management plans, programs, and initiatives should provide that the

9 amount of domestic livestock forage, expressed in animal unit months, for

10 permitted, active use as well as wildlife forage, be no less than the maximum

11 number of animal unit months sustainable by range conditions in grazing

12 allotments and districts, based on an on-the-ground and scientific analysis.

13 • It opposes the relinquishment or retirement of grazing animal unit months in

14 favor of conservation easements, wildlife, horses and other uses.

15 • It opposes the transfer of grazing animal unit months to wildlife or horses.

16 • Any reductions in domestic livestock animal unit months must be temporary

17 and scientifically based upon rangeland conditions.

18 • Policies, plans, programs, initiatives, resource management plans, and forest

19 plans may not allow the placement of grazing animal unit months in a

20 suspended use category unless there is a rational and scientific determination

21 that the condition of the rangeland allotment or district in question will not

22 sustain the animal unit months proposed to be placed in suspended use.

Page 17 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 • Any grazing animal unit months that are placed in a suspended use category

2 should be returned to active use when range conditions improve.

3 • Policies, plans, programs, and initiatives related to vegetation management

4 should recognize and uphold the preference for domestic grazing over alternate

5 forage uses in established grazing districts while upholding management

6 practices that optimize and expand forage for grazing and wildlife in

7 conjunction with state wildlife management plans and programs in order to

8 provide maximum available forage for all uses

9 • In established grazing districts, animal unit months that have been reduced due

10 to rangeland health concerns should be restored to livestock when rangeland

11 conditions improve, and should not be converted to wildlife use.

12 • The proper management and allocation of forage on public lands is critical to

13 the viability of the District’s agriculture, recreation and tourism industry.

14 • Management of forage resources directly affects water quality and water yields.

15 • Increases in available forage resulting from conservation practice, improved

16 range condition, or development of improvements by the livestock operators or

17 other allocated forage user will be credited to that use.

18 • Increases in available forage resulting from practices or improvements

19 implemented by managing agencies will be allocated proportionately to all

20 forage allocations, unless the funding source specifies the benefactor.

21 • Upon termination of a permit, livestock permittee will be compensated for the

22 remaining value of improvements or be allowed to remove such improvements

23 that permittee made on his/her allotment.

Page 18 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 • Forage reductions resulting from forage studies, fire, drought or other natural 2 disasters will be implemented on an allotment basis and applied proportionately 3 based on the respective allocation to livestock, wildlife and wild horses. 4 Reductions resulting from forage studies will be applied to the use responsible 5 for the forage impact. 6 • Permittee may sell or exchange permits. Such transaction shall be promptly 7 processed. 8 • Changes in season of use or forage allocation must not be made without full and 9 meaningful consultation with permittee. 10 The permitted seasons of use set forth in a management plan may be adjusted 11 and still be in conformance with the plan if; 12 1. meeting, maintaining, or making progress towards meeting for range 13 management standards officially adopted by the managing agency 14 2. managing agency and the permittee sign an agreement documenting 15 monitoring plan 16 3. with coordination, consultation and cooperation, the managing agency 17 develop grazing management practices determined necessary including 18 those that provide for physiological requirements of desired plants. 19 • Livestock allocations must be protected from encroachment by wild horses and 20 wildlife. 21 • Permanent increase or decreases in grazing allocations reflecting changes in 22 available forage will be based on the vegetative type of available forage and 23 applied proportionately to livestock or wildlife based on their respective dietary 24 need.

Page 19 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 TIMBER / Fire

2 It is the District’s position that:

3 • All forested lands must be managed for sustained yield, where capability exist,

4 multiple use and forest health.

5 • Fire, timber harvesting, and treatment programs must be managed as to prevent

6 waste of forest products.

7 • Management programs must provide for fuel load management and fire control

8 to prevent catastrophic events and reduce fire potential at the urban and

9 industrial interface.

10 • Management and harvest programs must be sustainable and designed to provide

11 opportunities for local citizens and small business.

12 • It is the districts policy to protect timber resources and promote the continuation

13 of a sustainable wood products industry.

14 • Promote sale sizes that provide opportunities for a wide spectrum of producers

15 that allows for local entrepreneurship.

