United States Department of the interior Bureau of Land Management

Rawlins District Office March 1990 Lander Final Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement Lander Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement

( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Impact Statement

Type of Action: ( ) Administrative (X) Legislative

Responsible Agencies: Lead Agency: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Cooperating Agencies: None

Abstract

The Lander Final Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement analyzes six wilderness study areas (WSAs) in the Rawlins District to determine the re­ source impacts that could result from designation or nondesignation of those WSAs as wilderness. The following WSAs are recommended as nonsuitable for wilderness designation: Lankin Dome, WSA 030-120 (6,316 acres), Split Rock, 030-122 (12,749 acres), Savage Peak, 030-123a (7,041 acres), Miller Springs, 030-123b (6,429 acres), and Copper Mountain, 030-111 (6,858 acres). For the Sweetwater Canyon WSA, 030-101 (9,056 acres), 3,518 acres are rec­ ommended as nonsuitable for wilderness designation; the remaining portion (5,538 acres) is recommended for wilderness designation.

Comments have been requested and received from the following: See the “Consultation" section.

Date draft statement made available to the Environmental Protection Agency and the public. Draft EIS: Filed 11/7/85 Final EIS: United States Department of the interior JSraSTAKE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WYOMING STATE OFFICE P.O. BOX 1828 CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82003

Dear Reader: Enclosed is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in the Lander Resource Area of our Rawlins District. The WSAs include; Sweetwater Canyon, Lankin Dome, Split Rock, Miller Springs, Savage Peak, and Copper Mountain. You were sent this copy because of your past interest and participation in the review of the draft version of the EIS. The six areas described in this EIS were studied for possible wilderness designation under the authority of Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The Bureau of Land Management's recommendations for the six WSAs will be forwarded to the Secretary of Interior who will then forward his recommendations to the President. The President, in turn, will forward his recommendations to Congress. Only Congress can designate an area as wilderness. The next opportunity for public comment regarding whether or not these areas should be added to the wilderness system will be during the legislative process. Thank you for your interest in the Bureau's wilderness study. For further information, please contact: District Manager, Rawlins District Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 670, Rawlins, Wyoming 82301.

Sincerel;

Ray Brubaker Wyoming State Director FINAL

LANDER WILDERNESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the LANDER RESOURCE AREA

Prepared by: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Rawlins District Rawlins, Wyoming

1989

Wyoming State Director Date TABLE OF CONTENTS

SU M M AR Y...... 1

ABBREVIATIONS ...... 4

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PLANNING PROCESS . 5 Purpose and Need...... 5 Location ...... 5 Environmental Issue Identification/Scoping...... 7 Issues Selected for Analysis...... 7 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 7 Impacts on Development of Energy and Mineral Resources...... 7 Impacts on Recreation and Off-Road Vehicle Use in the Sweetwater Canyon WSA and the Copper Mountain W SA...... 7 Impacts on Local Ranching Operations...... 7 Issues Not Selected for Analysis...... 7 Impacts on Livestock Operations...... 8 Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species...... 8 Impacts on Prehistoric Resources...... 8 Impacts on Recreation in the Sweetwater Rocks WSA Complex ...... 8 Impacts on Historic Trails ...... 8 Impacts on Forest Management...... 8 Impacts on Water Quality in the Sweetwater Canyon W S A ...... 9 Impacts on Wildlife and Fisheries...... 9 Development of Alternatives...... 9

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES... 11 SWEETWATER CANYON ...... 11 Proposed Action (Partial Wilderness) ...... 11 Livestock Grazing Management...... 11 Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management...... 11 Recreation Management...... 13 Wildlife and Fisheries...... 13 Cultural Resources Management...... 13 No Wilderness Alternative...... 13 Livestock Grazing Management...... 13 Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management...... 13 Recreation Management...... 14 Wildlife and Fisheries...... 14 Cultural Resources Management...... 14 All Wilderness Alternative...... 14 Livestock Grazing Management...... 14 Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management...... 14 Recreation Management...... 14 Wildlife and Fisheries...... 14 Cultural Resources Management...... 14 LANKIN DOME...... 15 Proposed Action (No Wilderness)...... 15 Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management...... 15 Livestock Grazing Management...... 15 Recreation Management...... 15 Wildlife Management...... 15 Cultural Resources Management...... 15

i CONTENTS

All Wilderness Alternative...... 15 Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management...... 15 Livestock Grazing Management...... 15 Recreation Management...... 17 Wildlife Management...... 17 Cultural Resources Management...... 17 SPLIT ROCK...... 17 Proposed Action (No Wilderness)...... 17 Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management...... 17 Livestock Grazing Management...... 17 Recreation Management...... 17 Wildlife Management...... 17 Cultural Resources Management...... 17 All Wilderness Alternative...... 17 Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management...... 19 Livestock Grazing Management...... 19 Recreation Management...... 19 Wildlife Management...... 19 Cultural Resources Management...... 19 SAVAGE PEAK...... 19 Proposed Action (No Wilderness)...... 19 Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management...... 19 Livestock Grazing Management...... 19 Recreation Management...... 19 Wildlife Management...... 21 Cultural Resources Management...... 21 All Wilderness Alternative...... 21 Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management...... 21 Livestock Grazing Management...... 21 Recreation Management...... 21 Wildlife Management...... 21 Cultural Resources Management...... 21 MILLER SPRINGS...... 21 Proposed Action (No Wilderness)...... 21 Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management...... 21 Livestock Grazing Management...... 23 Recreation Management...... 23 Wildlife Management...... 23 Cultural Resources Management...... 23 All Wilderness Alternative...... 23 Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management...... 23 Livestock Grazing Management...... 23 Recreation Management...... 23 Wildlife Management...... 23 Cultural Resources Management...... 23 COPPER MOUNTAIN...... 24 Proposed Action (No Wilderness)...... 24 Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management...... 24 Livestock Grazing Management...... 24 Recreation Management...... 24 Wildlife Management...... 24 Cultural Resources Management...... 24 All Wilderness Alternative...... 26 Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management...... 26 Livestock Grazing Management...... 26

ii CONTENTS

Recreation Management...... 26 Wildlife Management...... 26 Cultural Resources Management...... 26

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...... 31 Unaffected Components of the Existing Environment...... 31 Affected Environment...... 31 SWEETWATER CANYON ...... 31 General Characteristics...... 31 Wilderness Values...... 31 Size...... 31 Naturalness...... 32 Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive, Unconfined Recreation...... 32 Special Features...... 33 Geology and Mineralization...... 33 Geology...... 33 Mineralization...... 34 Livestock G razing...... 35 Recreation...... 35 Wildlife/Fisheries...... 35 W ildlife...... 35 Fisheries ...... 40 Cultural Resources...... 40 LANKIN DOME...... 41 General Characteristics...... 41 Wilderness Values...... 41 Size...... 41 Naturalness...... 41 Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive, Unconfined Recreation...... 41 Special Features...... 42 Livestock G razing...... 42 Geology and Mineralization...... 42 Geology...... 42 Mineralization...... 43 Recreation...... 43 W ild life ...... 47 Cultural Resources...... 48 SPLIT ROCK...... 48 General Characteristics...... 48 Wilderness Values...... 48 Size...... 48 Naturalness...... 48 Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive, Unconfined Recreation...... 48 Special Features...... 49 Livestock G razing...... 49 Geology and Mineralization...... 49 Geology...... 49 Mineralization...... 51 Recreation...... 51 W ild life ...... 52 Cultural Resources...... 52

iii CONTENTS

SAVAGE PEAK...... 52 General Characteristics...... 52 Wilderness Values...... 53 Size...... 53 Naturalness...... 53 Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive, Unconfined Recreation...... 53 Special Features...... 53 Livestock Grazing...... 53 Geology and Mineralization...... 53 Geology...... 53 Mineralization...... 55 Recreation...... 55 Wildlife ...... 56 Cultural Resources...... 56 MILLER SPRINGS...... 56 General Characteristics...... 56 Wilderness Values...... 56 Size...... 56 Naturalness...... 56 Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive, Unconfined Recreation...... 57 Special Features...... 57 Livestock Grazing...... 57 Geology and Mineralization...... 57 Geology...... 57 Mineralization...... 57 Recreation...... 59 W ildlife...... 59 Cultural Resources...... 59 COPPER MOUNTAIN...... 60 General Characteristics...... 60 Wilderness Values...... 60 Size...... 60 Naturalness...... 60 Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive, Unconfined Recreation...... 60 Special Features...... 61 Livestock Grazing...... 61 Geology and Mineralization...... 61 Geology...... 61 Mineralization...... 64 Recreation...... 64 Wildlife ...... 66 Cultural Resources...... 66

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 67 SWEETWATER CANYON ...... 67 Proposed Action (Partial Wilderness) ...... 67 Recommended Portion...... 67 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 67 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 67 Impacts on Recreational ORV Use ...... 68

iv CONTENTS

Nonrecommended Portion ...... 68 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 68 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 68 Impacts on Recreational ORV Use ...... 68 Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided...... 69 Relationship Between Short-term Use of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement or Long-term Productivity ...... 69 Irreverisble and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 69 No Wilderness Alternative...... 69 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 69 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 70 Impacts on Recreational ORV Use ...... 70 All Wilderness Alternative...... 70 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 70 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 71 Impacts on Recreational ORV Use ...... 71 LANKIN DOME...... 71 Proposed Action—No Wilderness (No A ction)...... 71 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 71 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 72 Impacts on Local Ranching Operations...... 72 Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided...... 72 Relationship Between Short-term Use of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement or Long-term Productivity ...... 72 Irreverisble and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 72 All Wilderness Alternative...... 72 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 72 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 73 Impacts on Local Ranching Operations...... 73 SPLIT ROCK...... 74 Proposed Action—No Wilderness (No A ction)...... 74 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 74 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 74 Impacts on Local Ranching Operations...... 74 Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided...... 75 Relationship Between Short-term Use of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement or Long-term Productivity ...... 75 Irreverisble and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 75 All Wilderness Alternative...... 75 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 75 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 75 Impacts on Local Ranching Operations...... 76

v CONTENTS

SAVAGE PEAK...... 76 Proposed Action—No Wilderness (No Action)...... 76 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 76 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 77 Impacts on Local Ranching Operations...... 77 Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided...... 77 Relationship Between Short-term Use of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement or Long-term Productivity ...... 77 Irreverisble and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 77 All Wilderness Alternative...... 78 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 78 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 78 Impacts on Local Ranching Operations...... 78 MILLER SPRINGS...... 79 Proposed Action (No Wilderness)...... 79 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 79 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 79 Impacts on Local Ranching Operations...... 79 Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided...... 79 Relationship Between Short-term Use of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement or Long-term Productivity ...... 80 Irreverisble and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 80 All Wilderness Alternative...... 80 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 80 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 80 Impacts on Local Ranching Operations...... 80 COPPER MOUNTAIN...... 81 Proposed Action (No Wilderness)...... 81 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 81 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 81 Impacts on Recreational ORV Use ...... 81 Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided...... 82 Relationship Between Short-term Use of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement or Long-term Productivity ...... 82 Irreverisble and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 83 All Wilderness Alternative...... 83 Impacts on Wilderness Values ...... 83 Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources ...... 83 Impacts on Recreational ORV Use ...... 83

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 85 Introduction...... 85 Consistency...... 85 List of Preparers...... 85

vi CONTENTS

Consultation...... 87 Public Comments and Responses on the Draft EIS ...... 88 Comments and Responses...... 93 Hearing Transcripts...... 159

APPENDIXES A. Wilderness Protection Stipulations...... 173 B. Standard Protection Requirements...... 175 C. Geologic Time Scale...... 179 GLOSSARY ...... 181 REFERENCES...... 183

PHOTOS 1. Sweetwater Canyon in late fall...... 32 2. Sweetwater Canyon...... 33 3. Lankin Dom e...... 42 4. Split Rock...... 49 5. Sedimentary Outcrop in Copper Mountain WSA...... 60 6. Juniper-Covered Slopes in Copper Mountain WSA...... 61

MAPS 1. General Location...... 6 2. Proposed Action - Sweetwater Canyon...... 12 3. Proposed Action - Lankin Dome...... 16 4. Proposed Action - Split Rock...... 18 5. Proposed Action - Savage Peak...... 20 6. Proposed Action - Miller Springs ...... 22 7. Proposed Action - Copper Mountain...... 25 8. Mineral Resource Potential - Sweetwater Canyon...... 36 9. Mining Claims - Sweetwater Canyon...... 37 10. Grazing Allotments - Sweetwater Canyon...... 39 11. Grazing Allotments - Sweetwater Rocks...... 45 12. Grazing Allotments - Copper Mountain...... 63 13. Oil and Gas Leases, Mining Claims - Copper Mountain...... 65

TABLES 1. Areas Being Studied for Wilderness...... 5 2A. Comparative Analysis of Impacts, Sweetwater Canyon...... 27 2B. Comparative Analysis of Impacts, Lankin Dome...... 27 2C. Comparative Analysis of Impacts, Split Rock...... 28 2D. Comparative Analysis of Impacts, Savage Peak ...... 28 2E. Comparative Analysis of Impacts, Miller Spring...... 29 2F. Comparative Analysis of Impacts, Copper Mountain...... 29 3. Livestock Grazing Allotments in Sweetwater Canyon WS A ------38 4. Livestock Grazing Allotments in Lankin Dome WSA...... 44 5. Oil and Gas Leases in Lankin Dome WSA...... 47 6. Livestock Grazing Allotments in Split Rock W S A ...... 50 7. Oil and Gas Leases in Split Rock WSA...... 51 8. Livestock Grazing Allotments in Savage Peak W SA...... 54 9. Livestock Grazing Allotments in Miller Springs W SA...... 58 10. Livestock Grazing Allotments in Copper Mountain WSA ...... 62

vii SUMMARY

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ana­ No Wilderness Alternative lyzes the impacts that would result from designating or not designating six wilderness study areas All 9,056 acres of the Sweetwater Canyon WSA (WSAs) as wilderness. The proposed action recom­ would be recommended as nonsuitable for wilder­ mends a nonwilderness designation for five of the ness designation. WSAs: WSA 030-120, Lankin Dome (6,316 acres), WSA 030-122 Split Rock (12,749 acres), WSA The major impacts under this alternative relate to 030-123a Savage Peak (7,041 acres), WSA 030-123b the potential loss of wilderness values over the long Miller Springs (6,429 acres), and WSA 030-111 term. Here, wilderness values would not be assured Copper Mountain (6,858 acres). The proposed long-term protection under the provisions of the action also recommends a portion of WSA 030-101 1964 Wilderness Act. Assessment work on existing Sweetwater Canyon for nonwilderness designation claims covering about 1,000 acres would not have (3,518 acres) and a portion for wilderness designa­ a significant impact on wilderness values. tion (5,538 acres). Several significant environmental issues devel­ All Wilderness Alternative oped in the study process. Issues common to all WSAs include: (1) impacts on wilderness values and All 9,056 acres of the Sweetwater Canyon would (2) impacts on the development of energy and min­ be recommended for wilderness designation. eral resources. For Sweetwater Conyon and Copper Mountain an issue of impacts on recreation use was Under this alternative, wilderness values would be developed. For the Sweetwater Rocks WSA com­ protected in the entire WSA. The WSA would be with­ plex, an issue of impacts on local ranching opera­ drawn from mineral entry, so that future opportuni­ tions was developed. ties to explore for and develop locatable mineral resources would be forgone on 9,056 acres. The alternatives for each WSA and the significant impacts are summarized below. Lankin Dome

ALTERNATIVES AND Proposed Action (No Wilderness)

SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS BY Under the Proposed Action, the entire 6,316-acre WSA Lankin Dome WSA would be recommended as non­ suitable for wilderness designation. Wilderness values in the entire WSA would not be Sweetwater Canyon assured long-term protection under the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Annual assessment work on one existing jade mining claim is the only man­ Proposed Action (Partial Wilderness) agement action anticipated; this action would not affect wilderness values. No other management As stated above, the Proposed Action would rec­ actions are anticipated that would affect wilderness ommend 5,538 acres for wilderness designation and values in the WSA. 3,518 acres for nonwilderness. Significant impacts under the Proposed Action relate to the retention of wilderness values and the All Wilderness Alternative development of locatable mineral deposits. Wil­ derness values would be retained on 5,538 acres, All 6,316 acres of the Lankin Dome WSA would be which include the river canyon itself. The same area recommended for wilderness designation. would be withdrawn from all forms of mineral entry Wilderness values would be given long term pro­ so that future opportunities to explore for and tection in the entire WSA. Because the entire WSA develop locatable minerals would be forgone on would be designated wilderness, all of its 6,316 acres 5,538 acres. The remaining 3,518 acres of nonwilder- would be withdrawn from mineral entry. Assessment ness would be available for mineral entry, but no work would continue on the existing jade claim. A activity other than annual assessment work on exist­ slight increase in recreation use in the WSA and dis­ ing mining claims is anticipated. placement of vehicle-dependent recreation onto adjacent private land would result in an additional ten contacts between recreationists and land- owners.

1 SUMMARY

slight increase in visitation in the WSA and displace­ Split Rock ment of vehicle-dependent recreation onto adjacent private lands would result in an additional ten con­ Proposed Action (No Wilderness) tacts between recreationists and landowners.

Under the Proposed Action, the entire 12,789-acre Split Rock WSA would be recommended as nonsuit- Miller Springs able for wilderness designation. Wilderness values in the entire WSA would not be Proposed Action (No Wilderness) assured long-term protection under the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Annual assessment work Under the Proposed Action, the entire 6,429-acre on one existing jade mining claim is the only man­ Miller Springs WSA would be recommended as non- agement action anticipated; this action would not suitable for wilderness designation. affect wilderness values. No other management actions are anticipated that would affect wilderness Wilderness values in the entire WSA would not be values in the WSA. assured long-term protection under the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Annual assessment work on one existing jade mining claim is the only man­ All Wilderness Alternative agement action anticipated; this action would not affect wilderness values. No other management All 12,789 acres of the Split Rock WSA would be actions are anticipated that would affect wilderness recommended for wilderness designation. values in the WSA. Wilderness values would be given long term pro­ tection in the entire WSA. Because the entire WSA All Wilderness Alternative would be designated wilderness, all of its 12,789 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry. As­ All 6,429 acres of the Miller Springs WSA would sessment work would continue on the existing jade be recommended for wilderness designation. claim. A slight increase in visitation in the WSA and displacement of vehicle-dependent recreation onto Wilderness values would be given long term pro­ adjacent private land would result in an additional tection in the entire WSA. Because the entire WSA 15 contacts between recreationists and landowners. would be designated wilderness, all of its 6,429 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry. Assessment work would continue on the existing jade claim. A Savage Peak slight increase in recreation use in the WSA and dis­ placement of vehicle-dependent recreation onto adjacent private lands would result in an additional Proposed Action (No Wilderness) five contacts between recreationists and land- owners. Under the Proposed Action, the entire 7,041-acre Savage Peak WSA would be recommended as non- suitable for wilderness designation. Copper Mountain WSA Wilderness values in the entire WSA would not be assured long-term protection under the provisions Proposed Action (No Wilderness) of the 1964 Wilderness Act. However, no manage­ ment actions are anticipated that would affect wilder­ Under the Proposed Action, the entire 6,858-acre ness values in the WSA. Copper Mountain WSA would be recommended as nonsuitable for wilderness. All Wilderness Alternative Significant impacts relate to the retention of wilder­ ness values and development of oil and gas All 7,041 acres of the Savage Peak WSA would be resources. The entire WSA would be open to all recommended for wilderness designation. forms of mineral entry and leasing. It is expected that a small oil and gas field, consisting of four producing Wilderness values would be given long term pro­ wells, would be developed over the long term along tection in the entire WSA. Because the entire WSA the southern edge of the WSA. Because of antici­ would be designated wilderness, all of its 12,789 pated oil and gas field development, naturalness and acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry. A solitude would be lost on 840 acres.

2 SUMMARY

All Wilderness Alternative would be designated wilderness, all of its 6,858 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry and leasing. All 6,858 acres of the Copper Mountain WSA There would be no oil and gas field development. would be recommended for wilderness designation. Future opportunities to explore for and develop min­ eral resources would be forgone on 6,858 acres. Wilderness values would be retained over the entire 6,858-acre WSA. Because the entire WSA

3 ABBREVIATIONS

AUM Animal Unit Month BLM Bureau of Land Management CFR Code of Federal Regulations EIS Environmental Impact Statement FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act (of 1976) NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (of 1969) NHT National Historic Trail NSO No Surface Occupancy (a stipulation on an oil and gas lease) NWPS National Wilderness Preservation System ORV Off-road Vehicle RMP Resource Management Plan (BLM land use plan under FLPMA) SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department WSA Wilderness Study Area

4 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND PLANNING PROCESS

According to FLPMA, the Secretary of the Interior PURPOSE AND NEED must report his recommendations to the President by October 21, 1991. The President has until Oc­ This Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement tober 21,1993, to send his recommendations to Con­ (EIS) is being prepared in response to Section 603 gress. Only Congress has the authority to designate of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of any of the study areas as wilderness or release them 1976 (FLPMA). This law directs the Bureau of Land from study status as nonsuitable. Management (BLM) to inventory, study, and report to Congress, through the Secretary of the Interior The purpose of this EIS is to analyze the effects and the President, the public lands preliminarily on present or potential resource uses that would determined to be suitable for inclusion in the result from wilderness designation or nondesigna­ National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). tion of six WSAs in central Wyoming. They are Sweet­ water Canyon WSA, Copper Mountain WSA, and The BLM has established the end of fiscal year four WSAs collectively known as the Sweetwater 1991 as its goal for completing wilderness studies Rocks WSAs: Lankin Dome, Split Rock, Savage and reporting to the Secretary of the Interior the suit­ Peak, and Miller Springs. The six WSAs considered ability or nonsuitability of all wilderness study areas in this EIS constitute approximately 2% of the public (WSAs) for wilderness designation. This EIS satis­ land in the Lander Resource Area and cover a total fies the study requirements for six of the 40 BLM wil­ of 48,489 acres. Table 1 lists the areas and acreages derness study areas in Wyoming. under wilderness study in the Lander Resource Area.

TABLE 1 AREAS BEING STUDIED FOR WILDERNESS IN THE LANDER RESOURCE AREA

Total Acres Recommended Study Area Number Acreage Suitable Nonsuitable

Sweetwater Canyon WY-030-101 9,056 5,538 3,383 Lankin Dome WY-030-120 6,316 0 6,316 Split Rock WY-030-122 12,789 0 12,789 Savage Peak WY-030-123a 7,041 0 7,041 Miller Springs WY-030-123b 6,429 0 6,429 Copper Mountain WY-030-111 6,858 0 6,858 Total 48,489 5,538 42,816

graphic and natural features in these areas are LOCATION diverse, ranging from mountains of granite that are nearly barren of vegetation to sagebrush-grassland The six WSAs being studied are in Fremont and prairies, to juniper woodlands, to a deep and rugged Natrona counties, Wyoming. Lankin Dome, Split canyon. Elevations range from a low of approxi­ Rock, Miller Springs, and Savage Peak WSA are all mately 6,000 feet on the Sweetwater River near Dev­ about 60 miles west southwest of Lander. The Sweet­ il's Gate to more than 8,000 feet on the summit of water Canyon is about 40 miles south southwest of McIntosh Peak, the highest point in the Sweetwater Lander, and the Copper Mountain WSA is about 50 Rocks WSAs. miles northeast of Lander (see map 1). The topo­ 5 Map 1 General Location Wilderness Study Areas PLANNING PROCESS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE Impacts on Recreation and Off-Road IDENTIFICATION/SCOPING Vehicle Use in the Sweetwater Canyon WSA and the Copper Mountain WSA

The scoping process for the Lander Wilderness Wilderness designation would eliminate the use of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) encom­ recreational off-road vehicles (ORVs) in the Sweet­ passes issues identified by the BLM staff, the public, water Canyon WSA. Because most ORV use in the and government agencies at all levels. Scoping WSA is in support of other activities such as hunting occurred throughout the development of the Lander and fishing, elimination of vehicles in the WSA could Resource Management Plan (USDI, BLM 1986); affect the availability of other recreation opportuni­ numerous meetings were held with individuals, inter­ ties in the WSA and shift ORV uses currently occur­ est groups, industry representatives, and govern­ ring in the WSA to adjacent public and private lands ment agencies. (see Map 2 in Chapter 2). Elimination of ORVs might The draft Lander Wilderness EIS was released for also help preserve opportunities for nonmotorized public review and comment in November 1985. The forms of recreation. The impact of wilderness desig­ formal comment period was open until mid- nation on recreation and ORV use in the vicinity of February 1986. Public hearings were held on the Sweetwater Canyon WSA is an issue for analysis December 11 and 12,1985, in Dubois, Wyoming and in this EIS. Lander, Wyoming, respectively. During the scoping process, consultation contin­ Impacts on Local Ranching Operations ued with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concerning the presence or absence If the WSAs in the Sweetwater Rocks complex of sites in the WSAs that would be eligible for nom­ (Lankin Dome, Split Rock, Miller Springs, and Sav­ ination for listing on the “National Register of His­ age Peak WSAs) were designated wilderness, toric Places.” Consultation with the U.S. Fish and vehicle-dependent recreation use could be dis­ Wildlife Service concerning the threatened or endan­ placed onto adjacent private lands that surround the gered species has occurred. The environmental WSAs (illustrated on Map 2 in Chapter 2) as a result issues selected for analysis in this EIS follows. of the ORV elimination inherent in a wilderness des­ ignation. In addition, it is estimated that nonmoto­ rized forms of recreation would increase slightly (ap­ Issues Selected for Analysis proximately 5%) after designation of the WSAs as wilderness. More people would become aware of the areas because they lie adjacent to a major tourist Impacts on Wilderness Values route to Yellowstone National Park. The areas would probably be portrayed in promotional materials to The wilderness values of naturalness, solitude, entice travelers to use this route to get to the national and primitive recreation could benefit from wilder­ park. These two factors could result in increased con­ ness designation. The same values may be adversely tacts between adjacent landowners and recreation­ affected by uses and actions that would occur ists seeking permission to cross private land or in should the WSAs not be designated wilderness. The trespass. This would, in turn, be disruptive to the degree to which these values would or would not be adjacent landowner's ranching operation. There­ preserved is an issue for analysis in the EIS. fore, the effect of wilderness designation of these WSAs on recreation use and the impacts to adjacent landowners is an issue for analysis in this EIS. Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources Issues Not Selected for Analysis Wilderness designation could affect the ability to explore for and develop mineral resources by with­ The following issues were identified in scoping, drawing designated lands from mineral leasing and but were not selected for detailed analysis in the EIS. entry. The effect of wilderness designation on the The reasons for setting the issues aside are dis­ development of mineral resources is an issue for cussed below. analysis in the EIS.