16 • Fire, both natural or prescribed, is a viable tool for vegetative treatment when

17 properly applied. However it should not replace harvest of timber products as

18 the primary method to manipulate forested areas and must not create waste of

19 forest products.

Page 20 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 LAND EXCHANGES, ACQUISITIONS, AND SALES

2 It is the District’s position that:

3 • A private property owner has a right to dispose of or exchange his property as

4 he/she sees fit within applicable law.

5 • Federal and state governments now hold sufficient land to protect the public

6 interest.

7 • There shall be no net loss of the private land base.

8 • No “net loss” shall be measured in acreage or fair market value.

9 • A private property owner should be protected from federal, state and county

10 encroachment and/or coerced acquisition.

11 • The County should be compensated for net loss of private lands with public lands

12 of equal value. Tax base resulting from exchanges shall be compensated for by

13 the appropriate acquiring agency.

14 • The District is to be consulted on any such actions.

15 • Lands must be made available for disposal under the Recreation and Public

16 Purposes Act and Special User Act in resource management plans and upon

17 request by an appropriate entity in accordance with the acts.

Page 21 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 RECREATION AND TOURISM

2 It is the District’s position that:

3 • The area has outstanding potential for further development of recreation and

4 tourism.

5 • Resource development, recreation, and tourism are compatible when properly

6 managed.

7 • Motorized, human, and animal-powered outdoor recreation should be integrated

8 into a fair and balanced allocation of resources within the historical and cultural

9 framework of multiple-uses in rural Wyoming, and outdoor recreation should be

10 supported as part of a balanced plan of state and local economic support and

11 growth;

12 • Potential developments should include family oriented activities and

13 developments that are accessible to the general public and not limited to special

14 interest groups.

15 • It supports cultivating recreational facility development and maintenance

16 partnerships with other entities, agencies and special interest groups.

Page 22 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 WILDLIFE

2 It is the District’s position that:

3 • With proper management and planning, healthy wildlife populations are not

4 incompatible with other resource development.

5 • Properly managed wildlife populations are important to the area’s recreation

6 and tourism economy and the preservation of the culture and lifestyles of its

7 residents.

8 • Predator and wildlife numbers must be controlled at levels that protects

9 livestock, private property and other wildlife species from loss or damage.

10 • Guidelines To Manage Sage Grouse And Their Habitat, John W. Connely,

11 Michael A. Schrorder, Alan R. Sands, and Clait E. Braun represent definitive

12 research on sage grouse and their habitat. This publication should be the basis

13 for the creation of any state or local sage grouse management plan.

14 • Any state or federal sage grouse study group must include a district

15 representative.

16 • Wildlife habitat must comply with Wyoming Healthy Rangeland Standards and

17 other standards that govern rangeland health. Wildlife populations must be

18 reduced when it has been determined that wildlife is responsible for habitat

19 degradation.

20 • Impacts of development can be mitigated more efficiently in a planned manner 21 through wildlife habitat mitigation banking. When implemented, this system 22 could provide much needed habitat for wildlife while providing for multiple 23 use.

Page 23 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 • Wildlife populations must not be increased until studies and analyses are

2 completed to determine the ability of forage resources to support population and

3 species trends, and impacts on other wildlife species has been assessed.

4 • It favors quickly and effectively adjusting wildlife population goals and

5 population census numbers in response to variations in the amount of available

6 forage caused by catastrophic events, drought, or other climatic adjustments.

7 • Reduction in forage allocation resulting from forage studies, drought, or other

8 natural disasters shall be shared proportionately by wildlife.

9 • Wildlife target levels and/or populations must not exceed available wildlife

10 forage as determined by proper monitoring.

11 • In evaluating a proposed introduction, or reintroduction, of wildlife species,

12 priority will be given to species that will provide increased recreational

13 activities.

Page 24 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 WILDERNESS DESIGNATIONS/ROADLESS

2 It is the District’s position that:

3 • The District’s support for any recommendations made under a statutory

4 requirement to examine the wilderness option during the revision of land and

5 resource management plans, or other methods will be withheld until it is clearly

6 demonstrated that:

7 o the duly adopted transportation plans of the state and county or counties

8 within the planning area are fully and completely incorporated into the

9 baseline inventory or information from which plan provisions are derived;

10 o valid state or local roads and rights-of-way are recognized and not

11 impaired in any way by the recommendations;

12 o the possibility of future development of mineral resources by

13 underground mining or oil and gas extraction by directional or horizontal

14 drilling or other non surface disturbing methods are not affected by the

15 recommendations;

16 o the need for additional administrative or public roads necessary for the

17 full use of the various multiple-uses, including recreation, mineral

18 exploration and development, forest health activities, and grazing

19 operations on adjacent land, or on subject lands for grand-fathered uses,

20 are not unduly affected by the recommendations;

21 o analysis and full disclosure is made concerning the balance of multiple-

22 use management in the proposed areas, and that the analysis compares the

23 full benefit of multiple-use management to the recreational, forest health,

Page 25 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 and economic needs of the state and the counties to the benefits of the

2 requirements of wilderness management; and

3 o the conclusion of all studies related to the requirement to examine the

4 wilderness option are submitted to the District for review and action, and

5 the results in support of or in opposition to, are included in any planning

6 documents or other proposals that are forwarded to the United States

7 Congress

8 o Areas must merit the suitable requirements contained in the Wilderness

9 Act of 1964 unless requirements are changed by congress.

10 • Managing public lands for “wilderness characteristics” circumvents the statutory

11 wilderness process and is inconsistent with the multiple-use and sustained-yield

12 management standard that applies to all Bureau of Land Management and U.S.

13 Forest Service lands that are not wilderness study areas.

14 • The only legal designations of Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) are those

15 designated under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and under section 603 of the

16 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). On Bureau of Land

17 Management Administered Lands the opportunity to create additional wilderness

18 ended in 1991 except as authorized by Congress.

19 • Some or all of the WSA designations pending before congress are legally and/or

20 technically flawed and the district will pursue that position when the WSAs go

21 before Congress for approval.

22 • The 1999 Wilderness Study Area Planning Project and the Wilderness Inventory 23 and Study Procedures H6310-1 were legally and technically flawed.

Page 26 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 • The public lands that were determined to lack wilderness character during 2 previous wilderness review processes cannot be managed as if they were 3 wilderness based on new or revised views of wilderness character. These areas 4 were studied and released and they must remain subject to the full range of 5 multiple uses. 6 • That any proposed wilderness designations in the District forwarded to congress 7 for consideration must be based on a collaborative process in which support for 8 the wilderness designation is unanimous among federal, state, district and county 9 officials. 10 • All Wilderness Study Areas (WSA’s) pending congress, which were not 11 recommended for wilderness designation by the Secretary of Interior, shall be 12 released and managed for multiple use and sustained yield. 13 • Wilderness designation is not an appropriate, effective, efficient, economic or 14 wise use of land. These lands can be adequately protected with existing 15 management options. 16 • The creation of wilderness limits access for the elderly and the physically 17 impaired. All wilderness management plans must provide for access for these 18 individuals to the fullest extent possible, and provided for by law. 19 • Wilderness management must provide for continued and reasonable access to and 20 development of property rights within the area and provide for full use and 21 enjoyment of these rights. 22 • Wilderness Study Areas released by Congress must be managed based on the 23 principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The management plans must be 24 amended in a timely manner to reflect change in status.

Page 27 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 OTHER SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 2 It is the District’s position that: 3 • It is clearly demonstrated that the proposed designation: 4 o is not a substitute for a wilderness suitability recommendation; 5 o is not a substitute for managing areas inventoried for wilderness 6 characteristics after 1993 under the BLM interim management plan for 7 valid wilderness study areas and; 8 o it is not an excuse or justification to apply de facto wilderness 9 management. 10 o That access and development of mineral resources have been fully 11 analyzed and such designations needs out weigh the loss of value of the 12 mineral resource. 13 • Special designations, such as wilderness, areas of critical environmental concern 14 (ACEC), wild and scenic rivers, critical habitat, semi primitive and non-motorized 15 travel, etc., when not properly planned and applied, often result in single purpose 16 or non-use and are detrimental to the area economy, life styles, culture, and 17 heritage. 18 • Needed protections can be provided by well planned and managed use. 19 • No special designations should be proposed until it is determined and 20 substantiated by verifiable scientific data that; a need exists for the designation, 21 protections cannot be provided by other methods, and the area in question is truly 22 unique when compared to other area lands. 23 • Designations must be made in accordance with the spirit and direction of the acts 24 and regulations that created them. 25 • Designations not properly planned or managed are inconsistent with the mandates 26 that public lands be managed for multiple use and sustained yield. 27