7 PLANNING PROCESS

Impacts on Livestock Operations Alternative would not cause significant impacts to the sites, this issue was dropped from further anal­ Concerns were raised that wilderness designation ysis. could reduce or eliminate livestock grazing in the WSAs. For operators in the four Sweetwater Rocks WSAs and the Copper Mountain WSA, no change Impacts on Recreation in the Sweetwater is anticipated due to wilderness designation. BLM's Rocks WSA Complex management of grazing in these areas would essen­ tially be the same, with or without wilderness desig­ The issue of impacts on recreation from wilder­ nation. Therefore, this issue was not selected for fur­ ness designation or nondesignation in the Sweet­ ther analysis. water Rocks WSA complex (Lankin Dome, Split In the Sweetwater Canyon WSA, conflicts Rock, Savage Peak, and Miller Springs) was not between recreation users and livestock in the can­ selected for analysis. Impacts on recreation use in yon bottom may result in more BLM management these WSAs are described under “ Impacts on Local concern. Recreationists may want a total elimination Ranching Operations." The two issues are interre­ of livestock from the canyon, or may want a change lated in that projected changes in use patterns and in the season of use to avoid the heavily used recreation management actions affect both, but the summer months. Livestock operators may want the impacts are best described under "Impacts on Local BLM to significantly reduce visitation by using some Ranching Operations." As a result, this issue was not type of limited quota permit system. Given that vis­ selected for analysis. However, recreation manage­ itor use is not predicted to increase substantially and ment will be described for each alternative in Chap­ livestock numbers are not likely to change due to wil­ ter 2 and again in Chapter 3. derness designation, the level of conflict is not expected to rise as a direct result of either designa­ tion or nondesignation. As a result, this issue was Impacts on Historic Trails not selected for analysis. Concerns were raised by the public about the However, because livestock grazing is a major effects that wilderness designation or nondesigna­ activity in all of the WSAs, livestock management in tion may have on the protection of historic trails the WSAs will be described for each alternative in within or adjacent to the WSAs. Although the Ore­ Chapter 2 and again in Chapter 3. gon and Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails (NHT) and the proposed Pony Express NHT make up a small portion of the Sweetwater Canyon WSA's Impacts on Threatened or Endangered northern boundary (less than two miles), they do not Species enter the WSA. Similarly, none of the historic trails enter the Lankin Dome, Split Rock, Savage Peak, or Wildlife and vegetation inventories and consulta­ Miller Springs WSAs, nor do the trails help form the tion with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicate WSAs’ boundaries. Management of the NHTs would that no threatened or endangered species are known remain unchanged regardless of whether or not any to occur in the WSAs. Therefore, this issue was of the WSAs were designated wilderness. dropped from further consideration. Further, the two Oregon Trail withdrawals (one in Sweetwater Canyon WSA for the 1824 South Pass discovery brigade camp, and the other in Split Rock Impacts on Prehistoric Resources WSA for the Split Rock National Register Site) are both closed to all forms of mineral entry and leasing, Consultation with the State Historic Preservation and this would remain the same with or without wil­ Office during scoping and review of existing inven­ derness. tory information indicate that the WSAs do contain prehistoric resource sites. The prehistoric sites Because the NHTs and their related sites would within the WSAs that appear to be eligible for inclu­ be unaffected and remain unchanged by wilderness sion on the National Register would be protected designation or nondesignation, this issue was under current law with or without wilderness desig­ dropped from further analysis. nation. Prior to any surface disturbing activity, an on-site cultural resource survey of the project area would be conducted and adverse impacts to signif­ Impacts on Forest Management icant cultural resource sites would be mitigated. Be­ cause developments even under the No Wilderness None of the WSAs described in this EIS contain commercial timber resources or forested lands. Therefore, this issue was dropped from further con­ sideration.

8 PLANNING PROCESS

Impacts on Water Quality in the For Sweetwater Canyon, a Partial Wilderness alter­ native was analyzed. The Partial Wilderness alterna­ Sweetwater Canyon WSA tive, which is the Proposed Action, would resolve some of the conflicts of vehicle access and would Concerns were raised regarding how water quality preserve the canyon itself as wilderness. This alter­ would be affected by wilderness designation or non­ native would preserve as wilderness that part of the designation in the Sweetwater Canyon WSA. This WSA generally inaccessible to vehicles. The alterna­ was dropped from analysis in the EIS because the tive would help resolve the management problem of primary influence on water quality in this WSA (live­ unauthorized vehicle use in designated wilderness stock grazing) would not vary significantly with by eliminating that portion where vehicle use is not either designation or nondesignation. Other activi­ easily controllable by natural terrain. Alternatives ties, such as mining claim assessment work, would include: (a) No Wilderness; and (b) All Wilderness. be of such small scale and would affect such a small area that their influence on water quality would be The alternatives considered for Lankin Dome, negligible. Split Rock, Savage Peak, and Miller Springs WSAs were All Wilderness and No Wilderness which is the Proposed Action for these WSAs. Impacts on Wildlife and Fisheries In the Copper Mountain WSA, only two alterna­ Concerns regarding impacts of wilderness desig­ tives were considered reasonable, All Wilderness nation or nondesignation on wildlife and fisheries and No Wilderness. The No Wilderness alternative were raised during the formal comment period. This is the Proposed Action for the Copper Mountains issue was dropped from further analysis in the EIS WSA. because projected developments in the six WSAs Partial wilderness alternatives that would recom­ would not result in any significant change to any spe­ mend for wilderness something less than the entire cific wildlife population or fishery, with or without acreage of the Lankin Dome, Split Rock, Savage wilderness designation. However, because of the Peak, Miller Springs, and Copper Mountain WSAs public concern regarding wildlife and fisheries in the were considered but not analyzed as separate alter­ WSAs, wildlife and fisheries management will be dis­ natives. Reducing thesize would not significantly re­ cussed for each WSA in Chapter 2 and again in Chap­ duce resource conflicts, improve the quality of the ter 3 (fisheries for Sweetwater Canyon only). wilderness values, or improve the WSAs' managea­ bility while maintaining essential wilderness attri­ butes. However, when the four Sweetwater Rocks WSAs DEVELOPMENT OF are viewed in combination, Congress could choose ALTERNATIVES to designate any number of them as wilderness. Thus the No Wilderness and All Wilderness alterna­ tives presented for each WSA in this EIS do repre­ To analyze the six WSAs adequately for wilder­ sent several possible Partial Wilderness alternatives ness suitability, the BLM developed a set of alterna­ that are available to Congress. tives that were considered reasonable for each WSA. In each WSA, two required alternatives, All Wilder­ ness and No Wilderness, were analyzed.

9 CHAPTER 2

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Since the pattern of future actions cannot be pre­ Oil, Gas, and Other Minerals dicted with certainty, assumptions must be made to allow impact analysis to be performed. These as­ Management sumptions are the basis of the scenarios developed There is no potential for oil and gas in the Sweet­ in this impact statement. They are not management water Canyon WSA. There are no oil and gas leases plans or proposals, but are believed to represent rea­ in the WSA. No leasing, exploration, or development sonable patterns of activities which could occur as would be allowed on the 5,538 acres recommended a result of this action. for wilderness. The remaining 3,518 acres would be open to leasing according to standard protection requirements (see Appendix C). Because of the area's lack of potential for oil and gas, no exploration SWEETWATER CANYON is expected. No locatable mineral development is anticipated Proposed Action (Partial in the Sweetwater Canyon WSA. There are claims covering about 720 acres of the 5,538 acres pro­ Wilderness) posed for wilderness. Before any work could be done on these claims, the BLM would initiate validity Under the Partial Wilderness alternative, a examinations to determine if any had a valid discov­ 5,538-acres portion of the 9,056 acres of Sweetwater ery on or before the date that the area was desig­ Canyon WSA would be recommended for wilder­ nated wilderness. It is assumed that the claims ness designation (see Map 2). The boundary has would hold valid discoveries and would thus remain been changed from the draft EIS to follow legal sub­ as valid claims. However, based on known resource divisions. This reduced the area by 222 acres. The values in this portion of the WSA, it is anticipated area proposed for wilderness designation would that the only activity on these claims would be the include the “core area,” or the canyon itself. The annual assessment work necessary to keep the remaining 3,518 acres of the WSA would be man­ claims current. For placer claims, this would include aged for multiple uses other than wilderness. activities such as panning and using small, hand- operated sluice boxes. For lode claims, activities would include hand-sampling of small amounts of Livestock Grazing Management ore for assessment. No vehicular access or motor­ ized equipment would be necessary. No large-scale Livestock would continue to be managed as development is expected. Annual assessment work described in the Green Mountain rangeland pro­ would disturb a maximum of 5 acres over the long gram summary (USDI, BLM 1983a). There are two term. grazing allotments in the Sweetwater Canyon WSA, Green Mountain Common (allotment 2001) and On the basis of current information, large-scale Silver Creek (allotment 1903). These two allotments exploration and development of locatable minerals produce 597 animal unit months (AUMs) of forage is not anticipated on the 3,518 acres recommended in the 5,538 acres proposed for designation and 362 for nonwilderness; however, the area would con­ AUMs in the 3,518 acres proposed for nonwilder­ tinue to remain open to mineral entry and mining ness. under existing mining law. About 280 acres are cov­ ered by mining claims at present in the portion rec­ No management actions are proposed for the fore­ ommended for nonwilderness. Although no develop­ seeable future in this alternative that would change ment of these claims is anticipated, annual kind of livestock, numbers, or season of use. No assessment work such as that described earlier range improvement projects are planned for the would disturb a maximum of 5 acres over the long area. No motorized equipment would be allowed in term. the portion of the WSA recommended for wilderness designation.

11 WSA Boundary

Federal Land

State Land

Private Land

• • • Area Proposed for Wilderness

Map 2 Proposed Action (Partial Wilderness) Sweetwater Canyon PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Recreation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Under the Proposed Action, the 5,538 acres recom­ Management of grazing would be the same as in mended for wilderness would be closed to off-road the Proposed Action, with portions of two allotments vehicles (ORVs), and motorized forms of recreation in the WSA providing 959 AUMs of grazing. No man­ would be excluded. Approximately 2 miles of two- agement actions are proposed at this time that track access would be closed. The portion of the would change the kinds of livestock, numbers, orsea- WSA recommended for wilderness would be open sons of use. Motorized equipment would be allowed, to other recreation activities, including hunting, fish­ with vehicle use restricted to existing trails. ing, camping, photography, and sightseeing. Recre­ ational use for these activities is estimated to be 850 visitor days annually. While projections indicate that Oil, Gas, and Other Minerals use may increase slightly, it would remain below Management 1,000 visitor days annually for the foreseeable future. Approximately 5,000 acres (generally the canyon The remaining 3,518 acres would provide for itself) would be subject to a no surface occupancy dispersed recreation such as hunting, fishing, and (NSO) restriction for purposes of oil and gas leasing. hiking. ORV travel would be limited to 2 miles of ex­ On the basis of information currently available, it isting roads and trails, as outlined in the Lander RMP/ appears that the area has no potential for the occur­ EIS (USDI, BLM 1986). Recreational ORV use in this rence of oil and gas; therefore, oil and gas explora­ portion of the WSA is estimated to be 150 visitor days tion or field development is not anticipated. Outside annually. Projections indicate that recreational ORV of the NSO areas, oil and gas leasing would continue use would increase slightly but would remain below under the standard protection requirements (see 250 visitor days annually for the foreseeable future. appendix C). Accordingly, surface disturbance would be prohibited in sensitive areas such as live Other recreation activities such as hunting, camp­ waters or on slopes in excess of 25%. Other areas ing, photography, and sightseeing would continue would be available for exploration by drilling, but no in this portion of the WSA. Use for these activities exploratory drilling would be expected. is estimated to be 400 visitor days annually. Projec­ tions indicate that use would increase slightly, but About 5,000 acres of the WSA would be subject would remain below 750 visitor days annually for the to a locatable mineral withdrawal. There are about foreseeable future. 720 acres covered by claims in this area. Before any work could be done on these claims, the BLM would initiate validity examinations to determine if any had Wildlife and Fisheries Management a valid discovery on or before the date that the area was designated wilderness. It is assumed that the Monitoring wildlife habitat conditions and animal claims would hold valid discoveries and would thus populations would continue in cooperation with the remain as valid claims, subject to regulation under Wyoming Game and fish Department (WGFD). Fish­ 43 CFR 3809. Flowever, based on known resource eries would be managed according to WGFD regu­ values in this portion of the WSA, it is anticipated lations. No other wildlife or fisheries management that the only activity on these claims would be the actions are planned for the Sweetwater Canyon annual assessment work (such as that described ear­ WSA. lier) necessary to keep the claims current. No large- scale development is expected. Annual assessment work would disturb a maximum of 5 acres over the Cultural Resource Management long term. On the 4,056 acres that would remain open to min­ Management of cultural resources would be cus­ eral entry, large-scale development is not antici­ todial in nature. No management actions are pro­ pated. There are about 280 acres covered by claims jected under the Proposed Action that would require in this portion of the WSA. As required by 43 CFR cultural resource investigations (inventory and eval­ 3809 regulations, a plan of operations would be uation of sites) or mitigation of adverse effects on required for all surface disturbance in excess of five sites. acres; a notice of intent would be required for activ­ ities creating disturbance of five acres or less. Be­ cause of the quantity and quality of material in this No Wilderness Alternative portion of the WSA, activity on these claims is antic­ ipated to be only the minimum assessment work nec­ Under this alternative, none of the 9,056 acres essary to keep the claims current. Annual assess­ would be recommended for wilderness designation. ment work would disturb a maximum of 5 acres over The land would be open for multiple-use manage­ the long term. ment. 13 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Recreation Management Oil, Gas, and Other Minerals Management The ORV designation outlined in the Lander RMP/ EIS (USDI, BLM 1986) would remain in effect for the Under this alternative, the entire 9,056 acres of the Sweetwater Canyon, and ORV travel would be lim­ Sweetwater Canyon WSA would be closed to oil and ited to existing roads and trails (about 3 1/2 miles). Rec­ gas leasing. There are about 1,000 acres of lode and reational ORV use for the entire WSA is estimated placer claims (15 lode and 6 placer) in the WSA. Be­ to be 250 visitor days annually. Projections indicate fore any work could be done on these claims, the that use would increase slightly but would remain BLM would initiate mineral validity examinations to below 300 visitor days annually for the foreseeable determine if any had a valid discovery on or before future. the date that the area was designated wilderness. It The WSA would be open to other recreation activ­ is assumed that the claims would hold valid discov­ ities besides ORV use, including hunting, fishing, eries and would thus remain as valid claims, subject camping, photography, and sightseeing. Visitor use to regulation under 43 CFR 3809. However, based for these activities is estimated to be 1,250 visitor on known resource values in the WSA, it is antici­ days. Projections indicate that use would increase pated that the only activity on these claims would slightly but would remain below 1,750 visitor days be the annual assessment work (such as described annually for the foreseeable future. earlier) necessary to keep the claims current. No large-scale development is expected. No vehicular access would be needed. Annual assessment work Wildlife and Fisheries Management would disturb a maximum of 10 acres over the long term. Monitoring wildlife habitat conditions and animal populations would continue in cooperation with the WGFD. Fisheries would be managed according to Recreation Management WGFD regulations. No other wildlife or fisheries management actions are planned for the Sweet­ Under this alternative, the WSA would provide for water Canyon WSA. primitive forms of recreation such as hunting, fish­ ing, and backpacking. The area would be closed to ORV use, and motorized forms of recreation would Cultural Resource Management be excluded. About 316 miles of trail would be closed to vehicles under this alternative. Management of cultural resources would be cus­ todial in nature. No management actions are pro­ The WSA would be open to other recreation activ­ jected under this alternative that would require cul­ ities, such as hunting, fishing, camping, sightseeing, tural investigations (inventory and evaluation of and photography. Visitation for these activities was sites) or mitigation of adverse effects on sites. estimated to be 1,250 visitor days in 1983. Projec­ tions indicate that use would increase slightly but would remain below 1,750 visitor days annually for All Wilderness Alternative the foreseeable future.

Under the All Wilderness alternative, all of the Wildlife and Fisheries Management Sweetwater Canyon WSA (9,056 acres) would be rec­ ommended for wilderness designation. Monitoring wildlife habitat conditions and animal populations would continue in cooperation with the WGFD. Fisheries would be managed according to Livestock Grazing Management WGFD regulations. No other wildlife or fisheries Livestock would continue to be managed as management actions are planned for the Sweet­ water Canyon WSA. described in the Green Mountain Rangeland Pro­ gram Summary (USDI, BLM 1983). Portions of two grazing allotments in the Sweetwater Canyon WSA, Green Mountain Common (2001) and Silver Creek Cultural Resource Management (1903), produce 959 AUMs for forage in the 9,056 acres of the WSA. No management actions are pro­ Management of cultural resources would be cus­ posed at this time in this alternative that would todial in nature. No management actions are pro­ change kind of livestock, numbers, or season of use. jected under this alternative that would require cul­ No range improvement projects are planned for the tural investigations (inventory and evaluation of sites) or mitigation of adverse effects on sites. area. No motorized equipment would be allowed in the area.

14 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

LANKIN DOME Wildlife Management Monitoring wildlife habitat conditions and animal populations would continue in cooperation with the Proposed Action (No Wilderness) WGFD. No other wildlife management actions are planned for this WSA. Under the Proposed Action, the Lankin Dome WSA would be recommended for nonwilderness uses. No special legislative protection would be Cultural Resource Management given to the 6,316 acres of the Lankin Dome WSA (See Map 3). Management of cultural resources would be cus­ todial in nature. No management actions are pro­ jected under the Proposed Action that would require Oil, Gas, and Other Minerals cultural investigations (inventory and evaluation of Management sites) or mitigation of adverse effects on sites.

Under the Proposed Action, the entire WSA would be open to mineral entry and leasing. There are two All Wilderness Alternative oil and gas leases in the Lankin Dome WSA. On the basis of current information, there is no potential for Under the All Wilderness alternative, all of the Lan­ the occurrence of oil and gas in the WSA. Therefore, kin Dome WSA (6,316 acres) would be recom­ there is no likelihood of exploration or development. mended for designation as wilderness. The entire WSA would continue to be open to locatable mineral entry under the General Mining Law. The only claim that has been filed in this WSA Oil, Gas, and Other Minerals is on a jade occurrence. Small-scale development of Management this claim would be expected to result in less than 5 acres of surface disturbance over the long term. The entire WSA would be withdrawn from oil and Prospecting and exploration for other minerals in gas leasing. There are no pre-FLPMA oil and gas the WSA have been low to nonexistent, and no explo­ leases in the WSA. The post-FLPMA leases in the ration or development is expected in the foreseeable WSA are subject to the Wilderness Protection Stip­ future. ulation (see appendix A). No new mineral leases would be allowed.

Livestock Grazing Management Prior to commencing work on the existing jade claim in the WSA, a validity examination must show The Lankin Dome WSA would continue to provide that the claim holds sufficient quantity and quality 373 AUMs for livestock use in portions of five allot­ of valuable jade so that a prudent person could ments. No new range improvements are planned. expect a reasonable return on his or her investment. The use of motorized vehicles would continue for It is assumed that the jade claim would contain a the purpose of livestock management. valid discovery and would thus remain as a valid claim. However, the only activity expected on this claim would be the annual assessment work such as Recreation Management hand-sampling and extraction of very small amounts (less that 100 pounds per year) of jade. This would Under the Proposed Action, ORV travel would be disturb a maximum of five acres over the long term. limited to 2V& miles of existing trails. Recreational ORV use is estimated at 50 visitor days per year and would remain at that level for the next ten years. Livestock Grazing Management The entire WSA would be open for other recre­ The Lankin Dome WSA would continue to provide ation activities, including hunting, horseback riding 373 AUMs for livestock use in portions of five grazing (generally associated with hunting), camping (gener­ allotments. No new improvements are planned. The ally associated with hunting), photography, and use of motorized vehicles to manage livestock would sightseeing. No recreation facilitiesordeveloped hik­ be precluded. ing or backpacking trails exist in the WSA, and none are planned. Recreation use would remain stable at 200 visitor days annually for the next ten years.

15 Private Land

iC ^ IIo l Lode Claims " " " Area Proposed for Nonwilderness

Map 3 Proposed Action (IMonwilderness) Lankin Dome PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Recreation Management General Mining Law. One claim has been filed in this WSA on an area of jade occurrence. Small-scale The WSA would be closed to all off-road vehicle development of this claim would be expected to use. Motorized forms of recreation would be result in less than 20 acres of surface disturbance excluded; 2'A miles of two-track access would be over the long term. Prospecting and exploration for closed. other minerals in the WSA have been low to nonex­ istent, and no exploration or development is The entire WSA would be open for other recre­ expected in the foreseeable future. ation activities, including hunting, horseback riding (generally associated with hunting), camping (gener­ ally associated with hunting), photography, and Livestock Grazing Management sightseeing. No recreation facilities or developed trails exist in the WSA, and none are planned. It is The Split Rock WSA would continue to provide estimated that there would be a slight (5%) increase 1,141 AUMs for livestock use in portions of four allot­ in recreation use after designation. Projections indi­ ments. No new range improvements are planned. cate that recreation use would increase slightly to The use of motorized vehicles would continue for 210 visitor days annually for the next ten years. the purpose of livestock management.

Wildlife Management Recreation Management

Monitoring wildlife habitat conditions and animal Under the Proposed Action, ORV travel would be populations would continue in cooperation with the limited to VA miles of existing roads and trails. Rec­ WGFD. No other wildlife management actions are reational ORV use is estimated to be 250 visitor days planned for this WSA. per year and would remain at this level for the next ten years. The entire WSA would be open for other recre­ Cultural Resource Management ation activities, including hunting, horseback riding (generally associated with hunting), camping (gener­ Management of cultural resources would be cus­ ally associated with hunting), photography, and todial in nature. No management actions are pro­ sightseeing. No recreation facilities or developed jected under this alternative that would require cul­ trails exist in the WSA, and none are planned. Rec­ tural investigations (inventory and evaluation of reational use for these activities would remain below sites) or mitigation of adverse effects on sites. 1,500 visitor days for the next ten years.