Page 28 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern [ACEC’S]

2 It is the District’s position that:

3 • The District’ support for designation of an Area of Critical Environmental

4 Concern (ACEC), as defined in 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702, within federal land

5 management plans will be withheld until:

6 o it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area satisfies all the

7 definitional requirements of the Federal Land Policy and

8 Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(a);

9 o it is clearly demonstrated that the area proposed for designation as an

10 ACEC is limited in geographic size and that the proposed

11 management prescriptions are limited in scope to the minimum

12 necessary to specifically protect and prevent irreparable damage to

13 the relevant and important values identified, or limited in geographic

14 size and management prescriptions to the minimum required to

15 specifically protect human life or safety from natural hazards;

16 o it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area is limited only to

17 areas that are already developed or used or to areas where no

18 development is required;

19 o it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area contains relevant

20 and important historic, cultural or scenic values, fish or wildlife

21 resources, or natural processes which are unique or substantially

22 significant on a regional basis, or contain natural hazards which

23 significantly threaten human life or safety;

Page 29 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 o the federal agency has fully analyzed regional values, resources,

2 processes, or hazards for irreparable damage and its potential causes

3 resulting from potential actions which are consistent with the

4 multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and the analysis describes

5 the rationale for any special management attention required to

6 protect, or prevent irreparable damage to the values, resources,

7 processes or hazards;

8 o it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed designation is consistent

9 with the plans and policies of the district where the proposed

10 designation is located.

11 o it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed ACEC designation will

12 not be applied redundantly over existing protections provided by

13 other state and federal laws for federal lands or resources on federal

14 lands, and that the federal statutory requirement for special

15 management addition to those specified by the other state and federal

16 laws;

17 o the difference between special management attention required for an

18 ACEC and normal multiple-use management has been identified and

19 justified, and that any determination of irreparable damage has been

20 analyzed and justified for short and long term horizons.

21

Page 30 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

2 • District support for the addition of a river segment to the National Wild and

3 Scenic Rivers System, 16 U.S.C. Sec.1271 et seq., will be withheld until:

4 o it is clearly demonstrated that water is present and flowing at all times;

5 o it is clearly demonstrated that the required water-related value is

6 considered outstandingly remarkable within a region of comparison, and

7 that the rationale and justification for the conclusions are disclosed.

8 o the plans and policies of the state, district and the county or counties

9 where the river segment is located are analyzed and properly considered

10 in the suitability phase of the evaluation,

11 o the effects of the addition upon the local and state economies, agricultural

12 and industrial operations and interests, outdoor recreation, water rights,

13 water quality, water resource planning, and access to and across river

14 corridors in both upstream and downstream directions from the proposed

15 river segment have been evaluated in detail by the relevant federal

16 agency;

17 o it is clearly demonstrated that the provisions and terms of the process for

18 review of potential additions have been applied in a consistent manner by

19 all federal agencies;

20 o the rationale and justification for the proposed addition, including a

21 comparison with protections offered by other management tools, is

22 clearly analyzed within the multiple-use mandate, and the results

23 disclosed;

Page 31 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 o it is clearly demonstrated that the federal agency with management 2 authority over the river segment, and which is proposing the segment for 3 inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System will not use the 4 actual or proposed designation as a basis to impose management 5 standards outside of the federal land management plan; 6 o it is clearly demonstrated that the terms and conditions of the federal land 7 and resource management plan containing a recommendation for 8 inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System; 9 • Evaluates all eligible river segments in the resource planning area completely for 10 suitability for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. 11 • Does not suspend or terminate any studies for inclusion in the National Wild and 12 Scenic River System at the eligibility phase. 13 • Fully disclaims any interest in water rights for the recommended segment as a 14 result of the adoption of the plan. 15 • Fully disclaims the use of recommendation for inclusion in the National Wild and 16 Scenic River System as a reason or rationale for an evaluation of impacts by 17 proposals for projects upstream, downstream, or within the recommended 18 segment, 19 • it is clearly demonstrated that the agency with management authority over the 20 river segment commits not to use an actual or proposed designation as a basis to 21 impose Visual Resource Management Class I or II management prescriptions that 22 do not comply with the provisions of Subsection (8)(t); and, 23 • it is clearly demonstrated that including the river segment and the terms and 24 conditions for managing the river segment as part of the National Wild and 25 Scenic River System will not prevent, reduce, impair, or otherwise interfere with: 26 ƒ the state and its citizens’ enjoyment of complete and exclusive 27 water rights in and to the rivers of the state as determined by the 28 laws of the state; or 29 ƒ local, state, regional, or interstate water compacts to which the 30 state or any county is a party.

Page 32 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 INTRODUCED, THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE

2 SPECIES, RECOVERY PLANS, EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS

3 It is the District’s position that:

4 • After desired wildlife population numbers are achieved, hunting must be the

5 preferred method of population control and to prevent wildlife movement outside

6 of their designated ranges.

7 • It is opposed to the creation or expansion of grizzly bear, wolf, wolverine, lynx

8 populations, habitats, protection, ranges or migration corridors.

9 • Any plan for the management of a predator that has naturally or through

10 introduction or re-introduction or other means repopulated the District must

11 provide for its control by any means when it travels outside it’s designated range

12 or becomes a threat to people, property, property rights, livestock, or other

13 wildlife species.

14 • Any plan that provides for the introduction, reintroduction, natural repopulation,

15 or the management of any predator must provide for timely compensation to

16 owners for direct and indirect cost associated with the loss of life, loss or damage

17 to livestock and property rights. Compensation must be equal to the actual value

18 of the loss (not limited to market value) and include cost associated with

19 development of such claims. Requirements placed on livestock producers to

20 verify the losses of livestock must not be overly restrictive and the producer must

21 be compensated for the cost of meeting such requirements.

Page 33 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 • Designations or reintroductions must not be allowed to grow beyond physical

2 boundaries and scope resulting in detrimental effects on the economy, life styles,

3 culture and heritage.

4 • No designations or reintroductions shall be made until it is determined and

5 substantiated by verifiable scientific data that; there is a need for such action,

6 protections cannot be provided other methods, and the area in question is truly

7 unique when compared to other area lands.

8 • Designation or reintroduction plans, guidelines, and protocols must not be

9 developed or implemented without full public disclosure and involvement of the

10 District.

11 • Recovery plans must provide indicators to track the effectiveness of the plan,

12 identify at what point recovery is accomplished and be self-terminating when the

13 point of recovery is reached.

14 • Recovery plans must contain provisions for management after the plan is

15 terminated.

Page 34 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 PUBLIC ACCESS/TRANSPORTATION

2 It is the District’s position that:

3 • Access to and across public lands is critical to the use, management, and

4 development of those lands and adjoining state and private lands.

5 • To the extent possible and provided for by law, provide access to public lands for

6 all users including the elderly and the physically impaired.

7 • No roads, trails, rights-of-way, easements or other traditional access for the

8 transportation of people, products, recreation, energy or livestock may be closed,

9 abandoned, withdrawn, or have a change of use without full public disclosure and

10 analysis.

11 • Future access must be planned and analyzed to determine its disposition at the

12 completion of its intended life to ensure access is maintained. In the event that

13 removal of access is deemed appropriate, resulting disturbances shall be

14 reclaimed.

15 • County roads on public lands shall remain open unless it has been determined by

16 the County that the subject road is no longer needed as part of the County’s

17 transportation system.

18 • Access to all water related facilities such as dams, reservoirs, delivery systems,

19 monitoring facilities, livestock water and handling facilities, etc., must be

20 maintained. This access must be economically feasible with respect to the

21 method and timing of such access.