SPLIT ROCK Wildlife Management Monitoring wildlife habitat conditions and animal populations would continue in cooperation with the Proposed Action (No Wilderness) WGFD. No other wildlife management actions are planned for this WSA. Under the Proposed Action, the Split Rock WSA would be recommended for nonwilderness uses. No special legislative protection would be given to the Cultural Resource Management 12,789 acres of the Split Rock WSA (See Map 4). Management of cultural resources would be cus­ todial in nature. No management actions are pro­ Oil, Gas, and Other Minerals jected under the Proposed Action that would require Management cultural investigations (inventory and evaluation of sites) or mitigation of adverse effects on sites. The Split Rock WSA would be open to oil and gas leasing. On the basis of current information, there is no potential for the discovery of oil and gas in the All Wilderness Alternative Split Rock WSA. Therefore, the likelihood of explor­ atory drilling is considered nil, and the anticipated Under the All Wilderness alternative, all 12,789 use of the lands would not be expected to differ from acres of the Split Rock WSA would be recommended past uses. No exploratory drilling would occur. for designation as wilderness and would be given the Under the Proposed Action, the WSA would special legislative protection afforded to designated remain open to locatable mineral entry under the wilderness. 17 M iles 0 12 3 4 I—I I—I I- I ^

WSA Boundary

^ Federal Land

I State Land

I Private Land

\ / ^ / ^ / \ Private Inholding - Exchange or Acquisition Option

IHHH Lode Claims

■ ■ ■ Area Proposed for Nonwilderness

Map 4 Proposed Action (Nonwilderness) Split Rock PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management Cultural Resource Management

The entire WSA would be withdrawn from oil and Management of cultural resources would be cus­ gas leasing. There are no pre-FLPMA oil and gas todial in nature. No management actions are pro­ leases in the WSA. The two post-FLPMA leases in jected under this alternative that would require cul­ the WSA are subject to the Wilderness Protection tural investigations (inventory and evaluation of Stipulation (see Appendix A). No new oil and gas sites) or mitigation of adverse effects on sites. leases would be allowed. Prior to commencing work on the existing jade claim in the WSA, a validity examination must show that the claim holds sufficient quantity and quality SAVAGE PEAK of valuable jade to that a prudent person could expect a reasonable return on his or her investment. It is assumed that the jade claim would contain a Proposed Action (No Wilderness) valid discovery and would remain as a valid claim. However, it is anticipated that the only activity Under the Proposed Action, the Savage Peak WSA expected on this claim would be the annual assess­ would be recommended for nonwilderness uses. No ment work such as hand-sampling and extraction of special legislative protection would be given to any very small amounts of jade (less than 100 pounds of the 7,041 acres of the Savage Peak WSA (See Map per year). This would disturb a maximum of 5 acres 5). over time. Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management Livestock Grazing Management The Savage Peak WSA would be open to oil and The Split Rock WSA would continue to provide gas leasing. On the basis of current information, 1,141 AUMs for livestock use in portions of four graz­ there is no potential for the occurrence of oil and gas ing allotments. No new improvements are planned. in the WSA. Therefore, there is no likelihood of The use of motorized vehicles to manage livestock exploratory drilling. There are no oil and gas leases would be precluded. in the Savage Peak WSA. Under the Proposed Ac­ tion, the WSA would continue to be open to mineral entry under the General Mining Law. Prospecting Recreation Management and exploration for locatable minerals in the WSA have been low to nonexistent. There are no mining The WSA would be managed to provide for only claims in the WSA. Therefore, no exploration or nonmotorized forms of recreation such as hunting, development is expected in the foreseeable future. rock climbing, and backpacking. The WSA would be closed to all recreational off-road vehicle use. Livestock Grazing Management The entire WSA would be open for other recre­ ation activities, including hunting, horseback riding The Savage Peak WSA would continue to provide (generally associated with hunting), camping (gener­ 765 AUMs for livestock use in portions of three allot­ ally associated with hunting), photography, and ments. No new range improvements are planned. sightseeing. No recreational facilities or trails exist The use of motorized vehicles would continue for in the WSA, and none are planned. It is estimated the purposes of livestock management. that there would be a slight (5%) increase in recre­ ation use after designation. Projections indicate that recreation use would increase slightly to 1,575 vis­ Recreation Management itor days annually for the next ten years. Under the Proposed Action, ORV travel would be limited to 1 mile of existing trails. Recreational ORV Wildlife Management use of this WSA is estimated at 250 visitor days annu­ ally and would remain at this level for the next ten Monitoring wildlife habitat conditions and animal years. populations would continue in cooperation with the WGFD. No other wildlife management actions are The entire WSA would be open for other recre­ planned for this WSA. ation activities, including hunting, horseback riding (generally associated with hunting), camping (gen-

19 M iles 0 12 3 4 WSA Boundary i— i i— i i— i l '. . = 3 Federal Land

State Land

_] Private Land

■ ■ ■ Area Proposed for Nonwilderness

Map 5 Proposed Action (Nonwilderness) Savage Peak PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

erally associated with hunting), photography, and The entire WSA would be open for other recre­ sightseeing. No recreation facilities or trails exist in ation activities, including hunting, horseback riding the WSA, and none are planned. Recreation use (generally associated with hunting), camping (gener­ would remain below 1,000 visitor days for the next ally associated with hunting), photography, and ten years. sightseeing. No recreation facilities or developed trails exist in the WSA, and none are planned. It is estimated that recreation use would increase Wildlife Management slightly (5%) after designation. Projections indicate that recreational sue would increase slightly to 1,050 Monitoring wildlife habitat conditions and animal visitor days annually for the next ten years. populations would continue in cooperation with the WGFD. No other wildlife management actions are planned for this WSA. Wildlife Management

Monitoring wildlife habitat conditions and animal Cultural Resource Management populations would continue in cooperation with the WGFD. No other wildlife management actions are Management of cultural resources would be cus­ planned for this WSA. todial in nature. No management actions are pro­ jected under the Proposed Action that would require cultural investigations (inventory and evaluation of Cultural Resource Management sites) or mitigation of adverse effects on sites. Management of cultural resources would be cus­ todial in nature. No management actions are pro­ All Wilderness Alternative jected under this alternative that would require cul­ tural investigations (inventory and evaluation of Under the All Wilderness alternative, all 7,041 sites) or mitigation of adverse effects on sites. acres of the Savage Peak WSA would be recom­ mended for designation as wilderness and would be given the special legislative protection afforded to designated wilderness. MILLER SPRINGS

Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management Proposed Action (No Wilderness)

The entire WSA would be withdrawn from all Under the Proposed Action, the Miller Springs forms of mineral entry and leasing. There are no oil WSA would be recommended for nonwilderness and gas leases in the Savage Peak WSA. No new min­ uses. No special legislative protection would be eral leases would be allowed. As of 1988, there were given to the 6,429 acres comprising the Miller no mining claims in this WSA; therefore, no activity Springs WSA (See Map 6). is expected.

Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management Livestock Grazing Management The Miller Springs WSA would be open to oil and The Savage Peak WSA would continue to provide gas leasing. There are no oil and gas leases in the 756 AUMs for livestock use in portions of three graz­ Miller Springs WSA. On the basis of cu'rrent informa­ ing allotments. No new range improvements are tion, there is no potential for the occurrence of oil planned. The use of motorized vehicles to manage and gas in the WSA. Therefore, the likelihood of livestock would be eliminated. exploratory drilling is considered nil, and the antic­ ipated use of the lands would not be expected to differfrom past uses. Therefore, no exploratory drill­ Recreation Management ing is anticipated. Under the Proposed Action, the WSA would The WSA would be managed to provide for only remain open to locatable mineral entry under the nonmotorized forms of recreation such as hunting General Mining Law. Prospecting and exploration and backpacking. The WSA would be closed to all for other minerals in the WSA have been low to non­ off-road vehicle use. One mile of two-track access existent, and no exploration or development is would be closed. expected in the foreseeable future.

21 M iles WSA Boundary 0 12 3 4 F—I I— I l— ------1 " I =3 Federal Land

State Land

Private Land

Lode Claims Area Proposed for Nonwilderness

Map 6 Proposed Action (Nonwilderness) Miller Springs PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Livestock Grazing Management Prior to commencing work on the existing jade claim in the WSA, a validity examination must show The Miller Springs WSA would continue to provide that the claim holds sufficient quantity and quality 756 AUMs for livestock use in portions of two allot­ of valuable jade that a prudent person could expect ments. No new range improvements are planned. a reasonable return on his or her investment. It is The use of motorized vehicles would continue for assumed that the jade claim would contain a valid the purposes of livestock management. discovery and would thus remain as a valid discov­ ery. The only activity expected on this claim would be the annual assessment work such as hand­ Recreation Management sampling and extraction of very small amounts of jade (less than 100 pounds per year). This would dis­ Under the Proposed Action, ORV travel would be turb less than ten acres over the long term. limited to 2 miles of existing trails. Recreational ORV use of this WSA is estimated at 250 visitor days annu­ ally and would remain at this level for the next ten Livestock Grazing Management years. The Miller Springs WSA would continue to provide The enti re WSA would be open for recreation activ­ 756 AUMs for livestock use in portions of two graz­ ities, including hunting, horseback riding (generally ing allotments. No new range improvements are associated with hunting), camping (generally asso­ planned. The use of motorized vehicles to manage ciated with hunting), photography, and sightseeing. livestock would be eliminated. No recreation facilities or developed trails exist in the WSA, and none are planned. Recreation use is currently estimated to be 250 visitor days annually Recreation Management and would remain at this level for the next ten years. The WSA would be managed to provide for only nonmotorized forms of recreation such as hunting Wildlife Management and backpacking. The WSA would be closed to all off-road vehicle use. Two miles of two-track access Monitoring wildlife habitat conditions and animal would be closed. Motorized forms of recreation populations would continue in cooperation with the would be excluded. WGFD. No other wildlife management actions are planned for this WSA. The entire WSA would be open for other recre­ ation activities, including hunting, horseback riding (generally associated with hunting), camping (gener­ Cultural Resource Management ally associated with hunting), photography, and sightseeing. No recreation facilities or developed Management of cultural resources would be cus­ trails exist in the WSA, and none are planned. It is todial in nature. No management actions are pro­ estimated that recreation use would increase jected under the Proposed Action that would require slightly (5%) after the designation. Projections indi­ cultural investigations (inventory and evaluation of cate that recreation use would increase slightly to sites) or mitigation of adverse effects on sites. 265 visitor days annually for the next ten years.

All Wilderness Alternative Wildlife Management Monitoring wildlife habitat conditions and animal Under the All Wilderness alternative, all 6,429 populations would continue in cooperation with the acres of the Miller Springs WSA would be recom­ WGFD. No other wildlife management actions are mended for designation as wilderness and would be planned for this WSA. given the special legislative protection afforded to designated wilderness. Cultural Resource Management

Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management Management of cultural resources would be cus­ todial in nature. No management actions are pro­ The entire WSA would be withdrawn from oil and jected under this alternative that would require cul­ gas leasing. There is no potential for the discovery tural investigations (inventory and evaluation of of oil and gas. There are no oil and gas leases in the sites) or mitigation of adverse effects on sites. Miller Springs WSA, and no new leases would be allowed.

23 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

COPPER MOUNTAIN Livestock Grazing Management The Copper Mountain WSA would continue to pro­ vide 635 AUMs for livestock use in portions of two Proposed Action (No Wilderness) allotments. No new range improvements are planned. The use of motorized vehicles would con­ Under the Proposed Action, none of the Copper tinue for the purpose of livestock management. Mountain WSA (6,858 acres) would be recom­ mended for wilderness (see Map 7). Recreation Management

Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Management Under the Proposed Action, the area would be managed for dispersed recreation such as hunting All 6,858 acres of the Copper Mountain WSA and hiking. The public would continue to have ac­ would be open to oil and gas leasing underthis alter­ cess to the area, but only primitive camping would native. On the basis of drilling history in the area and be available. the high and moderate ratings for the potential for discovery of oil and gas resources, the development There are no vehicle trails in the WSA. The pro­ of a field with four wells within the WSA boundary jected two miles of roads that would be associated is projected. The standard spacing acreage for this with oil and gas exploration would allow access into type of field would be 640 acres. Because of the the southern part of the WSA. ORV travel would be rugged terrain and the increasing depth in lesser limited to these exploration roads. Even after con­ potentially productive formations to the north, devel­ struction of the roads, recreational ORV use would opment is projected only in the southern portion of remain below 50 visitor days annually for the next the WSA. Approximately 40 acres of disturbance ten years. would be expected from a field of four wells. The entire WSA would be open for other recre­ Future oil and gas leases issued in the WSA would ation activities, including hunting, horseback riding be conditioned with standard protection require­ (generally associated with hunting), camping (gener­ ments, which are intended to protect watershed and ally associated with hunting), photography, and wildlife values (see Stipulations 1 and 2, Appendix sightseeing. No recreation facilities or developed C). trails exist in the WSA, and none are planned. Rec­ reation use would remain below 100 visitor days for Most of the WSA would be subject to application the next ten years. Projections indicate that it is rea­ of the standard stipulation that does not allow sonable to expect that such use for these activities surface-disturbing activities on slopes of more than would increase slightly but remain below 200 visitor 25%. Approximately 1,400 acres in the northern part days annually for the next ten years. of the WSA would be conditioned with seasonal res­ trictions on surface-disturbing activities from December 15 to April 15 so that crucial deer winter Wildlife Management range would be protected. The potential exists in the WSA for the discovery Monitoring wildlife habitat conditions and animal of chemical grade limestone and uranium deposits. populations would continue in cooperation with the However, the abundance of limestone elsewhere in WGFD. No other wildlife management actions are the Lander Resource Area and the current poor planned for this WSA. market for uranium oxide lend little support to the development of these mineral resources in the fore­ seeable future. Therefore, no development is antic­ Cultural Resource Management ipated. Nevertheless, the WSA would be open to prospecting, exploration and mining. Cultural resource investigations (inventory and evaluation of sites) would occur in conjunction with There are five lode claims within the WSA along the development of the small oil and gas field pro­ the western boundary and adjacent to the Wind jected under the Proposed Action. Overall, cultural River Reservation. Large-scale development of resource investigations would occur on approxi­ these claims is not expected. The only activity mately 40 acres. Any sites or features found in the expected on these claims would be the necessary investigations would subsequently be avoided or annual assessment work such as hand-sampling. adverse impacts would be mitigated by recordation This would disturb less than 10 acres over the long and curation of the features. Beyond this area, man­ term. agement of cultural resources would be custodial in nature; no specific management actions are planned.

24 Miles 0 1 2 3 4 i— i i— i i- i i i

WSA Boundary

Federal Land

State Land

Private Land Area Proposed for Nonwilderness

Map 7 Proposed Action (Nonwilderness) Copper Mountain PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

All Wilderness Alternative Recreation Management

Under the All Wilderness Alternative, the entire Under the All Wilderness Alternative, the entire 6,858 acres of the Copper Mountain WSA would be 6,858 acres of the Copper Mountain WSA would be recommended for designation as wilderness and closed to recreational ORV use. There are no vehicle would be given the special legislative protection trails in the WSA at present. afforded to designated wilderness. The entire WSA would be open for other recre­ ational activities, including hunting, horseback rid­ ing (generally associated with hunting), camping Oil, Gas, and Other Minerals (generally associated with hunting), photography, Management and sightseeing. No recreational facilities or devel­ oped trails exist in the WSA, and none are planned. The entire WSA would be withdrawn from oil and Recreational use would remain below 100 visitor gas leasing and consequently there would be no days for the next ten years. Projections indicate that development or production of oil and natural gas. it is reasonable to expect that recreational use would increase slightly, but remain below 200 visitor days There are five existing lode claims in the Copper annually for the foreseeable future. Mountain WSA. Prior to commencing work on these claims in the WSA, a validity examination must show that the claim holds sufficient quantity and quality Wildlife Management of valuable uranium resources so that a prudent per­ son could expect a reasonable return on his or her Monitoring wildlife habitat conditions and animal investment. It is assumed that the claims would con­ populations would continue in cooperation with the tain valid discoveries and would thus remain as valid WGFD. No other wildlife management actions are claims. The only activity expected on these claims planned for this WSA. would be the annual assessment work such as hand­ sampling. No vehicular access or motorized equip­ ment would be necessary. It is anticipated that these Cultural Resource Management activities would disturb less than ten acres over the long term. Management of cultural resources would be cus­ todial in nature. No management actions are pro­ jected under this alternative that would require cul­ Livestock Grazing Management tural investigation (inventory and evaluation of sites) or mitigation of adverse effects on sites. The Copper Mountain WSA would continue to pro­ vide 635 AUMs for livestock use in portions of two grazing allotments. No new range improvements are planned. The use of motorized vehicles to manage livestock would be eliminated.

26 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 2A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS Sweetwater Canyon WSA

Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Resource (Partial Wilderness) (No Wilderness) (All Wilderness)

Wilderness Values Assessment work on 1,000 Assessment work on 1,000 Assessment work on 1,000 acres of mining claims acres of mining claims acres of mining claims would disturb less than 10 would disturb less than would disturb less than 10 acres over the long term. 10 acres over the long term. acres over the long term. Impacts to naturalness would Impacts to naturalness would Impacts to naturalness would be negligible. Wilderness be negligible. Solitude be negligible. Solitude and values enhanced on 5,538 acres and primitive recreation primitive recreation enhanced due to elimination of ORVs; would be adversely affected by elimination of ORV use. solitude and primitive by continued ORV use on recreation adversely 9,056 acres, but impact affected by continued ORV is minimal because ORV use on 3,518 acres, but use levels are low. impact is minimal because ORV use levels are low. Energy and Mineral A total of 5,538 acres All 9,056 acres open to All 9,056 acres closed to Resources closed to further mineral mineral entry and leasing. further entry and entry and leasing; 3,518 No significant impacts. leasing. Assessment work acres would be open to would continue on about 1,000 mineral entry and leasing. acres of existing claims. No significant impacts. No significant impacts. Recreation Resources A total of 100 visitor days ORVs limited to approximately A total of 250 visitor days annually displaced from 3V4 miles of existing trails annually displaced from 2 miles of vehicle trail on on 9,056 acres. No significant 3% miles of vehicle trails 5,538 acres; no significant impacts. on 9,056 acres; No significant impact. impact.

TABLE 2B COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS Lankin Dome WSA

Resource Proposed Action Alternative 1 Resource (No Wilderness) (All Wilderness)

Wilderness Values ORV use would adversely affect Wilderness values protected on solitude and primitive 6,316 acres. Assessment work recreation on less than 10% would continue on existing (less than 600 acres) of the WSA. mining claim; no impact on Assessment work on jade wilderness values. claim would affect naturalness on less than 1% of the WSA. No significant impact. Energy and Mineral All 6,316 acres open to mineral All 6,316 acres closed to mineral Resources entry and leasing; assessment entry or leasing. Assessment work work would continue on one jade would continue on one jade claim. claim. No significant impact. No significant impact. Local Ranching No increased conflict or impact 20% increase (from 50 to 60) Operations is expected. No impact on in contacts between public and ranching operations. landowners would result In increased disruption of local ranching operations.

27 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 2C COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS Split Rock WSA

Resource Proposed Action Alternative 1 Resource (No Wilderness) (All Wilderness)

Wilderness Values ORV use would adversely affect Wilderness values protected on solitude and primitive 12,780 acres. Assessment work recreation on less than 10% would continue on existing (less than 1,200 acres) of mining claim; no impact on the WSA. Assessment work on wilderness values jade claim would affect naturalness on less than 1% of the WSA. No significant impact. Energy and Mineral All 12,789 acres open to mineral All 12,789 acres closed to Resources entry and leasing; assessment work mineral entry and leasing. would continue on one existing jade Assessment work would continue claim. No significant impact. on one jade claim. No significant impact. Local Ranching No increased conflict or impact 30% increase (from 50 to 65) in Operations is expected. No impact on contacts between public and ranching operations. landowners would result in increased disruption of local ranching operations.

TABLE 2D COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS Savage Peak WSA

Resource Proposed Action Alternative 1 Resource (No Wilderness) (All Wilderness)

Wilderness Values ORV use would adversely affect Wilderness values protected on solitude and primitive recreation 7,041 acres. on less than 10% (less than 700 acres) of the WSA. No significant impact. Energy and Mineral All 7,041 acres open to mineral All 7,041 acres closed to mineral Resources entry and leasing; no significant entry and leasing. No significant impact. impact. Local Ranching No increased conflict or 25% increase (From 40 to 50) in Operations impact is expected. No impact contacts between public and on ranching operations. landowners would result in increased disruption of local ranching operations.

28 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 2E COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS Miller Spring WSA

Resource Proposed Action Alternative 1 Resource (No Wilderness) (All Wilderness)

Wilderness Values ORV use would adversely affect Wilderness values protected on solitude and primitive 6,429 acres. recreation on less than 10% (less than 600 acres) of the WSA. No significant impact. Energy and Mineral All 6,429 acres open to mineral All 6,429 acres closed to mineral Resources entry and leasing. entry and leasing. No significant impact. No significant impact. Local Ranching No increased conflict or impact 13% increase (from 40 to 45) Operations is expected. No impact on in contacts between public ranching operation. and landowners would result in increased disruption of local ranching operations.

TABLE 2F COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS Copper Mountain WSA

Resource Proposed Action Alternative 1 Resource (No Wilderness) (All Wilderness)

Wilderness Values Loss of naturalness, solitude Wilderness values protected on and primitive recreation would 6,858 acres. Assessment work occur on 840 acres through oil would continue on existing and gas exploration and mining claims; no impacts on development. Assessment work wilderness values. would continue on existing claims; no impacts on wilderness values. Energy and Mineral All 6,858 acres open to mineral All 6,858 acres closed to mineral Resources entry and leasing. No impact. entry and leasing. Projected oil field development would not occur. This is considered to be a significant impact. Recreation Resources ORVs limited to 2 miles of roads All 6,858 acres closed to ORVs; and trails constructed for mineral no impact because no ORV use exploration; no significant impact. is occurring now.

29 CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

UNAFFECTED COMPONENTS AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Sweetwater Canyon

There are several components of the existing envi­ General Characteristics ronment within the six WSAs described in this EIS that would be unaffected by the proposed action or Sweetwater Canyon is located in Fremont County, any of the alternatives. These are briefly discussed Wyoming, approximately 15 miles east of South below. Pass City on the Sweetwater River. Map 1 (Chapter None of the six WSAs contain commercial forest 1, location map) shows the wilderness study area land. Air quality and soils in all of the WSAs would location in relation to cities and towns and other be unaffected by any alternative. Vegetation and major features of Fremont County. riparian areas would be unaffected by either desig­ Access to the WSA during summer from either nation or nondesignation of any of the WSAs as wil­ side of the canyon is by unimproved two-track trails derness because the main activity affecting vegeta­ or ways, some of which cross private lands. These tion and riparian areas (livestock grazing) is not vehicle routes run into the BLM Hudson-Atlantic expected to change. City road, Wyoming Highway 28 at South Pass, and Water quality in the Sweetwater Canyon WSA U.S. Highway 287 on BeaverRim. During most ofthe (including the Sweetwater River and its tributaries) winter, the WSA is inaccessible by any of these roads is expected to remain the same, with or without wil­ because of drifted snow. derness designation. None of the anticipated man­ Sweetwater Canyon lies along the southeastern agement actions described in Chapter 2 are flank of the Wind River Range in the high plains des­ expected to alter the present quality of water ert. The WSA begins on the west near Wilson Bar, resources in the river or its tributaries because the at an elevation of 7,150 feet. It ends on the east near actions would either occur outside the area of influ­ Spring Creek and Chimney Creek at an elevation of ence or would be small scale activities with a short 6,720 feet. The river drops 430 feet, or about 45 feet duration. per mile, as it passes through the WSA. Water resources in the Sweetwater Rocks WSA complex are limited to small springs and seeps. There are no lakes or perennial streams in these four Wilderness Values WSAs. Because anticipated management actions are either already occurring or would be small-scale, Size water quality within these four WSAs would remain unchanged regardless of wilderness designation or The Sweetwater Canyon WSA contains 9,056 nondesignation. Because there are no lakes or acres of public land. No private or state inholdings streams, there are no fisheries in the Sweetwater and no split-estate lands are located within the WSA Rocks WSA complex. boundary. The boundary is defined by roads and by state and private lands. For more information on these topics the reader is referred to Chapter 3 of the Lander Resource Man­ agement Plan (1986).

31 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Naturalness Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive, Unconfined Recreation Human influence is not substantially noticeable. This is particularly true in the river canyon itself. The The river canyon, coupled with dense riparian only intrusions are two-track trails (Map 2, Chapter vegetation and numerous tributary draws, provides 2) and an abandoned mineral exploration site near a high degree of solitude. The canyon follows the the river at the western edge of the WSA. meanders of the Sweetwater River, creating numer­ ous secluded places for camping or other recre­ There are two basic types of topography in the ational activities. The vegetation along the floor of WSA: the canyon and its tributary draws, and the the canyon and the topography of the canyon screen gently rolling hills that surround the canyon. The visitors from one another. canyon, which is 6-7 miles long, is a water-carved gorge nearly 500 feet deep. In places, the walls are There are no developed recreational sites in or almost vertical. Bare rock outcrops exist throughout adjacent to the WSA. A limited amount of camping the gorge. Outcrops along the canyon walls are inter­ and picnicking takes place via four-wheel drive ac­ spersed with sagebrush, grasses, other shrubs, and cess routes. Use is concentrated at both ends of the pockets of aspen and willow, all of which provide canyon (Wilson Bar and Chimney creeks) and in the considerable variety in the landscape (photos 1 and center of the canyon near Strawberry Creek. Visitors 2). Vegetation in the bottom of the gorge and along hike and backpack during the summer, but levels of the river tributaries consists of willow, limber pine, use are low. aspen, cottonwoods, and juniper. The topography and vegetation are unique relative to the surround­ The river offers high-quality brown and rainbow ings. The contrast between the WSA and surround­ trout fishing. The Wyoming Game and Fish Depart­ ing hills is abrupt and striking. The terrain above the ment (WGFD) has classified the river as an important gorge is mostly flat with low, gently rolling hills and trout water of regional importance. This high-quality a few moderately scattered rock outcrops. fishing opportunity attracts recreationists from Wyo­ ming and the neighboring states of Colorado and Utah. One commercial fishing outfitter has operated in the canyon.

Photograph 1: Sweetwater Canyon in late fall

32 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Photograph 2: Sweetwater Canyon, looking downstream to the east.

According to visitor counts and traffic counter Geology and Mineralization readings, the WSA receives its heaviest use during the fall hunting seasons and during the summer The following sections were developed utilizing weekends. BLM recreation specialists estimated use information published in the U.S. Geological Survey at about 1,500 visitor days in the canyon during 1977. (USGS) Bulletin 1757-D, Mineral Resources of the However, use has declined since the population of Sweetwater Canyon Wilderness Study Area, Fre­ nearby Jeffrey City has dropped from an estimated mont County, Wyoming (USGS, 1988). This bulletin 4,000 people to less than 500 because of the cessa­ was prepared and the Wyoming Geological Survey tion of uranium mining. Visitor use is estimated to and describes the results of mineral resource sur­ have stabilized at approximately 1,000 days annu­ veys conducted during the summer of 1986. The bul­ ally. letin contains detailed descriptions of the geology, mining history, mineral resources, and potential for Mule deer are hunted within the canyon. The prin­ undiscovered mineral resources within the WSA. An cipal small game species is the cottontail rabbit. appraisal of known mineral occurrences was made Sage grouse are also hunted, and antelope are by the Bureau of Mines, and an assessment of the hunted on the flat, rolling areas above the canyon. potential for undiscovered mineral resources was Of all the opportunities for recreation, the river made by the USGS. itself is by far the most important. Typically, fishing opportunities attract visitors to the area. While fish­ ing, visitors usually take advantage of other benefits Geology such as the outstanding solitude, scenery, and camp­ The Sweetwater Canyon WSA lies along the south­ ing opportunities along the river. eastern flank of the Wind River Range. The Wind River Range was uplifted during the Laramide Oro­ geny, which began in late Cretaceous time (see Special Features Appendix D). The canyon has high scenic values, including the Most of the WSA contains Precambrian metamor­ feeling of uncluttered, open space, isolation, and phosed sedimentary and granitic rocks as the sur­ peacefulness. face bedrock unit. The Tertiary South Pass Forma­ The Sweetwater Canyon WSA has outstanding wil­ tion overlies these Precambrian rocks in a few derness values. It contrasts sharply with the color isolated areas. The Precambrian rocks outcrop in and texture of the surrounding desert environment, the eastern 75% of the WSA and consist mainly of adding bright green and blue hues to the landscape pink and gray unaltered granite. A greenstone belt in summer and blue, gold, and brown in the fall. of Precambrian metasediments outcrop in the west­ Steep rock walls also contrast with the nearby ern third of the WSA consists of biotite-chlorite smooth, rolling hills. schists, garnet schists, and microcrystalline horn-

33 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT fels intruded by mafic dikes. These metasediments economic quantities of sand and gravel and granitic are deformed and sheared in a north to northwest dimension stone occur within the WSA but the vast trend (USDI, BLM 1976; USDI, GS 1988). quantities of these salable mineral commodities else­ where in the region make these resources unattrac­ The Tertiary South Pass Formation consists of tive for exploitation. In the past three years, the BLM conglomerates and sandstones cemented with vol­ has reviewed several notices for exploration opera­ canic ash and some beds of volcanic ash (USDI, GS tions in the Lewiston area; however, no plans of oper­ 1974). ations have been reviewed, denied, or approved for Tertiary alluvium and colluvium deposits are scat­ mining within the WSA. tered throughout the area. The alluvium consists of The USGS and Bureau of Mines (1988) concluded boulders, gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited by the for all studies within the WSA that there exists a high Sweetwater River and its tributaries. mineral potential for undiscovered lode-gold re­ sources in the greenstone rocks that underlie the western side of the WSA. A high mineral resource Mineralization potential for undiscovered placer gold has been as­ The Lewiston Mining District, which was orga­ signed to the gravels along the banks and streambed nized in 1879, includes a grouping of gold mines of the Sweetwater River and along Strawberry northeast of the head of the Sweetwater Canyon Creek. Visible gold was detected in panned concen­ WSA. Placer gold was discovered along Strawberry trates along the entire length of the river in the WSA, Creek in 1842, and gold mining began in earnest in but the gold concentrations were determined uneco­ 1867 with the discovery of the Carissa Lode near nomic at gold prices of $400 per troy ounce. South Pass City located about 10 miles west of the During 1974 the Atomic Energy Commission con­ Lewiston Mining District. Many discoveries fol­ ducted an airborne radiometric survey that identi­ lowed, but the mining boom was short-lived and fied some small anomalous areas near Sweetwater most of the mines in all mining districts were shut Canyon. The Precambrian granitic rocks have been down by 1895. Intermittent gold production contin­ intruded by pegmatites that are considered moder­ ued until 1956, when the Duncan Mine between ately favorable for the occurrence of uranium and South Pass City and Atlantic City was closed (USDI, thorium (Tetra Tech 1983). The base of the Flathead BLM 1976). There is no accurate record of the Formation in the extreme eastern end of the WSA amount of gold produced from mining districts of has a low favorability for the occurrence of uranium South Pass and Lewiston. (Tetra Tech 1983). During field work conducted by In the Lewiston Mining District the lode gold is Tetra Tech, Inc., in 1983, a small radiometric anom­ found in quartz veins associated with hydrother- aly with measurements twice as high as the back­ mally altered metasediments which contain silver, ground count was identified in the lower 40 feet of copper, arsenic, and tungsten. The placer gold is the Flathead Formation along the eastern edge of associated with medium to coarse grained Quater­ the WSA. This anomaly may guide any future explo­ nary gravels primarily confined to drainage bottoms. ration. The USGS (1988) gave the WSA a low mineral A gold dredging operation took place at Wilson Bar resource potential for undiscovered uranium just upstream from the WSA, but it closed in 1943 because no evidence of possible uranium deposits (USDI, BLM 1976). were observed in the WSA. The USGS (1988) noted that “In the extreme north­ Nephrite jade has been reported in the vicinity of western part of the WSA, the greenstone belt con­ the WSA near amphibolite rocks. No commercial tains narrow gold-bearing quartz veins occurring in quantities of jade have been reported in the vicinity faults in graywacke of the Miners Delight Formation. of the WSA. The USGS (1988) did not report any find­ Identified gold resources are present in these rocks ing of jade occurrences within the WSA. outside the study area. Topographic projection of, and analytical data for the exposed part of the veins, According to the USGS (1983) there is no poten­ suggest that subsurface continuity of the veins is tial for oil and gas accumulation in this WSA. The possible." The USGS and Bureau of Mines con­ USGS (1988) concluded that the study area has no cluded that small to moderate tonnage (less than recognized energy resource potential for oil and gas 20,000 short tons) of gold-bearing vein rock might because of the Precambrian crystalline rocks which underlie it. There are no oil and gas leases within the be present within the WSA. WSA. The USGS (1988) concluded that placer gold occurs in the gravels of the Sweetwater River in the Tungsten, in the form of sheelite, was found in the WSA. Bedrock gold concentrations and potential Burr Mine about 1 'k miles west of the WSA. The shee­ pay streaks of gold in the Sweetwater River could lite was found associated with quartz veins and exist but because of the low gold concentrations of hematiferous schists (Wilson, 1951). The USGS the gravel, no resource volumes were identified. Sub­ (1988) reported anomalous concentrations of tin

34 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and tungsten in the Sweetwater River gravels and in the fall; antelope, mule deer, and sage grouse are the tributaries of the river. A low resource potential the principal game species hunted. Sightseeing and has been assigned for tin and tungsten in placer- camping use are largely associated with other rec­ type deposits in the Quaternary gravels along the reational activities. Recreational ORV use is esti­ Sweetwater River and Strawberry Creek. A low mated to be approximately 250 visitor days per year. resource potential for undiscovered tin and tungsten This use is generally associated with, or in support in lode-type deposits has been assigned to the entire of, other recreation activities. WSA. There are two vehicle access points to the river in Map 8 shows the mineral resource potential of the or along the boundary of the WSA, the Wilson Bar Sweetwater Canyon WSA. This map was adapted area on the north end, Chimney Creek on the south, from a similar map in the USGS Bulletin 1757-D. Map and Strawberry Creek in the center of the canyon 9 illustrates the approximate locations of mining (see Map 2). The access routes to Wilson Bar and claims within the Sweetwater Canyon WSA. Chimney Creek actually lie outside of the WSA. The more remote canyon areas are accessible only by foot or horseback from those starting points. ORV Livestock Grazing use problems have occurred in these areas, and minor trail closures have been initiated on trails that Twelve operators graze livestock within the bound­ have been damaged. ORV designations completed aries of the Sweetwater Canyon WSA. The majority in 1981 limit use to approximately 31/2 miles of exist­ of the area is used for grazing cattle, although sheep ing two-track trails and vehicular routes. Except for occasionally use the southeast portion of the WSA. the Strawberry Creek crossing, most ORV use within Livestock graze in most of the WSA, except for the the WSA remains above the canyon rim. steep canyon walls. Cattle tend to concentrate along the river and its associated riparian zone. Livestock grazing occurs from May through December on the Wildlife/Fisheries portion south of the river.

There are no structural range improvements in the Wildlife WSA. Herding of livestock has been done by horse­ back and four-wheel drive vehicle on the existing Sweetwater Canyon contains a diverse mixture of two-track trails that cross the interior of the WSA. vegetation that provides a variety of habitat types for several wildlife species. Along the top of the canyon There are two grazing allotments in the area that rim and on the south-facing canyon slopes, the are made up in part by lands in the Sweetwater Can­ sagebrush/grass community is the dominant habitat yon WSA. Only a small portion of each allotment (in type. On the north facing slopes and in the deepest terms of both acreage and livestock forage) is con­ part of the canyon, small stands of limber pine, lodge- tained within the boundaries of the WSA. The cur­ pole pine, and aspen provide structural diversity that rent erosion condition class is rated as slight overall. increase the number of reproduction, feeding, and Erosion problems are limited to isolated disturbed hiding sites for wildlife. The riparian vegetation, sites such as two-track trails. which roughly parallels the river, consists of such Table 3 lists and describes the grazing allotments, water-loving species as willow, water birch, and cot­ including a breakdown of federal acreage and ani­ tonwood. mal unit months in the WSA and in the allotments Sweetwater Canyon is crucial winter range for as a whole. Map 10 shows the two allotments in the moose. Heavy accumulations of snow in the Wind WSA. River Range cause moose to move out of the moun­ tains and feed on the willow stands along the Sweet­ water River and its tributaries. Under extremely Recreation severe winter conditions, elk move off their normal winter range on the upper Sweetwater and Oregon The Sweetwater Canyon provides a variety of rec­ Buttes country into the Sweetwater Canyon. Conse­ reational activities, including fishing, hunting, sight­ quently, the WSA is classified as severe winter relief seeing, hiking, camping, and historic trail use. Use, range for elk. primarily by local residents, is largely dispersed. In the canyon, the Sweetwater River provides high- The WSA is yearlong range for mule deer. The wet quality trout fishing. Many of the 1,000 annual esti­ meadows provide important summer forage, and the mated visitor days are attributable to fishing and numerous shrub species provide winter browse. occur during June, July, and August. Sweetwater Deer use the pockets of aspen and conifer as bed­ Fishing Expeditions, a commercial guide service, ding sites. These pockets also provide hiding cover has been issued a special recreation-use permit for and shade from the hot summer sun. the area in past years. The area receives hunting use

35 M'I0S (Source - Mineral Resources of the Sweetwater Canyon Wilderness O f______2______3______4 Study Area, Fremont County, Wyoming. U.S. Geological I— I I------1 1... 1 I- ~l Survey Bulletin 1757-D, 1988.)

WSA Boundary

Federal Land

State Land

Private Land

Identified lode - gold resource

Geologic terrene having high mineral resource potential for lode gold of Precambrian age, with certainty levelC

Geologic terrane having high mineral resource potential for placer gold of Quaternary age, with certainty levelB

Geologic terrane having high mineral resource potentialfor placer gold of Quaternary age with certainty level C and low mineralresource potential for placer tin and tungsten of Quaternary age, with certainty level B

ijo p Geologic terrane having low mineral resource potential for lode tin and tungsten (in Precambrian rocks), L'with certainty level B, and uranium, with certainty level C •• Applies to entire study area

N/D Geologic terrane having no resource potential for oil, gas, or geothermal energy, with certainty level D - Applies

Certainty levels B Available information suggests the level of mineral resource potential C Available information gives a good Indication of level of resource potential D Available Information clearly defines the level of mineral resource potential

Map 8 Mineral Resource Potential Sweetwater Canyon WSA Boundary □ Federal Land State Land

□ Private Land Placer Claims

Lode Claims

Map 9 Mining Claims Sweetwater Canyon TABLE 3 - 0) t- < - TO*- >

< < 0 $1 > o 0 O 0 ? I £ 3 o FETD ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED

O E 2 •E co (/)\ (/) O o O o 0 ¿)i2 E c O O C D DJ_ E? - E m o o JZ 38 WSA Boundary

Federal Land

State Land

Private Land

River-Allotment Boundary

Silver Creek Common

2001 Green Mountain Common

Map 10 Grazing Allotments Sweetwater Canyon AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Antelope inhabit the sagebrush/grass habitat better than that found in adjacent portions of the along the canyon rim and south facing slopes during Sweetwater River Stream gradient is steeper, large the summer. Springs and seeps throughout the boulders are present, streambanks are mostly sta­ canyon provide drinking water during the summer. ble, and the quality and frequency of pools is near Most of the pronghorn that use the canyon migrate optimum for this type of stream. Spawning gravels to the south or east for the winter. have variously been described as good to poor. It is possible that spawning habitat quality varies from Cottontail rabbits, sage grouse, and many species yeartoyearin the canyon, depending on the amount of waterfowl are numerous throughout the canyon. of gravel entering, deposited and leaving the canyon Occasionally chukar-partridge and blue grouse are each year. present. Beavers are common throughout the WSA. Many of the tributaries to the Sweetwater River con­ The Wyoming Department of Environmental Qual­ tain beaver dams and lodges. Red foxes, coyotes, ity has designated the upper Sweetwater River, bobcats, and muskrats also inhabit the WSA. including the Sweetwater in the study area, as a Class I water; a designation reserved for waters of Golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, prairie falcons, the highest quality and importance to the state. The red-tailed hawks, and several other species of rap­ WGFD Stream Fisheries Classification for this sec­ tors are common residents during the summer in the tion of the Sweetwater River describes it as an impor­ WSA. Cliffs and rock outcrops provide suitable rap­ tant trout water of regional importance (Class III). tor nest sites, and the diverse vegetative structure provides habitat for mice, shrews, voles, and other Both trout and nongame fish are present in the can­ nongame species on which raptors prey. yon. Brown trout are more numerous than rainbow trout, but rainbows make up more of the total trout The Sweetwater Canyon WSA is within the range population in the canyon than they do either above of the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and black-footed or below the canyon. This may indicate a preference ferret. However, no documented sightings of these for bouldery, pocket-water type of stream habitat. three species have been made in the WSA. Bald Rainbow trout up to 16 inches and brown trout up eagles may occasionally use the area during the win­ to 20 inches have been electoshocked by the WGFD ter for hunting, and peregrines are believed to in the canyon. Trout are moderately abundant in the migrate through the area in late fall and early spring. canyon and WGFD population estimates (using sin­ The area does not contain any prairie dog towns; gle pass techniques) have ranged from 229 to 960 consequently, black-footed ferrets are not likely to trout per mile. Trout over 7 inches in length are es­ live there. timated to range between 176 and 295 trout per mile. The canyon contains more trout per mile than those sections of the Sweetwater River above or below the Fisheries canyon. A major recreational attraction of Sweetwater Can­ Nongame fish present in the canyon are longnose, yon is the fishery. Rainbow, brown, and brook trout white and mountain suckers; lake chubs; creek are present in the Sweetwater River and in two trib­ chubs; longnose dace; Iowa darters; and carp. These utary creeks in the study area. Trout are not stocked fish are not abundant. in the canyon area. Trout reproduction in the canyon is favored by The stream is described by WGFD as one of con­ mild winters and log spring runoff. Years of harsh siderable natural beauty; the type that is favored by winter and heavy spring flooding reduce reproduc­ tourists. Vehicular access is fairly good (there is one tive success and numbers of larger trout present in road to the river at Strawberry Creek and several the canyon. roads to the canyon edge), and streambank vegeta­ tion does not restrict use by fishermen. The river is not floatable during fishing season (July through October). The Sweetwater River is not large in the Cultural Resources canyon (about 40 feet wide), but it is moderately pro­ ductive. A search of the files of the cultural resources in the Sweetwater Canyon WSA was conducted. Sweetwater Canyon contains the most important During a low-intensity reconnaissance inventory in BLM-administered trout fishing in the Lander 1975, a number of topographic features in the WSA Resource Area. were sampled by a BLM archeologist. Thirteen pre­ historic sites were identified that were believed to be There are about 10 miles of brown and rainbow one-time occupation sites that had been used for a trout habitat in the study area (Sweetwater River) very short period. No information is available as to and 2 miles of brook trout habitat (tributaries). the age or significance of the sites. The inventory in­ Habitat in the canyon part of the Sweetwater River, dicated that a good probability exists for finding addi­ as shown by fish sampling and habitat surveys, is tional sites.

40 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Local individuals have also reported a small site Vegetation varies directly with the two landforms. along the river floodplain that consists of several The rocks support little vegetation; however, the stone circles. These stone circles are commonly drainages among them support fairly dense thought to be the result of Native American camp­ “pockets” of limber pine, juniper, aspen, and sage­ sites where teepees were used for shelter. brush. These scenic green areas contrast sharply with the reddish granite. The prehistoric people who occupied the area were hunters and gatherers whose movements were, to a large degree, determined by seasonal changes Wilderness Values in resource availability. These people generally trav­ eled in small bands, spending only a limited amount of time in any one location. A particular cultural site Size might represent a one-time use of a location, or repeated use over thousands of years. The unit has 6,316 acres of contiguous public land; this includes 360 acres of split-estate land on Historic period resources also occur in the Sweet­ which only the surface is federally owned, not the water Canyon WSA. One site located along the minerals. The unit is bordered on the north by pri­ Sweetwater River is listed on the National Register. vate and federal lands and a road, on the west by This site was used by Jedediah Smith and his com­ a county road that provides the only public access, pany of trappers in 1824. They were headed toward on the south by private lands, and on the east by the Green River for that spring's trapping, but a se­ state, federal, and private lands and a road. vere storm prevented the party from crossing South Pass. Instead, the trappers turned eastward and found shelter in a grove of aspen in the canyon. They Naturalness stayed at this site for 2-3 weeks until the weather cleared. The site is now withdrawn from all forms of Four two-tracked vehicle ways and two fence lines mineral entry and leasing. penetrate the unit. Both fences run from the west to the base of the rocks. A primitive way runs in from The Oregon and Mormon Pioneer National His­ the west to a small pocket; however, because of toric Trails form a part of the northern boundary of topography, it has minimal effect upon the rest of the WSA. A major cut-off route of the trail, the Semi- the area. Three ways penetrate Nolen Pocket from noe Cut-off, ran just south of the WSA but does not the north. All of these ways are two-tracked, and enter the WSA. Historic uses of the trails included while they are noticeable from within the area, they emigrant transportation, military protection and do not significantly compromise the area's overall transportation, the Pony Express, the early Overland naturalness. These ways could be rehabilitated with Stage Line and Telegraph, and early mining and live­ the use of hand tools and weathering associated stock transportation. This major corridor was used with time. by thousands of people during the westward expan­ sion and gold rush days to traverse the Sweetwater Valley and the Continental Divide at South Pass. Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Exploration for gold in the general vicinity began Primitive, Unconfined Recreation in 1842 with the discovery of placer gold along Straw­ Because of the WSA's topography and vegetation, berry Creek. Later gold exploration at nearby Lewis­ solitude is readily available. The draws in the unit are ton in the 1800s was extensive and resulted in sev­ generally small, as are the pockets along its perime­ eral large operations. However, there is no record of ter. Campsites and hiking routes, while scenic, are any gold ever having been placer-mined from within not secluded from the surroundings. A large degree the WSA itself. of visitor overlap would occur. The opportunity for solitude exists, but it is not out­ Lankin Dome standing since the area that provides topographic and vegetative screening to the visitor is small and would be somewhat confining. The pockets along General Characteristics the base do not provide the seclusion necessary to make the area outstanding. The topography of the Lankin Dome WSA is in two The unit offers outstanding opportunities for a basic forms: the uplifted mountains of reddish gran­ primitive and unconfined type of recreation—rock ite rocks, slabs, and exfoliating domes and the flats climbing, hiking, backpacking, and hunting. Cracks of Nolen Pocket north and west of the rocks. Eleva­ in the granite allow entry for water, which produces tions in the area range from about 6,200 feet at the springs and seeps that provide a limited amount of western boundary road to about 7,700 feet on Lankin potable water. Dome.

41 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Lankin Dome (photo 3), the most prominent fea­ Livestock Grazing ture of the unit, has long been an attraction to rock climbers. Its history of rock climbing is documented The WSA currently provides 373 AUMs for live­ back to the 1950s. The dome has been featured in stock grazing in portions of five allotments. Table 6 national magazines such as Summit. As seen from lists details of the five grazing allotments in the the east, Lankin Dome is somewhat reminiscent of Lankin Dome WSA, and Map 11 shows the locations Devils Tower, a national monument in northeast of the allotments. All of the grazing use is by cattle. Wyoming. The Green Mountain rangeland program summary Backpacking to one of the wooded ''pockets" (USDI, BLM 1983a) contains a detailed description would be one of the recreational activities available. of livestock grazing management. Hunting for antelope is outstanding on the flats because game is abundant and packing distances are short. Opportunities for bird watching also are Geology and Mineralization outstanding. Geology Special Features The Lankin Dome WSA is within the Granite Moun­ tain Uplift, which is part of a large east-west trending The area is exceptionally scenic, with the reddish uplift that separates the greater Green River Basin granite boulders, slabs, and exfoliating domes con­ to the south from the Wind River Basin on the north. trasting significantly with the greens of the wooded The Granite Mountains generally have been a struc­ pockets. These large expanses of barren granite, which are not found elsewhere in central Wyoming, tural high since earliest Paleocene time (see appen­ form a natural and highly scenic backdrop for the dix D), although the area has undergone repeated Sweetwater River Valley, an area that played an structural adjustment since that time. During Mio­ important role in the history of the exploration and cene and Pliocene times, portions of the area were early settlement of the West. topographically low and were the sites of deposition.

Photograph 3: Lankin Dome, a large granite monolith, is one of the most spectacular features of the Granite Mountains.

42 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The predominant bedrock units exposed in the Jade occurs in veins or dikes in the Precambrian Lankin Dome WSA are a medium to coarse grained rock or as place concentrations in the Tertiary sed­ biotite granite and a granitic gneiss (Tetra Tech iments (Tetra Tech 1983). There is one jade mine 1983). These Precambrian granites and gneisses out­ adjacent to the WSA that has been worked in recent crop in the central parts of the WSA and contain intru­ years (NW'/iSE1/«, Section 3, T. 29 N„ R. 90 W„ 6th sive dikes of basalt and pegmatites. P.M.). The WSA has a moderate to high favorability for the occurrence of jade. During Miocene time, the Split Rock Formation was deposited in the topographically low, probably The Tertiary Moonstone and Wagon Bed forma­ undrained, portions of the Granite Mountains. The tions contain zeolite minerals in certain locations Split Rock Formation is generally less than 1,000 feet near the WSA. Phillipsite is found near the top of the thick and consists of white to tan, fine to coarse type section of the Moonstone Formation in Section grained sandstones and conglomerates (USDI, GS 17, T. 30 N., R. 89 W., 6th P.M. (about 2 miles north­ 1970). During Pliocene time, the Moonstone Forma­ east of the WSA), and many clay samples from the tion was deposited in many of the same areas and Moonstone contain clinoptilolite (USDI, GS 1970). is now found overlying the Split Rock Formation. In the vicinity of the WSA, the Wagon Bed Formation The Moonstone reaches a maximum thickness of was apparently well drained during deposition and 1,350 feet and consists of interlayered sandstones, without saline/alkaline lakes (Boles and Surdam limestones, tuffs, conglomerates, and claystones 1979). This would reduce the probability of zeolite (USDI, GS 1970). The Split Rock and Moonstone For­ mineral deposits in the Wagon Bed Formation in this mations surround the Precambrian core and are area. The Moonstone Formation does contain the exposed in outcrops on the fringes of the WSA. sediments of saline lakes in the WSA (USDI, GS 1970); their presence increases the possibility of find­ ing significant zeolite minerals in the Moonstone in Mineralization this area. According to USGS (1983), there is no potential The Geologic Survey of Wyoming Map Series for oil and gas accumulation in this WSA. MS-14 (1985) shows occurrences of gold, silver, and other minerals in or near Sweetwater Rocks WSAs. The area surrounding the WSA contains occurren­ ces of uranium, thorium, pumicite, sodium Table 5 lists oil and gas leases in the Lankin Dome carbonate-sulfate, vermiculite, zeolites, and jade. WSA. These are post-FLPMA leases which contain the wilderness protection stipulation. The uranium and thorium occurrences are asso­ ciated with pegmatites in the Precambrian rocks and with the Tertiary sedimentary rocks of the Split Rock Recreation and Moonstone formations. Occurrences of ura­ nium and thorium in pegmatite dikes are probably Recreational values in the Lankin Dome WSA are very restricted and have low potential for develop­ significant. Extremely rough topography and rock ment. outcrops allow for only primitive forms of recreation Uranium occurrences in the Split Rock Formation such as rock climbing, hiking, hunting, sightseeing, appear small and localized, and little source material camping, and rock collecting. Although use levels (volcanic ash) is present in the formation (USDI, GS are quite low, the WSA attracts users from many 1970). For these reasons, this formation has a low parts of the country (an estimated 250 visitor days to moderate favorability for the occurrence of ura­ annually). Recreational ORV use is estimated to be nium. The Moonstone Formation has widespread 50 visitor days per year. ORV use depends largely uraniferous beds and contains more volcanic tuff on the population fluctuations of nearby Jeffrey beds, which could serve as a source of uranium City. (USDI, GS 1970). For these reasons, the Moonstone Several special recreation use permits have been Formation has a moderate to high favorability for the issued in the area for outfitter and guide hunting occurrence of uranium. operations. The WSA offers mule deer hunting, and The pumicite occurrences within and near the a limited number of antelope licenses are issued WSA are small, and are believed to have a low poten­ each year for a hunt unit encompassing the area. tial for development. Winter sports such as cross-country skiing and snowmobiling have minimal potential because of Some lakes occupying depressions in the poor access and low snowpack, rugged terrain, and exposed Split Rock Formation contain sodium car­ strong, nearly continuous winter winds. bonates and sodium sulfates; however, there are no known soda lakes within the WSA.