Page 35 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 CULTURAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES 2 It is the District’s position that: 3 • All management decisions regarding cultural resources shall include appropriate 4 opportunities for participation by the district. 5 • All management decision providing for the protection of cultural resources must 6 be based on the quality and significance of that particular resource. 7 • Sites and trails will be allocated to other resource users based on their natural 8 and relative preservation value. Such use allocation must be based on cultural 9 resources not areas of land. 10 • Potential adverse effects to significant and high quality cultural resources will 11 be managed to the extent possible through avoidance and confidentiality of 12 location before for other protections are considered. 13 • Many sites represent a unique culture and are closely related to early religious 14 settlement of the area. They continue to have historical significance and are 15 held by many residents as reverent or consecrated sites. These sites must be 16 preserved and remain accessible. 17 • The preservation and perpetuation of heritage and culture is important to the 18 area economy as well as to the life styles and quality of life of the area residents. 19 • The maintenance of the resources and their physical attributes such as trails, 20 cabins, livestock facilities, etc., is critical to present and future tourism 21 development. 22 • The land, its people, and their heritage form an inseparable trinity for the 23 majority of the area residents and this relationship must be considered in all 24 proposed actions. 25 • Livestock grazing, the resulting lifestyles and imprint on the landscapes of the 26 west are some of the oldest enduring and economically important cultural and 27 heritage resources in the west, and must be preserved and perpetuated. 28 • It is the District’s position that the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 29 is the basis for cultural and historical preservation and defines federal agency’s 30 responsibility for protection and preservation of the District’s cultural and 31 heritage resources.

Page 36 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLES (OHV)

2 It is the District’s position that:

3 • Off –highway vehicles should be used responsibly, the management of off-

4 highway vehicles should be uniform across all jurisdictions to prevent

5 concentration on use on any particular jurisdiction.

6 • OHV’s have become an important segment of the Districts recreation industry

7 and is an important tool and mode of transportation for farmers, ranchers, and

8 resource development.

9 • It supports the current policies of open OHV areas.

10 • It will support limiting OHV use and travel to existing roads, trails, and

11 designated trail systems.

12 • When the necessity for a closure has been established, additional trails and areas

13 must be opened to offset the loss of that recreational opportunity.

14 • Public land management agencies must implement and maintain an aggressive

15 OHV education and enforcement program on reduction of resource impacts.

16 • The non-recreational use of OHVs, such as development and livestock

17 operations, must be provided for in all areas unless restricted by law.

Page 37 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 PALEONTOLOGY/ARCHEOLOGY/GEOLOGY

2 Remnants of early life forms, geological history and cultures have evolved as an

3 important segment of a local economy and have become the signature of the local

4 tourism trade. Considerable investment has been made in museums and visitors

5 centers to promote these important resources.

6 It is the District’s position that:

7 • All significant discoveries found in the area should remain here.

8 • Management Plans must provide opportunity for amateur collectors and

9 students of these sciences to study, explore for, and collect related items as

10 provided for by law.

11 • Public land management agencies should promote these resources with

12 educational material, signage, and information centers where appropriate.

Page 38 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 WILD HORSES 2 It is the District’s position that: 3 • It opposes the introduction or reintroduction of wild horses or burros on public 4 lands within the District. 5 • The presence of uncontrolled and improperly managed wild horses on public 6 lands adversely impact soil, water, wildlife and vegetative resources, spread 7 equine diseases, and are a threat to the domestic horse industry. In order to 8 prevent such impacts a herd management plan must be developed. 9 • Herd management plans must include provisions for periodic gathers of all 10 horses in the unit to limit populations to planned levels, to remove trespass 11 horses, and to test for equine diseases as prescribed by the Wyoming state 12 veterinarian and prevent habitat degradation. 13 • If not properly managed wild horse populations adversely affects the District’s 14 economy by spreading disease and reducing forage available for wildlife and 15 livestock. 16 • Wild horses assigned to herd units must be physically identified to ensure that 17 feral or fugitive horses are not assimilated into wild horse herds on public lands. 18 • All unauthorized feral horses are in trespass and must be removed from public 19 lands. 20 • Any future legally established herds must consist only of wild horses which 21 possess Spanish Barb characteristics. 22 • Horse management plans must contain provisions for the maintenance of the 23 health of wild horses and the prevention of equine diseases. 24 • No herds will be located in areas that do not provide barriers, natural or 25 otherwise, to prevent herd movement, trespass to private lands, or mingling with 26 domestic herds. 27 • As with livestock and wildlife, horses must be subject to Wyoming Rangeland 28 Standards that govern range land health.

Page 39 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCE

2 It is the District’s position that:

3 • In support of the National Energy Policy Act and to reduce the Nations

4 dependency on imported oil, all public lands must remain open to the greatest

5 extent possible for the exploration and development of energy and energy

6 related products. This is to be accomplished with full consideration of the

7 impacts to other public land resources and uses.