43 TABLE 4 tu CO o o U > H * e in re _ — 0> w •s 55 5 2 “• 3 3 “• — «1 5 OTJ U "J 0> £ L £ LL 0 Si re « |.s £ g - O D T3 O » 0) i u. s Sjj-E D ^ * a».E LL 1 1 IL D 0) (D

c -C — t -O _ ~ _ -O -C t — c FETD ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED (/) op o ■E _0 q c»_ CO D E E 0 > M C 0 - i - i c ?§ < O ■- _0 E £ - - £ ? 0)_L £ E 0 n - E 0 C D 0 CL ra i- L > o 0 C 0 0 0 c _c (/) O _0 CL 0 n O) E E 0 D 44

0 1 2 3 4 1 --Il---I l--- I - " I ' =3 WSA Boundary Federal Land 1623 Murphee Pastures

1 State Land 1625 Jamerman Pastures

Private Land 1627 Individual

Rock-Allotment Boundary 1632 North Hat Pasture

—*—*— Allotment Boundary Fence 1639 Ordway Pocket

1503 Winter Pastures 1660 Home, North of Highway

1622 Lankin Creek 0205 Devils Gate

Map 11 Grazing Allotments Sweetwater Rocks WSAs

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

TABLE 5 The steep, bare rock slopes, cliffs, and huge boulder fields are laced with cracks and canyons OIL AND GAS LEASES that form distinct and interpersion of many small, dis­ IN LANKIN DOME WSA junct pockets, basins, slopes, benches, and ravines with shallow remnants or accumulations of soil. Vir­ tually all degrees of slope and exposure are repre­ Lease Approximate sented. The extensive bare rock, along with the var­ Number Acreage Effective Date ied combinations of slope and exposure, greatly influence the effective moisture on a site-by-site ba­ W-77823 400 03/01/82* sis. Vegetative cover and compositions respond to variations in these abiotic factors. This results in the W-77729 325 02/01/82* overall aspect of fractured bare rocks and boulders interlaced with vegetative communities concen­ ' Lease being held in suspension as of 1/14/87. trated in irregular patches and interconnecting strin­ gers. Woodland, shrubland, grassland, and riparian vegetative types are represented on sites varying form a few hundred square feet to 15 or 20 acres in The WSA lies adjacent to US Highway 287, a major size. tourist route to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks from Interstate 80 to the south. Thou­ Tree cover varies from scattered limber pines 5 to sands of travelers use US 287 to reach the parks. 50 feet tall, or a few Rocky Mountain or Utah juni­ BLM’s Split Rock Interpretive Site (located on US pers, to small stands that may also contain a few 287 in the vicinity of Lankin Dome and Split Rock Douglas fir or small aspen clones. WSAs) receives over 30,000 visitors yearly, many on Herbaceous cover varies greatly between sites. their way to the parks. Bluebunchwheatgrass, needleand thread, and Sand­ The popularity of this highway rests in part with berg's bluegrass are a few of the principal grass spe­ the scenic backdrop provided by the four Sweet­ cies. Sagebrush, rabbitbrush, rockspirea, wax cur­ water Rocks WSAs. In tourist materials, local towns rent, and Wood’s rose comprise the major shrub and Chambers of Commerce promote US 287 as a species. Narrowleaf cottonwood, snowberry, goose­ scenic route to the national parks and show the berry, chokecherry, basin wild rye, and Nebraska Sweetwater Rocks on maps (as one mountain range, sedge are common on the mesic sites. not four BLM WSAs) or describe them as a scenic backdrop to the historic Oregon Trail. The large boulders and pockets of limber pine and aspen in the units provide cover and foraging areas Legal access by vehicle to the Lankin Dome WSA for mule deer during the summer. Most of the WSAs is along the Agate Flat Road on the west side of the are classified as mule deer winter-yearlong range. WSA. Although other roads exist that could provide During the winter, mule deer are often found in juni­ access to more popular spots within the WSA (Lan­ per stands. Shrubs, particularly sagebrush, rabbit­ kin Dome, for example), these cross private land and brush, and bitterbrush, are the primary food of mule thus are not legal access routes. As a result, most deer in the winter. Pronghorn antelope inhabit the visitors to the WSA cross private land to reach the rocklands in the meadows and grasslands that sur­ area. There are three landowners adjacent to this round the rocks, much of which is crucial winter WSA. Some visitors will attempt to contact one of range. the landowners to ask permission to cross private land. Others will simply trespass to get to the area. The Sweetwater Rocks WSA complex is historical In addition, some visitors leave gates open or drive bighorn habitat and still contains adequate habitat off existing roads. Most visitation occurs from May to support a bighorn population. The granite rock through October. About 50 such incidents (visitor formations provide escape cover, ant the small contacts, trespass, gates left open, etc.) occur dur­ pockets of grasses and forbs provide enough forage ing this period. to support a fairly large bighorn population. Cottontail rabbits, sage grouse, and mourning doves are plentiful in the WSA. These species use Wildlife a variety of habitats. Coyotes, bobcats, jackrabbits, and several species of raptors are common through­ The Lankin Dome WSA along with the other three out the area. The steep cliffs and rock outcrops pro­ Sweetwater Rocks WSAs, contain a complex intert­ vide nesting habitat for golden eagles, prairie fal­ wining of rock and vegetation. Since many wildlife cons, and red-tailed hawks, as well as prime hunting species appear to use a combination of different habitat for bobcats and coyotes. sites within these rock lands, the four WSAs in the Sweetwater Rocks have been classified as one stan­ Numerous songbirds such as Clark's nutcrackers, dard habitat site, which is described below. violet-green swallows, black-capped and mountain

47 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT chickadees, and nuthatches are found in the WSA. piles of broken rocks from the exfoliated areas Reptiles such as northern sagebrush lizards and prai­ above; the slope exceeds 100% slopes in places. Ele­ rie rattlesnakes use the area. vations range from about 6,200 feet in Beaton Pocket to 8,508 feet on McIntosh Peak. Total relief in the unit The Sweetwater Rocks WSA complex is within the is about 1,800 feet. range of bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and black­ footed ferret. No bald eagle nests, roosts, or perches Vegetation is diverse. The rockier, steeper slopes are know to exist with the Lankin Dome WSA. Al­ sometimes support little or no vegetation; however, though no peregrine aeries have been found in this for the most part the mountains support scattered WSA, the area has high potential as peregrine hab­ juniper and limber pine, which contrasts scenically itat. No ferret searches have been conducted in and with the reddish granite. The most outstanding veg­ around the WSA, but prairie dogs, ferrets main prey, etative character, however, is found in the pockets, are plentiful on the rangelands surrounding the where sagebrush and grasses give way to stands of rocks. limber pine, juniper, and aspen as one moves up the pocket toward the water source.

Cultural Resources Wilderness Values A search of the cultural resource files for this WSA was conducted. Although there has been little inven­ tory work done in the WSA, some information is avail­ Size able on the types of prehistoric resources present The WSA has 12,789 acres of contiguous public in the general area. Prehistoric hunting camps and land with one inholding, a 40-acre parcel of private habitations are common around the Sweetwater land, and one 40-acre parcel of split-estate land on Rocks WSA complex, especially near water sources. which only surface is federally owned. The private Typical site types include surface chipped stone parcel was not included in the acreage computation. scatter, buried campsites with firepits and stone cir­ The unit is bordered on the north by private and fed­ cle sites. Based on diagnostic artifacts found in and eral landsand byaroad allowing theonly publicvehi- near the Sweetwater Rocks WSA complex, prehis­ cle access; on the west by private, state, and federal toric Native Americans frequented this region for at lands; on the south by state and private lands; and least 12,000 years. The prehistoric people who pro­ on the east by private, state, and federal lands and duced those sites were hunters and gatherers whose a road. movements were, to a large degree, determined by seasonal changes in resource availability. These peo­ ple generally traveled in small bands, spending only Naturalness a limited amount of time at any one location. A par­ ticular cultural resource site might represent a one­ For the most part the WSA is in natural condition, time use of a location or repeated use for thousands free of human works. There are two-track vehicle of years. ways that penetrate the unit in the southeast and west; however, because of vegetative and/or topo­ Because of the proximity of the Sweetwater Rock graphic screening and the primitive, unused nature WSAs to the Sweetwater River, the WSAs were prom­ of those ways, they have little or no effect on the na­ inent in the early history of this region. The Oregon turalness of the unit. An old jade prospect in the and Mormon Pioneer Trail ran just south of this southeast is topographically screened from the WSA. Diary accounts of trail emigrants commonly remaining unit. One dilapidated cabin on public land mention the Sweetwater Rocks. Trapping also in Miller Pocket is not visible from more than 100 occurred periodically in the area along the Sweet­ yards because of the vegetative screening; there­ water River and the WSA. fore, it has no effect on the apparent naturalness of the area. Split Rock Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive, Unconfined Recreation General Characteristics Within the pockets, mini-forests allow visitors to Virtually all of the topography in the Split Rock be free of the influence of others within relatively WSA is mountainous terrain. These mountains of short distances. The contrast of green trees and the reddish, decomposing granite are divided by nu­ reddish peaks of granite enhances the opportunities merous small drainages or pockets. Many of the for solitude, so that these opportunities are outstand­ granite uplifts form gigantic slabs, domes, and/or ing.

48 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The only areas where solitude is not obtainable Livestock Grazing are the flats at the mouths of the pockets and the wide alluvial slope of the extreme southeast part of The WSA currently provides 1,141 AUMs for live­ the area. Here, neither vegetation nor topography stock grazing. The AUMs are spread through por­ allows visitors to find secluded spots or to be out of tions of four allotments comprising the WSA. All the sights and sounds of others. grazing use is by cattle. Table 6 lists details of the four grazing allotments in the Split Rock WSA, and The unit provides a variety of opportunities for map 10 shows the locations of the allotments. The primitive, unconfined recreation. Water and numer­ Green Mountain Rangeland Program Summary ous secluded campsites are available. The size and (USDI, BLM 1983a) contains a detailed description scenic quality of the WSA provide a desirable setting of livestock grazing management. for backpacking and hiking. Cultural, historical, and wildlife aspects furnish opportunities for nature study, photography, environmental education, and bird watching. Geology and Mineralization

Geology Special Features Like other Sweetwater Rocks WSAs, the Split The area contains a wide base of supplemental Rock WSA is within the Granite Mountain Uplift, values to draw visitors. The historical aspects of the which is part of a large east-west trending uplift that area include Miller's Cabin (once the home of a separates the greater Green River Basin from the trapper), numerous fields of arrowhead and thumb- Wind River Basin. The Granite Mountains generally scraper chippings and fragments, and a buffalo have been a structural high since earliest Paleocene jump used by prehistoric people. Split Rock, a his­ time (see appendix D), although the area has under­ toric landmark (shown in photo 4), is in the WSA, gone repeated structural adjustment since that time. as is part of the Oregon Trail corridor on the Sweet­ During Miocene and Pliocene times, portions of the water River, is in the National Register of Historic area were topographically low and were the sites of places. deposition.

Photograph 4: Split Rock, a historic landmark for emigrants on the Oregon Trail

49 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS IN THE SPLIT ROCK WSA 5 Z - 0) I- — ro ” I I 2 D Z O-D o (U M E ° OT3D . £ U.3 £ < Z = B * * .E 11. CO> a>.E E < < < < < < < < 2 tn !

g ID eg M O O C O C D C n i O Q. £ cn O O C D C O C ) O O C O C c <1) . Q C CD 03 Q) FETD ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED /) C § c _ o O lO WlO c ) a □ n c 03 © l zk Ll_ O _a) t C0 c ) 0 03 LO - 5 C/) c _ o c CD CL n c 03 0 ) 50 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The predominant bedrock units exposed in the near the WSA. Phillipsite is found near the top of the WSA are a medium to coarse grained biotite granite type section of the Moonstone Formation in section and a granitic gneiss (Tetra Tech 1983). These Pre- 17, T. 30 N„ R. 89 W„ 6th P.M., about 2 miles north­ cambrian granites and gneisses outcrop in the cen­ east of the WSA, and many clay samples from the tral parts of the WSA and contain intrusive dikes of Moonstone contain clinoptilolite (USDI, GS 1970). basalt and pegmatites. In the vicinity of the WSA, the Wagon Bed Formation was apparently well drained during deposition and During Miocene time, the Split Rock Formation without saline/alkaline lakes (Boles and Surdam was deposited in the topographically low, probably 1979). This would reduce the probability of zeolite undrained, portions of the Granite Mountains. The mineral deposits in the Wagon Bed Formation in this Split Rock Formation is generally less than 1,000 feet area. The Moonstone Formation does contain the thick and consists of white to tan, fine to coarse sediments of saline lakes in the WSA (USDI, GS grained sandstones and conglomerates (USDI, GS 1970); their presence increases the possibility of find­ 1970). During Pliocene time, the Moonstone Forma­ ing significant zeolite minerals in the Moonstone in tion has deposited in many of the same areas and this area. is now found overlying the Split Rock Formation. The Moonstone reaches a maximum thickness of Economically valuable mineral resources are not 1,350 feet and consists of interlayered sandstones, known to occur in the Split Rock WSA. The Geologic limestones, tuffs, conglomerates, and claystones Survey of Wyoming Map Series MS-14 (1985) shows (USDI, GS 1970). The Split Rock and Moonstone For­ occurrences of gold, silver, and other minerals in or mations surround the Precambrian core and are near the Sweetwater Rocks WSAs. exposed in outcrops along the fringes of the WSA. Table 7 lists oil and gas leases the Split Rock WSA. These are post-FLPMA leases and contain the wilder­ ness protection stipulation. Mineralization According to USGS (1983), there is no potential for oil and gas accumulation in this WSA. TABLE 7 The area surrounding the WSA contains occur­ OIL AND GAS LEASES rences of uranium, thorium, pumicite, sodium IN THE SPLIT ROCK WSA carbonate-sulfate, vermiculite, zeolite, and jade. The uranium and thorium occurrences are asso­ Approximate ciated with pegmatites in the Precambrian rocks and Lease No. Acreage Effective Date with the Tertiary sedimentary rocks of the Split Rock and Moonstone formations. Occurrences of ura­ nium and thorium in pegmatite dikes are probably W-77823 320 03/01/82 very restricted and have low potential for develop­ W-77729 680 02/01/82 ment. Uranium occurrences in the Split Rock Formation appear small and localized, and little source material Recreation (volcanic ash) is present in the formation (USDI, GS 1970). For these reasons, this formation has a low Recreational values in the Split Rock WSA are sig­ to moderate favorability for the occurrence of ura­ nificant. Extremely rough topography and rock out­ nium. The Moonstone Formation has widespread crops allow for only primitive forms of recreation uraniferous beds and contains more volcanic tuff such as rock climbing, hiking, hunting, sightseeing, beds, which could serve as a source of uranium camping, and rock collecting. Although use levels (USDI, GS 1970). For these reasons, the Moonstone are quite low, the Split Rock attracts users from Formation has a moderate to high favorability for the many parts of the country. The annual visitation in occurrence of uranium. this WSA is estimated at 1,750 visitor days per year. Recreational ORV use is estimated to be 250 visitor The pumicite occurrences in and near the WSA days per year. ORV use depends largely on the pop­ are small, so they probably have a low potential for ulation fluctuations of nearby Jeffrey City. development. Several special recreation use permits have been Some lakes occupying depressions in the issued in the area for outfitter and guide hunting exposed Split Rock Formation contain sodium car­ operations. The WSA offers mule deer hunting, and bonates and sodium sulfates; however, there are no a limited number of antelope licenses are issued known soda lakes within the WSA. each year for a hunt unit encompassing the area. The Tertiary Moonstone and Wagon Bed forma­ Winter sports such as cross-country skiing and tions contain zeolite minerals in certain locations snowmobiling have minimal potential because of

51 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT poor access and low snowpack, rugged terrain, and Cultural Resources strong, nearly continuous winter winds. The National Outdoor Leadership School offers A search of the cultural resource files for this WSA rock climbing instruction and outdoor educational was conducted. Although there has been little inven­ courses in the Split Rock WSA. The school has op­ tory work done in the WSA, some information is avail­ erated under a BLM special recreation permit since able on the types of prehistoric resources present 1972. In 1984, 1,345 user days were reported during in the general area. Prehistoric hunting camps and spring, summer, and fall courses. Rock climbing habitations are common around the Sweetwater opportunities are considered to be excellent. Rocks WSA complex, especially near water sources. Typical site types include surface chipped stone Like the Lankin Dome WSA, the Split Rock WSA scatter, buried campsites with firepits and stone cir­ lies adjacent to US 287 and provides part of the sce­ cle sites. A possible drive line and butchering site nic backdrop enjoyed by travelers on this highway. has been located in this WSA. It consists of stone Visitors who stop at the Split Rock Interpretive Site cairns, stone rings and logs that were apparently are looking directly at the Split Rock WSA. This WSA used to block escape routes. A large assortment of is the most viewed of the four Sweetwater Rocks butchering tools such as choppers and bifaces were WSAs, primarily because of Split Rock itself and its also located on the site. One projectile point or knife proximity to the interpretive site. was found that dates to the Late Archaic Period (1500 B.P. to 3000 B.P.). Legal motorized access to the northern-most por­ tion of the Split Rock WSA is possible by crossing Based on diagnostic artifacts found in and near contiguous public land on two-track trails. These the Sweetwater Rocks WSA complex, prehistoric trails can be accessed from the Dry Creek Road Native Americans frequented this region for at least (Natrona County Road No. 321). Alternate trails 12,000 years. The prehistoric people who produced exist that lead to more popular spots within the WSA those sites were hunters and gatherers whose move­ (such as Miller Pocket), and others are more direct ments were, to a large degree, determined by sea­ routes than the trails leading from Dry Creek Road. sonal changes in resource availability. These people However, these cross private land and thus are not generally traveled in small bands, spending only a legal access routes. As a result, most visitors to the limited amount of time at any one location. A partic­ WSA cross private land to reach the area. There are ular cultural resource site might represent a one­ six landowners adjacent to this WSA. Some visitors time use of a location or repeated use for thousands will attempt to contact one of the landowners to ask of years. permission to cross private land. Others will simply trespass to get to the area. In addition, some visitors Because of the proximity of the Sweetwater Rock leave gates open or drive off existing trails. Most vis­ WSAs to the Sweetwater River, the WSAs were prom­ itation occurs during the months of May through inent in the early history of this region. The Oregon October. About 50 such incidents (visitor contacts, and Mormon Pioneer Trail ran just south of this trespass, gates left open, etc.) occur during this WSA. Diary accounts of trail emigrants commonly period. mention the Sweetwater Rocks. Split Rock, located in this WSA, was one of the best known landmarks along the Sweetwater River. This property is listed Wildlife on the National Register and is withdrawn from all forms of mineral entry and leasing. Wildlife resources for the Split Rock WSA are Trapping also occurred periodically in the area essentially the same as described for Lankin Dome. along the Sweetwater River and the WSA. An old Habitat and species composition are similar be­ trapper's cabin is located within the WSA in Miller's cause the WSAs have similar landforms and vegeta­ Pocket. tion. Split Rock is also historic bighorn sheep habitat. However, this WSA and Savage Peak WSA contain Savage Peak the forage production, potential escape cover, and potential lambing areas so that they offer the best bighorn sheep habitat of the four Sweetwater Rocks General Characteristics WSAs. These two WSAs provide a good mixture of rugged escape cover and forage. Most of the Savage Peak WSA is rugged and moun­ tainous. Large expanses of bare rock predominate

52 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT throughout. Vegetation is generally sparse, but Special Features there are some dense stands of Douglas-fir, limber pine, aspen, and cottonwood in drainages. Juniper Large expanses of bare granite are not found else­ is scattered throughout the unit. Sagebrush, rabbit­ where in central Wyoming. In this WSA, they form brush, and grasses are found on surrounding plains. a natural and highly scenic backdrop for the Sweet­ water River Valley, which has a long history related to the exploration and early settlement of the West. Wilderness Values Livestock Grazing Size The WSA currently provides 765 AUMs for live­ The 7,041-acre unit is concentrated in one block stock grazing (cattle) in portions of three allotments in the immediate vicinity of Savage Peak. that comprise the WSA. Table 8 lists details of the three grazing allotments in the Savage Peak WSA, and map 10 shows the locations of the allotments. Naturalness The Green Mountain Rangeland Program Summary The WSA contains a number of intrusions, primar­ (USDI, BLM 1983a) contains a detailed description ily fences and vehicle ways. Several two-tracked of livestock grazing management. ways penetrate the “pockets” that surround the gra­ nitic rocks. Vehicle ways traverse Martin's Cove and the southern part of Savage Pocket, as well as the Geology and Mineralization pockets on the east near the Dumbell Ranch head­ quarters and on the south near the Sun Ranch at Dev­ Geology ils Gate. The central or core area is penetrated by three two-track trails, all faint and generally over­ Like the Lankin Dome and Split Rock WSAs, the grown with grasses. None detracts from the appar­ Savage Peak WSA is within the Granite Mountain ent naturalness of the area. Uplift, which is part of a large east-west trending up­ lift that separates the greater Green River Basin on the south from the Wind River Basin to the north. Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and The Granite Mountains generally have been a struc­ Primitive, Unconfined Recreation tural high since earliest Paleocene time (see Appen­ dix D), although the area has undergone repeated The rough, broken topography and the numerous structural adjustment since that time. During Mio­ draws and small canyons offer opportunities for sol­ cene and Pliocene times, portions of the area were itude. A large pocket on the west provides excellent topographically low and were the sites of deposition. opportunities for camping below Savage Peak. The pocket is well secluded from the surroundings and The predominant bedrock units exposed in the contains excellent scenery, which enhances the feel­ WSA are a medium to coarse grained biotite granite ing of solitude. The 7,041-acre size of the area also and a granitic gneiss (Tetra Tech 1983). These Pre- contributes to the feeling of solitude. Vegetation is cambrian granites and gneisses outcrop in the cen­ dense in places, providing seclusion or screening for tral parts of the WSA and contain intrusive dikes of visitors. basalt and pegmatites. Savage Peak WSA affords a variety of opportuni­ During Miocene time, the Split Rock Formation ties for primitive and unconfined types of recreation, was deposited in the topographically low, probably including hiking, camping, backpacking, hunting, undrained, portions of the Granite Mountains. The rock climbing, nature study, and photography. Split Rock Formation is generally less than 1,000 feet thick and consists of white to tan, fine to coarse The Savage Peak WSA contains great vertical grained sandstones and conglomerates (USDI, GS relief. Large pockets of open grass and sagebrush 1970). During Pliocene time, the Moonstone Forma­ on the west are surrounded by steeply rising slopes. tion was deposited in many of the same areas and On the east, state and private lands cover most of is now found overlying the Split Rock Formation. the lower slopes of Savage Peak and the surround­ The Moonstone reaches a maximum thickness of ing rocks. Nonetheless, the size of the area and its 1,350 feet and consists of interlayered sandstones, diverse topography combine to provide some high limestones, tuffs, conglomerates, and claystones quality opportunities for primitive recreation. (USDI, GS 1970). The Split Rock and Moonstone For­ mations surround the Precambrian core and are exposed in the outcrops along the fringes of the WSA.

53 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS IN THE SAVAGE PEAK WSA < - ■ S.E 5 h— - TO*- > D 2 II-S - O Q- o__ I £ DIL « o E OD p £ _ o a)c C Li_ 3 TOi- 0-2 > -S u o |.£ S ° U-^ V a)£ TO^ Q> ^ Qj oj 9 *

= CO = *■§. (/) FETD ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED C 3 E w E £

54 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Mineralization Other economically valuable mineral resources are not known to occur in the Savage Peak WSA. According to Spencer and Powers (USDI, GS Geologic Survey of Wyoming Map Series MS-14 1983), there is no potential for oil and gas accumu­ (1985) shows occurrences of gold, silver, and other lation in this WSA. minerals in or near the Sweetwater Rocks WSAs. The area surrounding the WSA contains occurren­ There are no oil and gas leases or mining claims ces of uranium, thorium, pumicite, sodium in the WSA. carbonate-sulfate, vermiculite, zeolite, and jade. The uranium and thorium occurrences are asso­ ciated with pegmatites in the Precambrian rocks and Recreation with the Tertiary sedimentary rocks of the Split Rock and Moonstone formations. Occurrences of ura­ Recreational values in the Savage Peak WSA are nium and thorium in pegmatite dikes are probably significant. Extremely rough topography and rock very restricted and have low potential for develop­ outcrops allow for only primitive forms of recreation ment. such as rock climbing, hiking, hunting, sightseeing, camping, and rock collecting. Although use levels Uranium occurrences in the Split Rock Formation are quite low, the WSA attracts users from many appear small and localized, and little source material parts of the country (the WSA has an estimated total (volcanic ash) is present in the formation (USDI, GS of 1,250 visitor days annually). Recreational ORV 1970). For these reasons, this formation has a low use is estimated to be 250 visitor days per year. ORV to moderate potential for the occurrence of uranium. use depends largely on the population fluctuations The Moonstone Formation has widespread uranifer- of nearby Jeffrey City. ous beds and contains more volcanic tuff beds, which could serve as a source of uranium (USDI, GS Several special recreation use permits have been 1970). For these reasons, the Moonstone Formation issued in the area for outfitter and guide hunting has a moderate to high favorability for the occur­ operations. The WSA offers mule deer hunting, and rence of uranium. a limited number of antelope licenses are issued each year for a hunt unit encompassing the area. The pumicite occurrences in and near the WSA Winter sports such as cross-country skiing and are small, so they probably have a low potential for snowmobiling have minimal potential because of development. poor access and low snowpack, rugged terrain, and Some lakes occupying depressions in the strong, nearly continuous winter winds. exposed Split Rock Formation contain sodium car­ The Savage Peak WSA lies adjacent to Wyoming bonates and sodium sulfates; however, there are no Highway 220, a major tourist route from Casper and known soda lakes in the WSA. Interstate 25 to the east. Travelers use this route to Jade occurs in veins or dikes in the Precambrian connect with Us 287 to the national parks or use the rock or as placer concentrations in the Tertiary sed­ route to view the historic Oregon Trail. Like Lankin iments (Tetra Tech 1983). The WSA has a moderate Dome and Split Rock, this WSA provides a highly to high potential for the occurrence of jade. scenic backdrop to travelers on WYO 220 and is an inherent part of the Sweetwater Rocks described in The Tertiary Moonstone and Wagon Bed forma­ tourist brochures. BLM's Devils Gate Interpretive tions contain zeolite minerals in certain locations. Site lies directly adjacent to this WSA. This site Phillipsite is found near the top of the type section receives over 20,000 visitors yearly. of the Moonstone Formation in section 17, T. 30 N., R. 89 W., 6th P.M., several miles northeast of the Legal motorized access to the northern part of the WSA, and many clay samples from the Moonstone Savage Peak WSA is possible by crossing contigu­ contain clinoptilolite (USDI, GS 1970). In the vicinity ous public land on two-track trails. These trails can of the WSA, the Wagon Bed Formation was appar­ be accessed from the Dry Creek Road (Natrona ently well drained during deposition and without County Road No. 321). Alternate roads exist that saline/alkaline lakes (Boles and Surdam 1979). This lead to more popular spots within the WSA, and would reduce the probability of zeolite mineral others are more direct routes than the trails leading deposits in the Wagon Bed Formation in this area. from Dry Creek Road. However, these cross private The Moonstone Formation does contain the sedi­ land and thus are not legal access routes. As a result, ments of saline lakes in the WSA (USDI, GS 1970); most visitors to the WSA cross private land to reach their presence increases the possibility of finding sig­ the area. There are three landowners adjacent to this nificant zeolite minerals in the Moonstone in this WSA. Some visitors will attempt to contact one of area. the landowners to ask permission to cross private