8 • Continued access to energy and mineral resources associated with public lands

9 is paramount to the well being of District residents and its economy, the state of

10 Wyoming, National Economy and Security.

11 • It is technically possible to permit appropriate access to mineral and energy

12 resources while protecting other resources from irreparable harm.

13 • Resource management planning should seriously consider all available mineral

14 and energy sources.

15 • The waste of fluid and gaseous minerals within developed areas should be

16 prohibited.

17 • Support for mineral development provisions within federal land management

18 plans will be withheld until the appropriate land management plan

19 environmental impact statement clearly demonstrates:

20 o that the authorized planning agency has;

21 ƒ considered and evaluated the mineral and energy potential in all

22 areas of the planning area as if the areas were open to mineral

23 development under standard lease agreements in order to

Page 40 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 establish a baseline from which the affect of management

2 prescriptions can be analyzed; and

3 ƒ evaluated any management plan prescription for its impact on the

4 area’s baseline mineral and energy potential;

5 o that the development provisions do not unduly restrict access to public

6 lands for energy exploration and development;

7 o that the authorized planning agency has supported any closure of

8 additional areas to mineral leasing and development or any increase of

9 acres subject to no surface occupancy restrictions by adhering to:

10 ƒ the relevant provisions of the Federal Land Policy and

11 Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq.;

12 ƒ other controlling mineral development laws; and

13 ƒ the controlling withdrawal and reporting procedures set forth in

14 the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.

15 sec. 1701 et seq.;

16 o that the authorized planning agency evaluated whether to repeal any

17 moratorium that may exist on the issuance of additional mining patents

18 and oil and gas leases;

19 o that the authorized planning agency analyzed all proposed mineral lease

20 stipulations and adopted the least restrictive necessary to protect against

21 damage to other significant resource values;

22 o that the authorized planning agency evaluated mineral lease restrictions 23 to determine whether to waive, modify, or make exceptions to the 24 restrictions on the basis that they are no longer necessary or effective;

Page 41 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 o that the authorized federal agency analyzed all areas proposed for no 2 surface occupancy restrictions, and that the analysis evaluated: 3 ƒ whether the directional drilling feasibility analysis, or analysis of 4 other management prescriptions, demonstrates that the proposed 5 no surface occupancy prescription, in effect, sterilizes the 6 mineral and energy resources beneath the area; and 7 ƒ whether, if the minerals are effectively sterilized, the area must 8 be reported as withdrawn under the provisions of the Federal 9 Land Policy and Management Act 10 o that the authorized planning agency has evaluated all directional drilling 11 requirements in no surface occupancy areas to determine whether 12 directional drilling is feasible from an economic, ecological, and 13 technical standpoint 14 • Any proposal or action taken by state or federal agencies that may result in 15 restrictions on reasonable and economical access to mineral resources shall be 16 opposed. 17 • Identification of energy and mineral potential and location is important for 18 planning future needs and resource management. Such potential must be fully 19 analyzed and impacts disclosed in any management or planning action. 20 • After environmental analysis, and as provided for in the governing resource 21 management plan, all tracts will be available and offered for lease or open to 22 claim as provided by law. 23 • All permits and applications must be processed on a timely basis. Procedures 24 and required contents of application must be provided to the applicant at the 25 time of application. 26 • To the extent technically and economically feasible, all produced water should 27 be recycled for use in drilling operations other development or reclamation 28 purposes.

Page 42 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 MITIGATION/HABITAT IMPROVEMENT 2 It is the District’s position that: 3 The best method for accomplishing well planned, successful, habitat 4 improvements or mitigation is through a local habitat collaborative planning group. 5 Facilitated by the District this group should consist of local governments, federal and 6 state resource managers, industry, and permittees interested in the creation of productive 7 and properly functioning habitats. 8 • Any conservation initiative, mitigation or compensatory mitigation programs or 9 studies must be coordinated with, and provide for full participation of the 10 District. 11 • All disturbances of habitats must be reclaimed as soon as feasible after impacts 12 have been created. 13 • All mitigation of surface disturbances must be accomplished on or adjoining the 14 site of disturbance. No off-site mitigation may be considered until onsite 15 opportunities have been exhausted or that proper analysis shows that habitat 16 losses can not be mitigated on site. 17 • Off-site mitigation is voluntary on the part of project proponents. 18 • Off-site mitigation must provide for the full involvement of the District. 19 • Off-site mitigation should not be permanent, but be of duration appropriate to 20 the anticipated impacts being mitigated. 21 • The most cost effective method of mitigation or habitat improvement is to pool 22 committed mitigation funds to fund larger efforts to mitigate the impacts of 23 multiple impacts. This can be accomplished through a mitigation banking 24 system which provides for the banking of dollars or mitigation credits. 25 • It favors habitat improvement projects that are jointly sponsored by cattlemen’s, 26 sportsmen’s, and wildlife groups such as chaining, logging, seeding, burning, 27 and other direct soil and vegetation prescriptions that are demonstrated to 28 restore forest and rangeland health, increase forage, and improve watersheds for 29 the mutual benefit of domestic livestock, wildlife, and watersheds.