55 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

land. Others will simply trespass to get to the area. occurred periodically in the area along the Sweet­ In addition, some visitors leave gates open or drive water River and the WSA. The foundation of an old off existing roads. Most visitation occurs from May trapper's cabin lies in Ordway Pocket on the eastern to October. About 40 such incidents (visitor con­ edge of this WSA. tacts, trespass, gates left open, etc.) occur during this period. Miller Springs Wildlife General Characteristics Wildlife resources for the Savage Peak WSA are essentially the same as described for the Lankin Topography in the Miller Springs WSA is almost Dome WSA. Habitat and species composition are entirely rough, broken granite domes and outcrops. similar because the WSAs have similar landforms Sagebrush flats make up about 10% to 15% of the and vegetation. unit. Parts of the unit resemble a pile of huge mono­ lithic rock masses. Although not unique to Wyoming Like the other WSAs in the Sweetwater Rocks, Sav­ or the west, the Sweetwater Rocks are unusual, and age Peak is historic bighorn sheep habitat. Two they provide a scenic backdrop to the historic Sweet­ small transplants of bighorns occurred in the Sweet­ water Valley. water Rocks in the 1940's, probably in the Savage Peak WSA. A helicopter survey in 1983 failed to Juniper and scattered limber pine are on the rocky locate any bighorns. slopes, and aspen along the base of the rocks. Sage­ brush and grasses are found on the surrounding This WSA, along with the Split Rock WSA, offers plains. Large expanses of barren rock characterize the best bighorn sheep habitat of the four WSAs in the unit. the Sweetwater Rocks. The WSA's forage produc­ tion, potential escape cover, and potential lambing areas combine to provide quality bighorn sheep hab­ itat. Wilderness Values

Size Cultural Resources The Miller Springs WSA is the western portion of A search of the cultural resource files for this WSA the initial inventory area WY-030-123, which con­ was conducted. Although there has been little inven­ tained approximately 19,900 acres. The initial inven­ tory work done in the WSA, some information is avail­ tory area was split into two units (123a and 123b) able on the types of prehistoric resources present by a road that was identified by the public. The road in the general area. Prehistoric hunting camps and crosses private, state, and BLM-managed land as it habitations are common around the Sweetwater traverses the unit in a north-south direction. Other Rocks WSA complex, especially near water sources. roads and intrusions were identified during the ini­ Typical site types include surface chipped stone tial inventory. Some narrow fingers of land extend­ scatter, buried campsites with firepits and stone cir­ ing from the unit were dropped. The total acreage cle sites. Based on diagnostic artifacts found in and dropped because of intrusions and fingers was 885 near the Sweetwater Rocks WSA complex, prehis­ acres. After these changes, the present size of unit toric Native Americans frequented this region for at 123b is 6,429 acres. least 12,000 years. The prehistoric people who pro­ duced those sites were hunters and gatherers whose movements were, to a large degree, determined by Naturalness seasonal changes in resource availability. These peo­ ple generally traveled in small bands, spending only The Miller Springs WSA is largely free of human a limited amount of time at any one location, a par­ imprints. Those that exist are confined to two-track ticular cultural resource site might represent a one­ ways and about 3/10 of a mile of fence. The ways time use of a location or repeated use for thousands are all on the east and northeast ends of the unit. All are in open sagebrush areas. of years. Because of the proximity of the Sweetwater Rock The trails are quite noticeable while one is travel­ WSAs to the Sweetwater River, the WSAs were prom­ ing on them or adjacent to them. From a distance, inent in the early history of this region. The Oregon they are not particularly noticeable and visual and Mormon Pioneer Trail ran just south of this impact is confined to the level, sage-covered areas WSA. Diary accounts of trail emigrants commonly around the base of the rocks. mention the Sweetwater Rocks. Trapping also

56 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and The predominant bedrock units exposed in the Primitive, Unconfined Recreation WSA are a medium to coarse grained biotite granite and a granitic gneiss (Tetra Tech 1983). These Pre- The linear configuration of the WSA limits oppor­ cambrian granites and gneisses outcrop in the cen­ tunity for a visitor to find isolation from others in the tral parts of the WSA and contain intrusive dikes of unit. The degree of solitude available to visitors basalt and pegmatites. depends on the number of visitors rather than ter­ rain, vegetation, or size. The opportunity for solitude During Miocene time, the Split Rock Formation is limited. was deposited in the topographically low, probably undrained, portions of the Granite Mountains. The The Miller Spring WSA offers opportunities for Split Rock Formation is generally less than 1,000 feet primitive recreation such as hiking, camping, rock thick and consists of white to tan, fine to coarse climbing, hunting, photography, nature study, sight­ grained sandstones and conglomerates (USDI, GS seeing, and bird watching. 1970). During Pliocene time, the Moonstone Forma­ Primitive campsites are available in a few places tion was deposited in many of the same areas and where grassy meadows, shelter, and concealment is now found overlying the Split Rock Formation. are available. The lack of well-distributed quality The Moonstone reaches a maximum thickness of campsites might cause some visitor overlap and con­ 1,350 feet and consists of interlayered sandstones, finement of use. limestones, tuffs, conglomerates, and claystones (USDI, GS 1970). The Split Rock and Moonstone for­ The WSA provides outstanding opportunities for mation outcrops surround the Precambrian on the a primitive, unconfined type of recreation. However, fringes of the WSA. the opportunity for solitude is limited.

Mineralization Special Features According to USGS (1983), there is no potential There are opportunities to study geological and for oil and gas accumulation in this WSA. scenic attributes in this WSA. It also contains his­ toric and archeological sites. The area surrounding the WSA contains occurren­ ces of uranium, thorium, pumicite, sodium carbonate-sulfate, vermiculite, zeolite, and jade. Livestock Grazing The uranium and thorium occurrences are asso­ ciated with pegmatites in the Precambrian rocks and The WSA currently provides 756 AUMs for live­ with the Tertiary sedimentary rocks of the Split Rock stock grazing, spread between two allotments. Table and Moonstone formations. Occurrences of ura­ 9 lists details of the two grazing allotments in the nium and thorium in pegmatite dikes are probably Miller Springs WSA, and Map 10 shows the locations very restricted and have low potential for develop­ of the allotments. All grazing use is by cattle. The ment. Green Mountain Rangeland Program Summary (USDI, BLM 1983a) contains a detailed description Uranium occurrences in the Split Rock Formation of livestock grazing management. appear small and localized, and little source material (volcanic ash) is present in the formation (USDI, GS 1970). For these reasons, this formation has a low Geology and Mineralization to moderate favorability for the occurrence of ura­ nium. The Moonstone Formation has widespread uraniferous beds and contains more volcanic tuff Geology beds, which could serve as a source of uranium (USDI, GS 1970). For these reasons, the Moonstone Like the other Sweetwater Rocks WSAs, the Miller Formation has a moderate to high favorability for the Springs WSA is within the Granite Mountain Uplift, occurrence of uranium. which is part of a large east-west trending uplift sep­ arating the greater southern Green River Basin from The pumicite occurrences in and near the WSA the northern Wind River Basin. The Granite Moun­ are small, so they probably have a low potential for tains generally have been a structural high since ear­ development. liest Paleocene time (see appendix D), although the Some lakes occupying depressions in the area has undergone repeated structural adjustment exposed Split Rock Formation contain sodium car­ since that time. During Miocene and Pliocene times, bonates and sodium sulfates; however, there are no portions of the area were topographically low and known soda lakes within the WSA. were the sites of deposition.

57 TABLE 9 D Z u 2 f < < o — - o — " « E"g w. CO8-2 > o-o o a» « * u- 9 o E . | S S - O 3U.5 LL ) 0 § O D -O o DLL. « a!E g - o 2 . - . CO t/> Li. .9 ^ .9 u. -8 < z = E £ 03 03 > > < < < < =

. w u. > £ 75w cnj. > i D C D °?§ C ? CD o. E ra .E . o i FETD ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED SB - E 58 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Jade occurs in veins or dikes in the Precambrian Legal motorized access to the eastern-most tip of rock or as placer concentrations in the Tertiary sed­ the Miller Springs WSA is possible by crossing con­ iments (Tetra Tech, 1983). The WSA has a moderate tiguous public land on two-track trails. These trails to high favorability for the occurrence of jade. can be accessed from the Dry Creek Road (Natrona County Road No. 321). Alternate roads exist that The Tertiary Moonstone and Wagon Bed forma­ lead to more popular spots within the WSA, and tions contain zeolite minerals in certain locations others are more direct routes than the trails leading near the WSA. Phillipsite is found near the top of the from Dry Creek Road. However, these cross private type section of the Moonstone Formation in section land and thus are not legal access routes. As a result, 17, T. 30 N., R. 89 W., 6th P.M., which is about V2 mile most visitors to the WSA cross private land to reach north of the WSA. Many clay samples from the Moon­ the area. There are three landowners adjacent to this stone contain clinoptilolite (USDI, GS 1970). In the WSA. Some visitors will attempt to contact one of vicinity of the WSA, the Wagon Bed Formation was the landowners to ask permission to cross private apparently well drained during deposition and with­ land. Others will simply trespass to get to the area. out saline/alkaline lakes (Boles and Surdam 1979). In addition, some visitors leave gates open or drive This would reduce the probability of zeolite mineral off existing roads. Most visitation occurs from May deposits in the Wagon Bed Formation in this area. through October. About 40 such incidents (visitor The Moonstone Formation does contain the sedi­ contacts, trespass, gates left open, etc.) occur dur­ ments of saline lakes in the WSA (USDI, GS 1970); ing this period. their presence increases the possibility of finding sig­ nificant zeolite minerals in the Moonstone in this area. Wildlife Economically valuable mineral resources are not known to occur in the WSA. Geologic Survey of Wyo­ Wildlife resources for the Miller Springs WSA are ming Map Series MS-14 (1985) shows occurrences essentially the same as described for Lankin Dome. of gold, silver, and other minerals in or near the Habitat and species composition are similar be­ Sweetwater Rocks WSAs. cause the WSAs have similar landforms and vegeta­ tion. The Miller Springs WSA contains no further There are no oil and gas leases or mining claims unique or special wildlife resources other than those in the Miller Springs WSA. already described for Lankin Dome.

Recreation Cultural Resources

Recreational values in the Miller Springs WSA are A search of the cultural resource files for this WSA significant. Extremely rough topography and rock was conducted. Although there has been little inven­ outcrops allow for only primitive forms of recreation tory work done in the WSA, some information is avail­ such as rock climbing, hiking, hunting, sightseeing, able on the types of prehistoric resources present camping, and rock collecting. Although use levels in the general area. Prehistoric hunting camps and are quite low, the WSA attracts users from many habitations are common around the Sweetwater parts of the country (the WSA has an estimated 500 Rocks WSA complex, especially near water sources. visitor days annually). Recreational ORV use is esti­ Typical site types include surface chipped stone mated to be 250 visitor days per year. ORV use scatter, buried campsites with firepits and stone cir­ depends largely on the population fluctuations of cle sites. Based on diagnostic artifacts found in and nearby Jeffrey City. near the Sweetwater Rocks WSA complex, prehis­ Several special recreation use permits have been toric Native Americans frequented this region for at issued in the area for outfitter and guide hunting least 12,000 years. The prehistoric people who pro­ operations. The WSA offers mule deer hunting, and duced those sites were hunters and gatherers whose a limited number of antelope licenses are issued movements were, to a large degree, determined by each year for a hunt unit encompassing the area. seasonal changes in resource availability. These peo­ Winter sports such as cross-country skiing and ple generally traveled in small bands, spending only snowmobiling have minimal potential because of a limited amount of time at any one location. A par­ poor access and low snowpack, rugged terrain, and ticular cultural resource site might represent a one­ strong, nearly continuous winter winds. time use of a location or repeated use for thousands of years. Like the Savage Peak WSA, the Miller Springs WSA lies adjacent to WYO 220, a major tourist route Because of the proximity of the Sweetwater Rock from Casper and Interstate 25 to the east. This WSA WSAs to the Sweetwater River, the WSAs were prom­ is the farthest removed from a highway, but still pro­ inent in the early history of this region. The Oregon vides a scenic backdrop to travelers. and Mormon Pioneer Trail ran just south of this

59 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

WSA. Diary accounts of trail emigrants commonly Wilderness Values mention the Sweetwater Rocks. Trapping also occurred periodically in the area along the Sweet­ water River and the WSA. Size The Copper Mountain WSA contains 6,858 acres —more than 10 square miles—of contiguous public Copper Mountain land.

General Characteristics Naturalness The Copper Mountain WSA is in Fremont County, For all practical purposes, the Copper Mountain about 10 miles north of Shoshoni. It lies east of WSA is natural. A small fenceline and some rundown Boysen Dam, at the upper end of the Wind River Can­ drift fences are located in two mountain passes, but yon, and is bounded on the west by the Wind River they blend into the overall view; therefore, these Indian Reservation, on the south and north by pri­ intrusions do not affect the area's naturalness. vate and state lands on Birdseye and Cottonwood Creek, and on the east by the Birdseye Pass County Road and a ranch (see Map 10). U.S. Highway 789 Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and and the Thermopolis to Alcova power line cross the Primitive, Unconfined Recreation southwest corner of the unit. The Copper Mountain WSA is part of the Copper/Birdseye Pass area of the The Copper Mountain WSA offers outstanding Copper Mountain Range, also known as the Bridger opportunities for solitude, but noise emanates from Mountains. truck traffic on U.S. Highway 20/Wyoming Highway 789. The rough topography, steep drainages, rocky The topography of the entire WSA is mountain­ outcrops, and tree cover in some areas screen vis­ ous. Rugged mountains rise from 5,000 feet to 6,400 itors from one another, making it easy to find seclu­ feet, and steep canyons and rocky slopes dominate sion. The potential for recreation is outstanding; it the unit. Total relief in the unit is 1,400 feet (see pho­ includes hiking, hunting, and sightseeing for geolog­ tos 5 and 6). ical features. From the tops of the mountain and ridges, 3oysen Reservoir is visible.

Photograph 5: Looking east along an outcrop of sedimentary rock in Copper Mountain WSA.

60 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Photograph 6: Juniper-covered slopes in a northward view—Copper Mountain WSA.

The topography offers a challenge and a strenu­ Geology and Mineralization ous walk for day hikers or backpackers as well as for nontechnical rock climbers. Both large and small game species inhabit the area. Geology The Copper Mountain WSA is at the north edge of the Wind River Basin and the southern flank of Special Features the Bridger Mountains. The area has been exten­ The Wind River Basin and Boysen Reservoir, sively faulted parallel to the Bridger Mountains and which are south and west of the WSA, offer spectac­ is thrust faulted at depth. ular views. From the mountain peaks one can see Precambrian rocks and Paleozoic sedimentary a distance of 10 to 50 miles. The view includes the rocks ranging from Cambrian to Pennsylvanian are Wind River Mountains and Beaver Rim. exposed in the WSA, as are the Tertiary Wind River Good opportunities exist for the educational and Formation and Quaternary alluvium and colluvium. scientific study of the ecological communities within The Flathead sandstone of middle Cambrian age the area. A variety of geological features can be stud­ ied in the WSA. (see appendix D) is the basal sedimentary unit in this area and the oldest unit exposed. The Flathead con­ sists of sandstone with minor siltstone and some con­ glomerate. The Gros Ventre Formation overlies the Livestock Grazing Flathead and consists of siltstone, fine-grained sand­ The Copper Mountain WSA currently provides stone, and some local beds of limestone in the upper part. The Gallatin Limestone of late Cambrian age 635 AUMs for livestock grazing in two allotments. All unconformably overlies the Gros Ventre and con­ of the grazing use is by cattle. Table 15 lists details of the two grazing allotments in the Copper Moun­ sists of thin-bedded silty and sandy limestone, with some limestone pebble conglomerates (Tetra Tech tain WSA and Map 12 shows the locations of the allot­ ments. The Lander RMP/EIS grazing supplement 1983). (USDI, BLM 1985c) contains a detailed description The Bighorn Dolomite of late and middle Ordovi­ of the proposed livestock grazing management. cian consists of fine grained massive dolomite with

61 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS IN THE COPPER MOUNTAIN WSA 1“ ^ 55 5 2 -S-g- w •£ 0-0 J mu. |.E S g _ o O-p D 3U.S “ » E 0)I s <0 (/) < z = f I i ^ Li. ir < < < Q> 0 § CO E 0 l c FETD ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED E,2 I I 62 WSA Boundary □ Federal Land State Land

I I Private Land Allotment Boundary

1343 Tuff Creek Pasture 1348 John Herbst Summer

Map 12 Grazing Allotments Copper Mountain AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

lenses of fine grained sandstone near the base. The high and moderate on the basis of the presence of Madison Limestone of Mississippian age unconfor- formations highly favorable for the accumulation of mably overlies the Bighorn and consists of fine hydrocarbons. There are no oil and gas leases in the grained argillaceous limestone and dolomite and WSA. sporadic lenses of sandstones. The Amsden Forma­ Limestone from the Madison limestone is suitable tion of early to middle Pennsylvanian and late Mis­ for cement or industrial and agricultural lime, but sissippian age consists of a lower, thin-bedded, availability of the limestone elsewhere, distance to clayey siltstone; a middle-fine to medium grained fri­ potential markets, and inaccessibility in this area able sandstone; and an upper dolomite. The Ten- sleep Sandstone of middle Pennsylvanian consists make the development potential low. of slightly dolomitic and clayey-fine to medium­ Inactive uranium prospects and mines are found grained sandstone (Tetra Tech 1983). in both Eocene sediments and Precambrian rocks The Wind River Formation of early Eocene uncon- to the east of the WSA in T. 40 N., R. 92 W., 6th P.M. Uranium in the Teepee Trail Formation is associated formably overlies the Paleozoic sediments and con­ sists of beds of sandstone, siltstone, claystone, con­ with hematitic alteration halos and carbon trash (Yel- glomerate, and local coal beds. lich, Cramer, and Kendall 1978). Uranium occur­ rences in the Precambrian rocks are found at geo­ chemical interfaces between descending Mineralization uranium-carrying oxidized watersystemsand under­ lying reducing systems (Yellich, Cramer, and Ken­ Colorado Interstate Gas Exploration's (CIGE) dall 1978). abandoned well number 1-4-39-94 is adjacent to the WSA in NW’ANE’A, section 4, T. 39 N., R. 94 W„ 6th Precambrian rocks are not exposed in the Copper P.M. (see Map 13). This well was drilled to a depth Mountain WSA. However, Precambrian rocks to the of 17,550 feet, and was completed in April 1980 in east of the WSA contain a broad variety of mineral the Mesaverde Formation at 12,874 to 13,749 feet for resources such as iron, copper, gold, silver, an initial production of 59 mcf of gas per day. The tungsten, feldspar, tantalum, beryl, lithium, and rare Cody-Niobrara Formations were drill stem tested at earth elements. Several mines, some within the past rates varying from 1,100 to 1,300 mcf of gas per day. 10 years, have been developed to extract these min­ The Frontier Formation was production tested at 200 erals. mcf of gas per day for 17 hours. The well was tem­ Hesse (1982) considers the Wind River Formation porarily abandoned in January 1982. along the north edge of the Wind River Basin as favor­ The CIGE well is the only well in this area that has able for uranium deposits for the following reasons: penetrated a thrust fault deeper than 6,140 feet. It There is a potential uranium source in the gra­ was drilled on the basis of information that indicated nitic highlands of the Owl Creek Mountains a structural closure beneath the thrust fault. How­ and/or previously overlying tuffaceous sedi­ ever, it is believed the well missed the crest of the ments. geologic structure, so there may be potential for a future gas discovery. Other dry holes have been A host rock of permeable arkosic sandstone is drilled in the area, but none were drilled deep interbedded with siltstone and mudstones. enough to penetrate the thrust fault. A reducing agent is available from nearby petro­ Two relative rating systems for hydrocarbon leum fields. potential are described in appendix F. According to There are traces of pyrite and kaolinization of Spencer and Powers (USDI, GS 1983), the lands in feldspars in the subsurface. Approximately the Copper Mountain WSA have a low potential for 1,500 acres are underlain by the Wind River For­ oil and gas. On the basis of experience with the CIGE mation in a band along the southern portion of well no. 1-4-39-94, these lands probably should be the WSA, along Birdseye Creek near the eastern rated moderate. Since this well is the only one to border. have penetrated the thrust fault in this area, subsur­ face control can be considered sparse. The well tests Other mineral occurrences are given a low favor- from the Cody and Mesaverde Formations show that ability classification in the Copper Mountain WSA. the environment is highly favorable for the occur­ rence of gas. However the area is not in line with existing production from similar traps and, accord­ Recreation ing to the USGS (1983), the WSA cannot be put into the high-potential category. The primary recreational activities in the Copper Mountain WSA are hunting for mule deer, sightsee­ The Lander Resource Area RMP/EIS (USDI, BLM ing, and some rock collecting. The area provides 1985b) rates the oil and gas potential for the area as average quality deer hunting for central Wyoming.

64 WSA Boundary LJ Federal Land ¡7 l State Land i i Private Land Lode Claims

Abandoned Oil and Gas Well

Map 13 Mining Claims Copper Mountain AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The lack of water in the area limits the distribution Although the WSA is within the range of bald of hunting opportunities. Visitation is estimated to eagles, peregrine falcons and black-footed ferrets, be quite low (100 visitor days annually) because the no documented sightings of these species have oc­ area is remote and dry. There are no roads in the curred, and the area is not considered to be prime WSA at the present time. No recreational ORV use habitat for these endangered species. is known to occur in the Copper Mountain WSA.

Cultural Resources Wildlife Information concerning cultural resources in the Wildlife habitat on the Copper Mountain WSA can Copper Mountain WSA has been obtained from a lit­ be classified as a Utah Juniper Woodland Standard erature review. No cultural resource field inventories Habitat Site. Tall, open stands (7-15 feet tall) of Utah have been conducted within this WSA, and no sites juniper usually associated with saltbush, sagebrush, are known to be located within the WSA. A few inven­ rabbitbrush, and several grass species are character­ tories have been conducted near the WSA, and the istic of this habitat. cultural resources found have been small historic and prehistoric sites. Most have been considered The northern portion of the WSA is classified as ineligible for nomination to the National Register. crucial winter range for mule deer, and the remain­ Based on the types of sites found, it appears that the der of the WSA is yearlong winter range. The ma­ prehistoric people who occupied the WSA were hunt­ jority of the WSA is yearlong habitat for antelope. ers and gatherers whose movements were, to a large The southern portion of the WSA along Birdseye degree, determined by seasonal changes in Creek is crucial winter range, and the northern edge resource availability. These people generally trav­ is spring, summer, and fall range. The WSA receives eled in small bands, spending only a limited amount only occasional elk use during the summer. of time in any one location. A particular cultural The WSA supports cottontail rabbits and chukars. resource site might represent a one-time use of a These two species use a variety of habitat types, pre­ location or repeated use for thousands of years. Di­ ferring the rock outcrops and rocky cliffs inter­ agnostic projectile points indicate nearly continu­ spersed with grasses and sagebrush. Jackrabbits, ous use of the general area for the last 12,000 years. coyotes, bobcats, red foxes, and several other spe­ The route of the Birdseye Pass Stage Line (in oper­ cies of small mammals, and raptors are common throughout the WSA. ation from the 1880s to early 1900s) runs along the east boundary of the WSA. This is now an upgraded road.

66 CHAPTER 4

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

In addition to naturalness, the vehicle closure on SWEETWATER CANYON 5,538 acres would benefit the wilderness value of out­ standing opportunitiesforsolitudeand primitive rec­ reation. An estimated 100 visitor days annually of rec­ Proposed Action (Partial reational ORV use would be eliminated from the Wilderness) wilderness portion of the WSA. Although encoun­ ters between recreational ORV users and other Wilderness values on 5,538 acres of the WSA recreationists are infrequent at current levels of use, would be protected by legislative mandate, while the elimination of ORV use would benefit the wilder­ 3,518 acres would not receive the special legislative ness value of solitude because visitors seeking sol­ protection provided by wilderness designation. itude and primitive recreation experiences would not encounter or hear ORV users in the area. The WSA's special feature of high scenic value is Recommended Portion inherently tied to the wilderness value of natural­ ness. Thus, the WSA's scenic values would be af­ fected to the same degree as naturalness.

Impacts on Wilderness Values Conclusion: Annual assessment work on 720 acres of mining claims would result in less than five acres Under the Proposed Action, the 5,538 acres pro­ of surface disturbance over the long term. The posed for wilderness would be withdrawn from all impact of this action on the wilderness value of natu­ forms of mineral entry, subject to valid existing ralness would be negligible. Wilderness values of rights at the time of designation. It is assumed that naturalness, solitude, and primitive recreation locatable mineral (gold) claims on 720 acres in the would be enhanced by the elimination of vehicle use portion recommended for wilderness would hold in 5,538 acres recommended for wilderness. The spe­ valid discoveries. However, because of the small cial feature of scenic quality would be affected to the amount of gold-bearing vein rock in the WSA and same degree as naturalness. the low gold concentration in the gravels of the Sweetwater River, the only activity that is expected on these claims would be the annual assessment work. This would include panning, operating hand- Impacts on the Development of Energy powered sluice boxes, and hand-sampling small and Mineral Resources amounts of ore. Such activity would result in small spoil piles and excavations (less than a cubic meter The 5,538 acres recommended for wilderness each) totaling less than 5 acres over the long term. would be withdrawn from all forms of mineral entry Although this would adversely affect the wilderness and leasing subject to valid existing rights at the time value of naturalness, the impact would be insignifi­ of designation. There is no potential for oil and gas cant because the surface disturbance would be within the WSA. There are currently 720 acres cov­ spread out over 720 acres in the western part of the ered by mining claims within the 5,538 acres pro­ WSA and would occur over the course of several posed for wilderness. It is assumed that the claims years. The disturbance would not be readily visible would hold valid discoveries. However, because of to the casual observer. the small amount of gold bearing vein-rock in the WSA and the gold concentration in the gravels of the Approximately two miles of two-track vehicle Sweetwater River, the only activity expected on trails would be closed and returned to natural con­ these claims would be the annual assessment work. ditions. This would amount to around 150 acres re­ This would consist of panning, hand-operated sluice turned to natural conditions. Additionally, the per­ boxes, and hand-sampling small amounts of ore. As­ ception of naturalness would be enhanced on 1,000 sessment work on valid claims is allowed under acres, the estimated areas in which at least a portion BLM's wilderness management policy and conse­ of the trails could be seen by the casual visitor. The quently would be allowed to continue. wilderness value of naturalness would thus be enhanced on 1,000 acres from the vehicle trail clo­ sure.

67 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Conclusion: Under the Proposed Action, mining an adverse impact on solitude and primitive recre­ activity would continue at current projected levels. ation. The impact would be minimal because ORV There would be no significant impact on mineral use is estimated to be only 150 visitor days annually resources. and would remain below 250 days annually as the displaced ORV use is absorbed to areas outside of he designated portion of the WSA. Additionally, Impacts on Recreational ORV Use most ORV use would occur during the fall months (hunting seasons) when the majority of wilderness- An estimated 100 visitor days annually of recre­ type visitors would be absent. ational ORV use would be eliminated from two miles The WSA's special feature of high scenic value is of vehicle trails on 5,538 acres proposed for wilder­ inherently tied to the wilderness value of natural­ ness designation under this alternative. Future ness. Thus, the WSA's scenic values would be af­ opportunities would be forgone because vehicles fected to the same degree as naturalness. would no longer be allowed in the area. Vehicular access to the river within the WSA would be elimi­ nated. There are three vehicle trails within the WSA Conclusion: Annual assessment work on 280 acres leading to the river which would be closed. Only one of mining claims would result in less than 5 acres actually goes to the river while the other two end at of surface disturbance over the long term. The the canyon rim above the river. As a result, fisherman impact of this action on the wilderness value of natu­ and other recreationists would be required to walk ralness would be negligible. The wilderness values up to 11/2 miles to reach the river. This would not be of solitude and primitive recreation would be expected to significantly affect visitation in the por­ adversely affected by continued ORV use, but the tion of the WSA recommended for wilderness impact would be minimal because use levels are low because most visitors currently walk to the river. Ve­ and the chances for encounters between ORV users hicle access to the river would still be available at and users seeking primitive recreation experiences either end of the WSA. would be low. The special feature of scenic quality would be affected to the same degree as natural­ ness. Conclusion: ORV use of 100 visitor days annually would be eliminated from two miles of vehicle trail on 5,538 acres. This is not regarded as a significant impact because such use would be easily absorbed Impacts on the Development of Energy on adjacent public land. and Mineral Resources

The 3,383 acres recommended for nonwilderness Nonrecommended Portion would remain open to mineral entry and leasing. There is no potential for oil and gas. Annual assess­ ment work would continue on the 280 acres covered Impacts on Wilderness Values by existing claims within the 3,383 acres of nonwil­ derness, but no other development is expected be­ The 3,518 acres of the WSA recommended for non­ cause of the small amount of gold-bearing vein rock wilderness would be open to oil and gas leasing, sub­ in the WSA. Mining claims could be located on the ject to standard mitigation guidelines. However, 3,383 acres of nonwilderness, but again, the likeli­ there is no potential for oil and gas in this portion hood of development is low for reasons discussed of the WSA so no exploration or development would above and due to the lack of potential for other min­ be expected. No large scale development (develop­ erals. ment on a scale larger than annual assessment work) is expected on the 280 acres of mining claims Conclusion: Under the Proposed Action, the 3,383 in this portion of the WSA, because of the small acres of nonwilderness would remain open to min­ amount of gold-bearing vein rock in the WSA. How­ eral entry and leasing; consequently, there would be ever, annual assessment work (identical to that no impact. However, there is little potential for any described earlier) would result in small excavations exploration or development. and spoil piles less than a cubic meter in size, total­ ling a maximum of five acres over the long term. The impacts of this action on wilderness values would be Impacts on Recreational ORV Use negligible because the disturbance would be spread over 280 acres and would occur over the course of Recreational ORV use on the 3,383 acres pro­ several years. posed for nonwilderness would be limited to approx­ imately two miles of existing trails. Current use is es­ Sights and sounds from recreational ORV use in timated to be 150 visitor days annually and it is the nondesignated portion of the WSA would have

68 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES projected that use would remain below 250 visitor would be in the national interest to develop certain days annually for the foreseeable future. Some of the resources within a wilderness, they can modify the increase in use would be attributable to the dis­ law to allow it. placed ORV use in the designated portion being absorbed in the nondesignated portion. No Wilderness Alternative Conclusion: There would be no significant impacts on ORV use on 3,518 acres. The entire WSA would be recommended for non­ wilderness designation and none of the wilderness values on 9,076 acres would receive the special leg­ Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be islative protection provided by wilderness designa­ Avoided tion.

There are no projected management actions or Impacts on Wilderness Values surface-disturbing activities that will result in any sig­ nificant unavoidable adverse impacts. The minimal No oil and gas exploration or development is mineral assessment work associated with the mining expected. No large-scale development (develop­ claims in the WSA will result in only negligible ment on a scale larger than annual assessment adverse impacts that will be temporary in nature. work) of locatable minerals is expected because of the small amount of gold-bearing vein rock in the WSA and the low gold concentration in the gravels Relationship Between Short-term of the Sweetwater River. However, annual assess­ ment work on about 1,000 acres of existing claims Use of the Environment and the would continue and would disturb an estimated 10 Maintenance and Enhancement of acres over the long term. Such activity, including panning, hand-operated sluice boxes, and hand­ Long-term Productivity sampling of small amounts of ore, would result in small excavations and spoil piles of less than a cubic For the portion not designated wilderness, all pre­ meter in size. The wilderness value of naturalness sent, short-term uses would continue. Existing activ­ would be reduced on less than 1% of the WSA ities would have no effect on long term productivity. because the surface disturbance would be spread Off-road vehicle use, mining, and mineral leasing over a large area (1,000 acres) and would occur over activities could result in the loss of wilderness values the course of several years. over the long term but are not projected to be of a magnitude that would result in a significant impact. Sights and sounds from recreational ORV use would have an adverse impact on the wilderness For the portion designated wilderness, it would values of solitude and primitive recreation. However, ensure the long-term productivity of ecosystems ORV users and other users would be separated both and would maintain or enhance present wilderness spatially and temporally. Most of the ORV use within values. Motorized vehicles could no longer be used the WSA occurs either at the Strawberry Creek cross­ except where prescribed by an area's wilderness ing or remains above the canyon rim. Other recre­ management plan. Mineral resources would not be ation activities would be concentrated within the can­ available for development after the date of designa­ yon along the Sweetwater River. Additionally, the tion, subject to a validity examination. majority of ORV use is associated with hunting dur­ ing the fall months when few backpackers and sol­ itude seekers are in the area. As a result, contacts Irreversible and Irretrievable between ORV users and other recreationists would be infrequent and less than 1% of the WSA's wilder­ Commitment of Reosurces ness value of solitude and primitive recreation would be affected. Presently, ORV use is estimated to be Activities such as mining and mineral leasing 250 visitor days annually and is expected to remain could create an irreversible commitment of the wil­ below 300 visitor days annually for the foreseeable derness resource in part or all of a WSA, if not des­ future. ignated wilderness. Wilderness designation would not create an irretrievable commitment of resources The WSA's special feature of scenic quality is within a WSA. Designation would restrict or stop inherently tied to the wilderness value of natural­ development activities and maintain an area's natu­ ness. Thus, the WSA's scenic quality would be af­ ral condition. If, in the future, Congress decided it fected to the same degree and naturalness.

69 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Conclusion: Mining claim assessment work would All Wilderness Alternative impact about 10 acres of soil and vegetation, reduc­ ing naturalness by less than 1%. Continued ORV use would impact solitude and primitive recreation, Impacts on Wilderness Values again less than 1% of the WSA. The special feature of scenic quality would be affected to the same de­ Wilderness values on the entire 9,056-acre Sweet­ gree as naturalness. Consequently, wilderness water Canyon WSA would receive the special legis­ values would not be significantly affected. lative protection provided by wilderness designa­ tion. The entire WSA would be withdrawn from all forms of mineral entry and leasing, subject to valid Impacts on the Development of Energy existing rights at the time of designation. It is and Mineral Resources assumed that existing mining claims covering about 1,000 acres within the WSA would represent a valid Under the No Wilderness Alternative, the entire right, but that activity would be limited to the annual 9,056 acres of the Sweetwater Canyon WSA would assessment work as earlier described. This would be open to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 5,000 result in 10 acres of surface disturbance over the acres (centering around the canyon) would be sub­ long term including small excavations and spoil ject to the No Surface Occupancy Stipulation. Be­ piles (less than one cubic meter each). The impact cause of the lack of potential for the accumulation of this action would be minimal because the disturb­ of oil and gas resources within the WSA, no explo­ ance would be spread over a large area (9,056 acres) ration or development is anticipated. and over the course of several years. The disturb­ ance would not be readily visible to the casual Under the No Wilderness Alternative, 5,000 acres observer. of the WSA would be subject to a locatable mineral withdrawal. The withdrawal area roughly corre­ About 3'h miles of two-track vehicle trails would sponds to the partial wilderness boundary. It is be closed and returned to natural conditions. This assumed that the existing mining claims covering would amount to about 275 acres returned to natural 720 acres would contain valid discoveries of gold, conditions. Additionally, the perception of natural­ and would thus be available for development. How­ ness would be enhanced on 1,500 acres, the esti­ ever, the only activity expected on these claims mated area in which at least a portion of the trails would be the annual assessment work such as could be seen by a casual visitor. The wilderness described earlier. Other opportunities would be for­ value of naturalness would thus be enhanced on gone. 1,775 acres from the vehicle trail closure. The remaining 4,056 acres in the WSA would In addition to naturalness, the vehicle closure on remain open to locatable mineral entry. There are 9,056 acres would benefit the wilderness value of out­ about 280 acres covered by claims in this portion of standing opportunities for solitude and primitive rec­ the WSA. Because of known resource values in this reation. portion of the WSA, the only activity expected on An estimated 250 visitor days annually of recre­ these claims would be the annual assessment work. ational ORV use would be eliminated by wilderness designation. Although encounters between ORV Conclusion: There would be no significant impact users and other recreationists are infrequent at cur­ on locatable minerals. rent use levels, the elimination of ORVs would ben­ efit the wilderness values of solitude and primitive recreation because visitors would not encounter or Impacts on Recreational ORV Use hear ORV users In the area. Under this alternative, recreational ORV use The WSA's special feature of high scenic quality would be limited to 3’/2 miles of existing roads and is inherently tied to the wilderness value of natural­ trails over the entire WSA. Because of the area's iso­ ness. Thus, the WSA's scenic values would be af­ lation from major population centers, ORV use in the fected to the same degree as naturalness. WSA is expected to remain below 300 visitor days annually in the foreseeable future. Conclusion: Wilderness values of naturalness and solitude would be protected on the entire 9,056-acre Conclusion: There would be no significant impact Sweetwater Canyon WSA. There would be no neg­ on recreational ORV use. ative impact on wilderness values.

70 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts on the Development of Energy LANKIN DOME and Mineral Resources The entire WSA would be withdrawn from mineral Proposed Action—No Wilderness leasing. No interest has been shown in drilling within the WSA, and it has been identified as having no po­ (No Action) tential. Future opportunities to explore for oil and gas resources on 9,056 acres would be forgone. Impacts on Wilderness Values The entire area would be withdrawn from mineral entry. It is assumed that the existing claims within Under the Proposed Action, none of the wilder­ the WSA would represent valid rights. However, ness values on 6,316 acres would be given the spe­ because of the small amount of gold-bearing vein cial legislative protection afforded to designated wil­ rock in the WSA and the low gold concentration in derness. Sights and sounds from recreational ORV the gravels of the Sweetwater River, the only activity use would have an adverse impact on solitude and expected on these claims would be the annual primitive recreation but the impact would be minimal assessment work described earlier. with less than 10% of the WSA affected (less than 600 acres). Recreational ORV use levels are low (50 Conclusion: There would be no significant impact visitor days per year) and contacts between ORV on mineral resources or on projected energy users and other recreationists would be infrequent resources. because the two users are indifferent parts of the WSA. There is no potential for oil and gas resources in Impacts on Recreational ORV Use the Lankin Dome WSA, so wilderness values would not be affected by oil and gas exploration or devel­ An estimated 250 visitor days annually of recre­ opment activities. Given current market conditions, ational ORV use would be eliminated from 3V4 miles it is unlikely that any exploration or development for of vehicle trails on the 9,056 acres proposed for wil­ uranium, thorium, zeolites, orsulfate minerals would derness designation under this alternative. Future occur in the foreseeable future. opportunities would be forgone. ORV use displaced from the WSA upon designation would be absorbed Regarding mineral development, surface disturb­ without consequence on the surrounding public ance from assessment work (hand-sampling) and land. Vehicular access to the river within the WSA extraction of small amounts of ore (up to 100 pounds would be eliminated. There are three access trails per year) on the one jade claim located in the south­ leading to the river which would be closed. Only one eastern portion of the WSA would be limited to less actually goes to the river while the other two end at than 5 acres over the long term. No roads would be the canyon rim above the river. As a result, fishermen needed. The wilderness value of naturalness would and other recreationists would be required to walk be adversely affected on less than 1% of the WSA up to two miles to reach the river. This would not (less than 60 acres). be expected to affect visitation in the portion of the The WSA's special feature of scenic quality is WSA recommended for wilderness because most vis­ inherently tied to the wilderness value of natural­ itors currently walk to the river. ness. Thus the WSA's scenic quality would be af­ fected to the same degree as naturalness. Conclusion: Recreational ORV use of 250 visitor days annually would be forgone. There would be no No other management actions are anticipated that significant impact. would negatively affect the WSA's wilderness values in the foreseeable future.

71 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Conclusion: ORV use would adversely affect the wil­ Adverse Impacts Which Cannot be derness value of solitude and primitive recreation on less than 10% (less than 600 acres) of the Lankin Avoided Dome WSA. Assessment work and extraction of small amounts of jade on one claim would affect the There are no projected management actions or wilderness value of naturalness on less than 1% (less surface-disturbing activities that will result in any sig­ than 60 acres) of the WSA. Neither are considered nificant unavoidable adverse impacts. The minimal to be significant impacts on the WSA's wilderness mineral assessment work associated with the one values. mining claim in the WSA will result in only negligible adverse impacts that will be temporary in nature.

Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources Relationship Between Short-term Use of the Environment and the The entire 6,316 acres of the Lankin Dome WSA would be open to oil and gas leasing. However, Maintenance and Enhancement of because there is no potential for oil and gas in the Long-term Productivity WSA, no exploration or development is anticipated. The entire WSA would remain open to locatable If this WSA is not designated wilderness, all pre­ mineral entry. All potential locatable mineral sent, short-term uses would continue. Off-road vehi­ resources would be available for exploitation. How­ cle use, mining, and mineral leasing activities could ever, the only activity expected is the annual assess­ result in the loss of wilderness values over the long ment work on the one existing jade claim. No other term. However, increases in these activities are not exploration or development activities would be ex­ expected. pected. If the area is designated wilderness, it would ensure the long-term productivity of ecosystems Conclusion: The entire 6,316-acre Lankin Dome and would maintain or enhance present wilderness WSA would remain open to mineral entry and leas­ values. Motorized vehicles could no longer be used ing. There would be no significant impact on mineral except where prescribed by the area's wilderness resources or on projected energy resources. management plan. Mineral resources would not be available for development after the date of designa­ tion, subject to validity examination or future Con­ Impacts on Local Ranching Operations gressional actions. Under the Proposed Action, recreational ORV use would be limited to the 2'fc miles of existing two-track trail. Signs would be placed at strategic locations Irreversible and Irretrievable specifying the restrictions. Overall visitation is ex­ Commitment of Reosurces pected to remain stable at around 250 visitor days annually for the next ten years of which there is 50 Activities such as mining and mineral leasing visitor days of recreational ORV use. There would could create an irreversible commitment of the wil­ be no displacement of vehicle-dependent recreation derness resource in part or all of the WSA, if not des­ onto private land because overall use is not expected ignated wilderness. Wilderness designation would to change. Contacts between the three adjacent land- not create an irretrievable or irreversible commit­ owners and recreationists would continue at esti­ ment of resources within the WSA. Designation mated current level of 50 per year. No change is antic­ would restrict or stop development activities and ipated from present levels. These contacts would maintain the area's natural conditions. If, in the include personal requests for permission to cross or future, Congress decided it would be in the national use private property, trespassers, and gates left interest to develop certain resources within a wilder­ open. The contacts would continue to be concen­ ness, they can modify the law to allow it. trated during the months of May through October.

Conclusion: No increased conflict or impact is expected. Consequently there would be no impact All Wilderness Alternative on ranching operations. Impacts on Wilderness Values

Under the All Wilderness Alternative, wilderness values on the entire 6,316-acre Lankin Dome WSA

72 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES would be given the special legislative protection Conclusion: There would be no significant impact granted to designated wilderness. The area would on mineral or energy resources. be withdrawn from all forms of mineral entry and leasing, subject to valid existing rights at the time of designation. It is assumed that the existing jade Impacts on Local Ranching Operations claim within the WSA would contain a valid discov­ ery, but because of current market conditions and An estimated 50 visitor days annually of recre­ known resource values in the WSA, the only activity ational ORV use would be eliminated from the WSA. expected would be the annual assessment work and Future opportunities for ORV-related recreation extraction of very small amounts of ore. This would would be forgone. Most, if not all, of the vehicle- result in less than five acres of surface disturbance dependent recreation use would be displaced onto (small excavations and spoil piles of less than a adjacent private land. The private land contains sim­ cubic meter) over the long term. Impacts to the wil­ ilar ORV opportunities as occurs in the WSA and derness value of naturalness would be negligible there is little substitutable public land in the imme­ because the disturbance would occur over the diate area. In addition, it is estimated that there course of several years, disturbing less than 1% of would be a 5% increase in nonmotorized forms of the WSA (less than 600 acres). recreation in the WSA (to 210 visitor days annually) due to wilderness designation and the resultant An estimated 50 visitor days annually of ORV use increase in promotion by tourism groups. The would be eliminated from the WSA. About 2M> miles increase in use would not adversely affect the rec­ of two-track trail would be closed. Encounters reation experience in the WSA because the use between ORV users and other recreationists are would be fairly evenly distributed throughout the infrequent at present levels of use because the ORV entire WSA. However, displacement of vehicle- use occurs in the flats below the rocks while other dependent recreation onto adjacent private land and recreation uses occur in the rocks themselves. How­ the expected increase in nonmotorized use would ever, the elimination of ORVs would benefit the wil­ result in the adjacent landowners experiencing an derness values of solitude and primitive recreation increase in the number of public contacts occurring because visitors would not encounter or hear ORV during the summer months. users in the area. The estimated 5% increase in non- motorized forms of recreation would not affect wil­ There are three landowners adjacent to the Lankin derness values because use is presently low and Dome WSA. It is estimated that the landowners would be fairly evenly distributed throughout the would receive an additional ten contacts (for a total entire 6,316 acres of the WSA. of 60) with the public during the months of May through October. This would be a 20% increase from The WSA's special feature of scenic quality is the estimated level of 50 per year. Contacts or prob­ inherently tied to the wilderness value of natural­ lems would occur in several forms, including per­ ness. Thus, the WSA’s scenic quality would be af­ sons making face-to-face or telephone contacts ask­ fected to the same degree as naturalness. ing permission to cross private land, confrontations with trespassers, and gates left open. Conclusion: Wilderness values would be protected on the entire 6,316-care Lankin Dome WSA. Although the incremental increase in the number of contacts is small, it is significant to the land- owners in the following ways. Even a small increase Impacts on the Development of Energy in contacts is seen by the landowners as an intrusion into their ranching operation. Time spent dealing and Mineral Resources with inquiries, trespassers, open gates, or relocating Under the All Wilderness Alternative, the entire livestock means time spent away from their ranching WSA would be withdrawn from all forms of mineral operation and additional costs such as repairing entry and leasing. It is assumed that the existing jade gates, and replacing signs. Unpleasant confronta­ claim within the WSA would contain a valid discov­ tions between landowners and recreationists who ery. However, because of current market conditions are refused access would increase. Landowners and known resource values in the WSA, the only ac­ would devote additional time and effort in trespass tivity expected would be annual assessment work prevention, signing private land, patrols, closing and extraction of very small amounts of ore (less gates, and retrieving livestock. than 100 pounds per year). Cumulatively, a particular landowner would be Other opportunities to explore for and develop subject to additional contacts associated with the potential locatable minerals would be forgone. The other three WSAs in the Sweetwater Rocks complex. WSA has no potential for oil and gas resources, so For example, it is estimated that one landowner no development of these resources would be for­ would receive an additional 12 contacts on three of gone. the WSAs in the Sweetwater Rocks each year. Given

73 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

that the use season for the WSAs is compressed into No other management actions are anticipated that less than half of the year, this would be a significant would negatively affect the WSA's wilderness values intrusion into that landowner's ranching operation. in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion: The 20% increase (from 50 to 60) in con­ Conclusion: OR V use wou Id adversely affect the wil­ tacts between the public and landowners would derness value of solitude and primitive recreation on result in increased disruption of the local land­ less than 10% (less than 1,200 acres) of the Split owner's ranching operation. Rock WSA. Assessment work and extraction of small amounts of jade on one claim would affect the wil­ derness value of naturalness on less than 1% (less than 120 acres) of the WSA. Neither are considered SPLIT ROCK to be significant impacts on the WSA's wilderness values. Proposed Action—No Wilderness Impacts on the Development of Energy (No Action) and Mineral Resources

Impacts on Wilderness Values The entire 12,789 acres of the Split Rock WSA would be open to oil and gas leasing. However, Under the Proposed Action, none of the wilder­ because of no potential for oil and gas in the WSA, ness values on 12,789 acres would be given the spe­ no exploration or development is anticipated. cial legislative protection afforded to designated wil­ The entire WSA would remain open to locatable derness. Sights and sounds from recreational ORV mineral entry. All potential locatable mineral use would have an adverse effect on the wilderness resources would be available for exploitation. How­ value of solitude and primitive recreation but the im­ ever, the only activity expected would be annual pact would be minimal because recreational ORV assessment work and extraction of small amounts use levels are low (250 visitor days annually) and con­ of ore on the one existing jade claim over the long tacts between ORV users and other recreationists term. No other exploration or development activities would be infrequent because they use different parts would be expected. of the WSA. Less than 10% of the WSA (less than 1,200 acres) would be affected. ORV users would be Conclusion: The entire 12,789-acre Split Rock WSA limited to the flats below the rocks while more prim­ would be open to mineral entry and leasing. There itive forms of recreation would occur in the rocks would be no significant impact on mineral or energy themselves. resources. There is no potential for oil and gas resources in the Split Rock WSA, so wilderness values would not be affected by oil and gas exploration or develop­ Impacts on Local Ranching Operations ment activities. Given current market conditions, it is unlikely that any exploration or development for Under the Proposed Action, recreational ORV use uranium, thorium, or zeolites would occur in the fore­ would be limited to the 1Vi miles of existing two-track seeable future. trail. Signs would be placed at strategic locations specifying the restrictions. Overall visitation is ex­ Surface disturbance for assessment work (hand­ pected to remain stable at around 1,750 visitor days sampling) and extraction of small amounts of jade annually for the next ten years including 250 visitor (up to 100 pounds per year) on the one claim located days annually of ORV use. There would be no dis­ in the central portion of the WSA would be limited placement of vehicle-dependent recreation onto pri­ to less than five acres over the long term. No roads vate land because overall use is not expected to would be needed. The wilderness value of natural­ change. Contacts between the three adjacent land- ness would be adversely affected on less than 1% owners and recreationists would continue at the esti­ (less than 120 acres) of the WSA. mated current level of 50 per year. No change is antic­ The WSA's special features (scenic quality and his­ ipated from present levels. These contacts would toric features) are inherently tied to the wilderness include personal requests for permission to cross or value of naturalness. Thus, the WSA's special fea­ use private property, trespassers, gates left open, tures would be affected to the same degree as natu­ and so forth. The contacts would continue to be con­ ralness. centrated during the months of May through Octo­ ber.