Page 43 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 TRANSPORTATION

2 It is the District’s position that:

3 • Resource plans must provide for, at a minimum, a network of roads on public

4 lands that provides for:

5 o movement of people, goods, and services across public lands;

6 o access to federal lands for people with disabilities and the elderly;

7 o access to state lands and school and institutional trust lands to

8 accomplish the purposes of those lands;

9 o access to in holdings and for the development and use of property

10 rights;

11 o reasonable access to a broad range of resources and opportunities

12 throughout the resource planning area including:

13 ƒ search and rescue needs;

14 ƒ public safety needs;

15 ƒ predator control

16 o public safety

17 o access for people with disabilities and the elderly;

18 o recreational opportunities.

19 o Access, for resource maintenance and administration.

20 • Transportation and access provisions for all other existing routes, roads, and

21 trails across federal, state, and school trust lands within the state should be

22 determined and identified, and agreements should be executed and

Page 44 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 implemented, as necessary to fully authorize and determine responsibility for

2 maintenance of all routes, roads, and trails.

3 • The reasonable development of new routes and trails for motorized, human, and

4 animal-powered recreation should be implemented.

5 • The District opposes any additional evaluation of national forest service lands as

6 “roadless” or “unroaded” beyond the forest service’s second roadless area

7 review evaluation and opposes efforts by agencies to specially manage those

8 areas in a way that:

9 o closes or declassifies existing roads unless multiple side by side

10 roads exist running to the same destination and state and local

11 governments consent to close or declassify the extra roads;

12 o permanently bars travel on existing roads;

13 o excludes or diminishes traditional multiple-use activities, including

14 grazing and proper forest harvesting;

15 o interferes with the enjoyment and use of valid, existing rights,

16 including water rights, local transportation plan rights, grazing

17 allotment rights, and mineral leasing rights; or

18 o prohibits development of additional roads reasonably necessary to

19 pursue traditional multiple-use activities;

20 • District support for any forest plan revision or amendment will be withheld

21 until the appropriate plan revision or plan amendment clearly demonstrates that:

22 o established roads are not referred to as unclassified roads or a similar

23 classification;

Page 45 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 o lands in the vicinity of established roads are managed under the

2 multiple-use, sustained yield management standard; and

3 o no roadless or unroaded evaluations or inventories are recognized or

4 upheld beyond those that were recognized or upheld in the forest

5 service’s second roadless area review evaluation.

6 • It supports the development of additional roads reasonably necessary to

7 pursue traditional multiple-use activities:

8 • Proposed development plans must contain a transportation plan that clearly

9 identifies all roads within the project area by jurisdiction, identify roads or

10 road segments to be reconstructed or constructed, the standard to which the

11 roads will be constructed or maintained and who will construct and or

12 maintain them.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Page 46 of 47 Public Land Use Policies 1 Adoption of the

2 Sublette County

3 Conservation District

4 Public Land

5 Use Policies 6 7 8 On August 12, 2008 the Board of Supervisors for the Sublette County 9 Conservation District, as duly authorized by Wyoming Conservation District Law, hereby 10 adopt this Public Land Use Policies 11 12 13 14 ______15 Darrell Walker, Chairman 16 17 18 ______19 Brad Bousman, Vice Chairman 20 21 22 ______23 Craig Scharf, Treasurer 24 25 26 ______27 Colin Barney, Member 28 29 30 ______31 Les Burrough, Member 32 33

Page 47 of 47 Public Land Use Policies