74 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Conclusion: No increased conflict or impact is All Wilderness Alternative expected. Consequently, there would be no impact on ranching operations. Impacts on Wilderness Values Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Under the All Wilderness Alternative, wilderness values on the entire 12,789 Split Rock WSA would Avoided be given the special legislative protection granted to designated wilderness. The area would be with­ There are no projected management actions or drawn from all forms of mineral entry and leasing, surface-disturbing activities that will result in any sig­ subject to valid existing rights at the time of desig­ nificant unavoidable adverse impacts. The minimal nation. It is assumed that the existing jade claim mineral assessment work associated with the one within the WSA would contain a valid discovery, but mining claim in the WSA will result in only negligible because of current market conditions and known re­ adverse impacts that will be temporary in nature. source values in the WSA, the only activity expected would be the annual assessment work and extrac­ tion of very small amounts of ore. In addition, no new Relationship Between Short-term road construction would occur. This would result in less than five acres of surface disturbance (small Use of the Environment and the excavations and spoil piles of less than a cubic me­ Manitenance and Enhancement of ter) over the long term. Impacts to the wilderness value of naturalness would be negligible because Long-term Productivity the disturbance would occur over the course of sev­ eral years disturbing less than 1% of the WSA. If this WSA is not designated wilderness, all pre­ sent, short-term uses would continue. Off-road vehi­ An estimated 250 visitor days annually of ORV use cle use, mining, and mineral leasing activities could would be eliminated from the WSA. About 1M> miles result in the loss of wilderness values over the long of two-track trail would be closed. Encounters term. However, increases in these activities are not between ORV users and other recreationists are expected. infrequent at present levels of use because the ORV use occurs in the flats below the rocks while other If the area is designated wilderness, it would recreation uses occur in the rocks themselves. How­ ensure the long term productivity of ecosystems and ever, the elimination of ORVs would benefit the wil­ would maintain or enhance present wilderness derness value of solitude and primitive recreation values. Motorized vehicles could no longer be used because visitors would not encounter or hear ORV except where prescribed by the area's wilderness users in the area. The projected 5% increase in non- management plan. Mineral resources would not be motorized forms of recreation would not affect wil­ available for development after the date of designa­ derness values because use is presently low and tion, subject to a validity examination or future Con­ would be fairly evenly distributed throughout the gressional actions. entire 12,789 acres of the WSA. The WSA’s special features of scenic quality is inherently tied to the wilderness value of natural­ Irreversibel and Irretrievable ness. Thus, the WSA's scenic quality would be af­ Commitment of Reosurces fected to the same degree as naturalness.

Activities such as mining and mineral leasing Conclusion: Wilderness values would be protected could create an irreversible commitment of the wil­ on the entire 12,789-acre Split Rock WSA. derness resource in part or all of the WSA, if not des­ ignated wilderness. Wilderness designation would not create an irretrievable or irreversible commit­ Impacts on the Development of Energy ment of resources within the WSA. Designation and Mineral Resources would restrict or stop development activities and maintain the area's natural condition. If, in the Under the All Wilderness Alternative, the entire future, Congress decided it would be in the national WSA would be withdrawn from all forms of mineral interest to develop certain resources within a wilder­ entry and leasing. It is assumed that the existing jade ness, they can modify the law to allow it.

75 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES claim within the WSA would contain a valid discov­ tions between landowners and recreationists who ery. Because of current market conditions and are refused access would increase. Landowners known resource values in the WSA, the only activity would devote additional time and effort in trespass expected would be annual assessment work and prevention, signing private land, patrols, closing extraction of very small amounts of ore(lessthan 100 gates, and retrieving livestock. pounds per year). Other opportunities to explore for Cumulatively, a particular landowner would be and develop potential locatable minerals would be subject to additional contacts associated with the forgone. The WSA has no potential for oil and gas other three WSAs in the Sweetwater Rocks complex. resources, so no development of these resources For example, it is estimated that one landowner would be forgone. would receive and additional 12 contacts on three of the WSAs in the Sweetwater Rocks each year. Conclusion: There would be no significant impact Given that the use season for the WSAs is com­ on energy or mineral resources. pressed into less than half of the year, this would be a significant intrusion into that landowner's lifestyle.

Impacts on Local Ranching Operations Conclusion: The30%increase(from50to60)incon­ tacts between the public and landowners would An estimated 250 visitor days annually of recre­ result in increased disruption of the local land­ ational ORV use would be eliminated from the WSA. owner's ranching operation. Future opportunities for ORV-related recreation would be forgone. Most, if not all, of the vehicle- dependent recreation use would be displaced onto adjacent private land. The private land contains sim­ ilar ORV opportunities as occurs in the WSA and SAVAGE PEAK there is little substitutable public land in the imme­ diate area. In addition, it is estimated that there would be a 5% increase in nonmotorized forms of Proposed Action—No Wilderness recreation in the WSA (to 1,575 visitor days annu­ (No Action) ally) due to wilderness designation and the resultant increase in promotion by tourism groups. The increase in use would not adversely affect the rec­ Impacts on Wilderness Values reation experience in the WSA because the use would be fairly evenly distributed throughout the Under the Proposed Action, none of the wilder­ entire WSA. However, displacement of vehicle- ness values on 7,041 acres would be given the spe­ dependent recreation onto adjacent private land and cial legislative protection afforded to designated wil­ the expected increase in nonmotorized use would derness. Sights and sounds from recreational ORV result in the adjacent landowners experiencing an use would have an adverse effect on solitude and increase in the number of public contacts occurring primitive recreation but the impact would be minimal during the summer months. with less than 10% of the WSA affected (less than There are three landowners adjacent to the Split 700 acres). Recreational ORV use levels are low (250 Rock WSA. It is estimated that the landowners would visitor days per year) and contacts between ORV receive an additional 15 contacts (for a total of 65) users and other recreationists would be infrequent with the public during the months of May through because the two uses occur in different part of the October. This would be a 30% increase from the cur­ WSA. rent level of 50 per year. Contacts or problems would There is low to no potential for oil and gas occur in several forms, including persons making resources in the Savage Peak WSA, so wilderness face-to-face or telephone contacts asking permis­ values would not be affected by oil and gas explo­ sion to cross private land, confrontations with tres­ ration or development activities. There are no min­ passers, and gates left open. ing claims in the Savage Peak WSA. Given current Although the incremental increase in the number market conditions, it is unlikely that any exploration of contacts is small, it is significant to the land- or development for locatable minerals would occur owners in the following ways. Even a small increase in the foreseeable future. There would be no impact in contacts is seen by the landowners as an intrusion on the wilderness value of naturalness. into their ranching operation. Time spent dealing The WSA's special feature of scenic quality is with inquiries, trespassers, open gates, or relocating inherently tied to the wilderness value of natural­ livestock means time spent away from their ranching ness. Thus, the WSA’s scenic quality would not be operation and additional costs such as repairing affected. gates, and replacing signs. Unpleasant confronta­

76 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

No other management actions are anticipated that Conclusion: No increased conflict or impact is would negatively affect the WSA's wilderness values expected. Consequently, there would be no impact in the foreseeable future. on ranching operations.

Conclusion: ORV use would adversely affect the wil­ derness value of solitude and primitive recreation on Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be less than 10% of the Savage Peak WSA (less than 700 acres). This is not considered to be a significant Avoided impact. No other management actions are antici­ pated that would negatively affect the WSA's wilder­ There are no projected management actions or ness values. surface-disturbing activities that will result in any sig­ nificant unavoidable adverse impacts. The contin­ ued low levels of recreational ORV use will only Impacts on the Development of Energy locally result in negligible adverse impacts. and Mineral Resources

The entire 7,041 acres of the Savage Peak WSA Relationship Between Short-term would be open to oil and gas leasing. However, Use of the Environment and the because there is no potential for oil and gas in the WSA, no exploration or development is anticipated. Maintenance and Enhancement of The entire WSA would be open to locatable min­ Long-term Productivity eral entry. All potential locatable mineral resources would be available for exploitation. However, there If this WSA is not designated wilderness, all pre­ are no mining claims in the WSA and although the sent, short-term uses would continue. Off-road vehi­ potential is there for discoveries of jade, uranium, cle use, mining, and mineral leasing activities would and thorium, no exploration or development activi­ result in the loss of wilderness values over the long ties would be expected. term. However, increases in these activities are not expected. Conclusion: The entire 7,041-acre Savage Peak If the area is designated wilderness, it would WSA would be open to mineral entry and leasing. ensure the long-term productivity of ecosystems There would be no significant impact on mineral re­ and would maintain or enhance present wilderness sources. values. Motorized vehicles could no longer be used except where prescribed by the area's wilderness management plan. Mineral resources would not be Impacts on Local Ranching Operations available for development after the date of designa­ tion, subject to a validity examination or future Con­ Under the Proposed Action, recreational ORV use gressional actions. would be limited to the one mile of existing two-track road. Signs would be placed at strategic locations specifying the restrictions. Overall visitation is expected to remain stable at around 1,250 visitor Irreversibel and Irretrievable days annually for the next ten years. This includes Commitment of Resources 250 visitor days of ORV use annually. There would be no displacement of vehicle-dependent recreation Activities such as mining and mineral leasing onto private land because overall use is not expected could create an irreversible commitment of the wil­ to change. Contacts between the three adjacent land- derness resource in part or all of the WSA, if not des­ owners and recreationists would continue at the esti­ ignated wilderness. Wilderness designation would mated current level of 50 per year again because no not create an irretrievable or irreversible commit­ change is anticipated from present levels. These con­ ment of resources within the WSA. Designation tacts would include personal requests for permis­ would restrict or stop development activities and sion to cross or use private property, trespassers, maintain the area's natural condition. If, in the and gates left open. The contacts would continue future, Congress decided it would be in the national to be concentrated during the months of May interest to develop certain resources within a wilder­ through October. ness, they can modify the law to allow it.

77 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

All Wilderness Alternative would be forgone. Most, if not all, of the vehicle- dependent recreation use would be displaced onto adjacent private land. The private land contains sim­ Impacts on Wilderness Values ilar ORV opportunities as occurs in the WSA and there is little substitutable public land in the imme­ Under the All Wilderness Alternative, wilderness diate area. In addition, it is estimated that there values on the entire 7,041-acres Savage Peak WSA would be a 5% increase in nonmotorized forms of would be given the special legislative protection recreation in the WSA (to 1,050 visitor days annu­ granted to designated wilderness. The area would ally) due to wilderness designation and the resultant be withdrawn from all forms of mineral entry and increase in promotion by tourism groups. The leasing, subject to valid existing rights at the time increase in use would not adversely affect the rec­ of designation. No surface disturbance is expected. reation experience in the WSA because use would As a result, the wilderness value of naturalness be fairly evenly distributed throughout the entire would be protected over the long term. WSA. However, displacement of vehicle dependent recreation onto adjacent private land and the An estimated 250 visitor days annually of ORV use expected increase in nonmotorized use would result would be eliminated from the WSA. About one mile in the adjacent landowners experiencing an of two-track trail would be closed. Encounters be­ increase in the number of public contacts occurring tween ORV users and other recreationists are infre­ during the summer months. quent at present levels of use because ORV use occurs in the flats below the rocks while other rec­ There are three landowners adjacent to the Sav­ reation uses occur in the rocks themselves. The elim­ age Peak WSA. It is estimated that the landowners ination of ORVs would benefit the wilderness value would receive an additional ten contacts (for a total of solitude and primitive recreation because visitors of 50) with the public during the months of May would not encounter or hear ORV users in the area. through October. This would be a 25% increase from The projected 5% increase in nonmotorized forms the current level of 40 per year. Contacts or prob­ of recreation would not affect wilderness values lems would occur in several forms, including per­ because use is low and would be fairly evenly dis­ sons making face-to-face or telephone contacts ask­ tributed throughout the entire 7,041 acres of the ing permission to cross private land, confrontations WSA. with trespassers, and gates left open. The WSA's special feature of scenic quality is Although the incremental increase in the number inherently tied to the wilderness value of natural­ of contacts is small, it is significant to the land- ness. Thus, the WSA's scenic quality would be af­ owners in the following ways. Even a small increase fected to the same degree as naturalness. in contacts is seen by the landowners as an intrusion into their ranching operation. Time spent dealing Conclusion: Wilderness values would be protected with inquiries, trespassers, open gates, or relocating on the entire 7,041-acre Savage Peak WSA. livestock means time spent away from their ranching operation and additional costs such as repairing gates, and replacing signs. Unpleasant confronta­ Impacts on the Development of Energy tions between landowners and recreationists who are refused access would increase. Landowners and Mineral Resources would devote additional time and effort in trespass prevention, including signing private land, patrols, Under the All Wilderness Alternative, the entire closing gates, and retrieving livestock. WSA would be withdrawn from all forms of mineral entry and leasing. Future opportunities to explore Cumulatively, a particular landowner would be for and develop potential locatable minerals would subject to additional contacts associated with the be forgone. The WSA has no potential for oil and gas other three WSAs in the Sweetwater Rocks complex. resources, so no development of these resources For example, it is estimated that one landowner would be forgone. would receive an additional 12 contacts on three of the WSAs in the Sweetwater Rocks each year. Given Conclusion: There would be no significant impact that the use season for the WSAs is compressed into to energy or mineral resources. less than half of the year, this would be a significant intrusion into that landowner's lifestyle.

Impacts on Local Ranching Operations Conclusion: The25%increase(from40to50)incon­ tacts between the public and landowners would An estimated 250 visitor days annually of recre­ result in increased disruption of the local land­ ational ORV use would be eliminated from the WSA. owner's ranching operation. Future opportunities for ORV-related recreation

78 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

MILLER SPRINGS Impacts on the Development of Energy and Mineral Resources Proposed Action (No Wilderness) The entire 6,429 acres of the Miller Springs WSA would be open to oil and gas leasing. However, because there is no potential for oil and gas in the Impacts on Wilderness Values WSA is low to nonexistent, no exploration or devel­ opment is anticipated. Under the Proposed Action, none of the wilder­ The entire WSA would remain open to locatable ness values on 6,429 acres would be given the spe­ mineral entry. All potential locatable mineral cial legislative protection afforded to designated wil­ resources would be available for exploitation. How­ derness. Sights and sounds from recreational ORV ever, the only activity expected is annual assessment use would have an adverse impact on solitude and work and extraction of small amounts of jade on the primitive recreation but the impact would be minimal one existing jade claim over the long term. No other with less than 10% of the WSA affected (less than exploration or development activities would be 600 acres). Recreational ORV use levels are low (250 expected. visitor days per year) and contacts between ORV users and other recreationists would be infrequent because the uses occur in different parts of the WSA. Conclusion: The entire 6,429-acre Miller Springs There is low to no potential for oil and gas resources WSA would be open to mineral entry and leasing. There would be no significant impact on energy or in the Miller Springs WSA, so wilderness values would not be affected by oil and gas exploration or mineral resources. development activities. Given current market condi­ tions, it is unlikely that any exploration or develop­ ment for uranium, thorium, or zeolites would occur Impacts on Local Ranching Operations in the foreseeable future. Under the Proposed Action, recreational ORV use Regarding mineral development, surface disturb­ would be limited to the two miles of existing two- ance from assessment work (hand-sampling) and track trail. Signs would be placed at strategic loca­ extraction of small amounts of jade (up to 100 tions specifying the restrictions. Overall visitation is pounds per year) on the one claim located in the expected to remain stable at around 500 visitor days southeastern portion of the WSA would be limited annually for the next ten years. This includes 250 vis­ to less than five acres over the long term. No roads itor days of ORV use annually. There would be no would be needed. The wilderness value of natural­ displacement of vehicle-dependent recreation onto ness would be affected on less than 1% of the WSA private land because overall use is not expected to (Less than 60 acres). change. Contacts between the three adjacent land- owners and recreationists would continue at the esti­ The WSA's special features (historic features and mated current level of 40 per year. No change is antic­ opportunities for geologic study) are inherently tied ipated from present levels. These contacts would to the wilderness value of naturalness. Thus, the include personal requests for permission to cross or WSA's special features would be affected to the use private property, trespassers, gates left open, same degree as naturalness. and so forth. The contacts would continue to be con­ No other management actions are anticipated that centrated during the months of May through Octo­ would negatively affect the WSA's wilderness values ber. in the foreseeable future. Conclusion: No increased conflict or impact is Conclusion: ORV use would adversely affect the wil­ expected. Consequently, there would be no impact derness value of solitude and primitive recreation on on ranching operations. less than 10% of the Miller Springs WSA (less than 600 acres). Assessment work and extraction of small amounts of jade from one claim would affect the wil­ Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be derness value of naturalness on less than 1% of the WSA (less than 60 acres). Neither are considered to Avoided be significant impacts on the WSA's wilderness values. There are no projected management actions or surface-disturbing activities that will result in any

79 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

significant unavoidable adverse impacts. The min­ nation. It is assumed that the existing jade claim imal mineral assessment work associated with the within the WSA would contain a valid discovery, but one mining claim in the WSA will result in only neg­ because of current market conditions and known re­ ligible adverse impacts that will be temporary in source values in the WSA, the only activity expected nature. would be the annual assessment work and extrac­ tion of very small amounts of ore. In addition, no new road construction would occur. This would result in Relationship Between Short-term less than five acres of surface disturbance (small excavations and spoil piles of less than a cubic me­ Use of the Environment and the ter) over the long term. Impacts to the wilderness Maintenance and Enhancement of value of naturalness would be negligible because the disturbance would occur over the course of sev­ Long-term Productivity eral years, disturbing less than 1% of the WSA (less than 60 acres). If this WSA is not designated wilderness, all pre­ An estimated 250 visitor days annually of ORV use sent, short-term uses would continue. Off-road vehi­ would be eliminated from the WSA. About two miles cle use, mining, and mineral leasing activities would of two-track trails would be closed. Encounters result in the loss of wilderness values over the long between ORV users and other recreationists are term. However, increases in these activities are not expected. infrequent at present levels of use because ORV use occurs in the flats below the rocks while other rec­ If the area is designated wilderness, it would reation uses occur in the rocks themselves. How­ ensure the long-term productivity of ecosystems ever, the elimination of ORVs would benefit the wil­ and would maintain or enhance present wilderness derness value of solitude and primitive recreation values. Motorized vehicles could no longer be used because visitors would not encounter or hear ORV except where prescribed by the area's wilderness users in the area. The projected 5% increase in non- management plan. Mineral resources would not be motorized forms of recreation would not affect wil­ available for development after the date of designa­ derness values because use is low and would be tion, subject to a validity examination or future Con­ fairly evenly distributed throughout the entire 6,429 gressional actions. acres of the WSA. The WSA's special feature of scenic quality is inherently tied to the wilderness value of natural­ Irreversible and Irretrievable ness. Thus, the WSA's scenic quality would be af­ Commitment of Reosurces fected to the same degree as naturalness.

Activities such as mining and mineral leasing Conclusion: Wilderness values would be protected could create an irreversible commitment of the wil­ on the entire 6,429-care Miller Springs WSA. derness resource in part or all of the WSA, if not des­ ignated wilderness. Wilderness designation would not create an irretrievable or irreversible commit­ Impacts on the Development of Energy ment of resources within the WSA. Designation and Mineral Resources would restrict or stop development activities and maintain the area's natural condition. If, in the Under the All Wilderness Alternative, the entire future, Congress decided it would be in the national WSA would be withdrawn from all forms of mineral interest to develop certain resources within a wilder­ entry and leasing. It is assumed that the existing jade ness, they can modify the law to allow it. claim within the WSA would contain a valid discov­ ery. However, because of current market conditions and known resource values in the WSA, the only ac­ All Wilderness Alternative tivity expected would be annual assessment work and extraction of very small amounts of ore (less than 100 pounds per year). Other opportunities to Impacts on Wilderness Values explore for and develop potential locatable minerals would be forgone. The WSA has low to no potential Under the All Wilderness Alternative, wilderness for oil and gas resources, so no development of values on the entire 6,429 Miller Springs WSA would these resources would be forgone. be given the special legislative protection granted to designated wilderness. The area would be with­ Conclusion: There would be no significant impact drawn from all forms of mineral entry and leasing, on energy or mineral resources. subject to valid existing rights at the time of desig­

80 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts on Local Ranching Operations Conclusion: The 13% increase (from 40to 45) in con­ tacts between the public and landowners would An estimated 250 visitor days annually of recre­ result in increased disruption of the local land­ ational ORV use would be eliminated from the WSA. owner's ranching operation. Future opportunities for ORV-related recreation would be forgone. Most, if not all, of the vehicle- dependent recreation use would be displaced onto adjacent private lands. The private land contains COPPER MOUNTAIN similar ORV opportunities as occurs in the WSA and there is little substitutable public land in the imme­ diate area. In addition, it is estimated that there Proposed Action (No Wilderness) would be a 5% increase in nonmotorized forms of recreation in the WSA (to 265 visitor days annually) due to wilderness designation and the resultant Impacts on Wilderness Values increase in promotion by tourism groups. The increase in use would not adversely affect the rec­ Under the Proposed Action, none of the wilder­ reation experience in the WSA because it would be ness values on the entire 6,858-acre Copper Moun­ fairly evenly distributed throughout the entire WSA. tain WSA would be given the special legislative pro­ However, displacement of vehicle-dependent recre­ tection afforded to designated wilderness. In the ation onto adjacent private lands and the expected short term, there would be little effect on wilderness increase in nonmotorized use would result in the values because little development activity is ex­ adjacent landowners experiencing an increase in pected, whether or not the area is designated wilder­ the number of public contacts occurring during the ness. In the long term, however, wilderness values summer months. would be lost as a result of anticipated oil and gas leasing and exploration in the southern half of the There are three landowners adjacent to the Miller WSA. Springs WSA. It is estimated that the landowners would receive an additional five contacts (for a total Because of the WSA's high potential for hydrocar­ of 45) with the public during the months of May bon resources, it is estimated that four producing oil through October. This would be a 13% increase from and gas wells would be drilled just inside the WSA's the current level of 40 per year. Contacts or prob­ southern boundary. Two miles of roads would be lems would occur in several forms, including per­ constructed within the WSA to access the well loca­ sons making face-to-face or telephone contacts ask­ tions, and an estimated 40 acres of surface disturb­ ing permission to cross private land, confrontations ance would result from roads, drill pads, and equip­ with trespassers, and gates left open. ment parking areas at the well sites. The wilderness value of naturalness would be permanently lost on Although the incremental increase in the number the 40 acres of surface disturbance, and the percep­ of contacts is small, it is significant to the land- tion of naturalness would be adversely affected on owners in the following ways. Even a small increase an additional 800 acres, the estimated area in which in contacts is seen by the landowners as an intrusion at least some portion of the man-made development into their ranching operation. Time spent dealing could be seen by the casual visitor. Impacts to natu­ with inquiries, trespassers, open gates, or relocating ralness would be caused by the noise and presence livestock means time spent away from their ranching of the machinery; these would be obvious intrusions operation and additional costs such as repairing into an otherwise natural setting. gates, and replacing signs. Unpleasant confronta­ tions between landowners and recreationists who Opportunities for solitude would also be lost are refused access would increase. Landowners because of the oil and gas activities. Sights and would devote additional time and effort in trespass sounds of the machinery, construction of the pads prevention, including signing private land, patrols, and the wells, and long term maintenance activities closing gates, and retrieving livestock. would all decrease one's chances of finding solitude to the same degree as naturalness. Thus, out­ Cumulatively, a particular landowner would be standing opportunities for solitude would be lost on subject to additional contacts associated with the 840 acres in the southern portion of the WSA other three WSAs in the Sweetwater Rocks complex. because of oil and gas development. For example, it is estimated that one landowner would receive and additional 12 contacts on three Assessment work on the existing uranium claims of the WSAs in the Sweetwater Rocks each year. would not adversely affect wilderness values. Sur­ Given that the use season for the WSAs is com­ face disturbance would be limited to less than 5 pressed into less than half of the year, this would be acres over the long term. a significant intrusion into that landowner's lifestyle.

81 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

After the roads are constructed, sights and sounds Impacts on Recreational ORV Use from recreational ORV use would have an adverse impact on solitude and primitive recreation. How­ Recreational ORV use would be limited to the two ever, the impact would be minimal because recre­ miles of new roads associated with the oil and gas ational ORV use levels are not expected to increase field. This would be a substantial increase in acces­ beyond 50 visitor days annually for the foreseeable sibility within the WSA. However, it is anticipated future. Contacts between recreational ORV users that ORV use would remain low because of a lack and other recreationists would be infrequent. of recreation attractions in the WSA, with use not The WSA's special features (scenic quality and exceeding 50 visitor days annually for the foreseea­ opportunities for ecologic and geologic study) ble future. would remain unaffected under the Proposed Action. No other management actions are antici­ Conclusion: Under the Proposed Action, there pated that would negatively affect the WSA's wilder­ would be an increase in vehicle accessibility within ness values in the foreseeable future. the Copper Mountain WSA. There would be no sig­ nificant impact to recreation ORV use. Conclusion: The Copper Mountain WSA's wilder­ ness values of naturalness, solitude, and primitive recreation would be lost over the long term on Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be approximately 840 acres, or about 12% of the WSA. Avoided Wilderness values on the remaining portion of the WSA would be subject to loss in the long term, but Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided under no adverse activities are anticipated in the foresee­ the Proposed Action would result from the projected able future. 4-well oil and gas field that is projected to occur in this WSA. Impacts would be the loss of wilderness values as described earlier from the development Impacts on the Development of Energy activities. The expected low level of recreational and Mineral Resources ORV use will result in only localized negligible adverse impacts. Under the Proposed Action, the entire WSA would be open for mineral entry and leasing. The likelihood for occurrences of oil and gas is moderate to high Relationship Between Short-term throughout the WSA. Use of the Environment and the All of the WSA would be available for oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development, except for Maintenance and Enhancement of areas in excess of 25% slope or within 500 feet of surface water and riparian areas. In addition, surface Long-term Productivity disturbing activities could not occur during times when wintering wildlife are on their crucial winter If this WSA is not designated wilderness, all pre­ ranges. It is anticipated that drilling activities would sent, short-term uses would continue. Off-road vehi­ occur on the southern half of the WSA. It is expected cle use, mining, and mineral leasing activities would that a field of four producing wells would be devel­ result in the loss of wilderness values over the long oped along the southern portion of the WSA. The term. surface protection restrictions would not unduly If the area is designated wilderness, it would restrain the development of oil and gas resources ensure the long-term productivity of ecosystems within the WSA. and would maintain or enhance present wilderness All 6,858 acres of the WSA would remain open to values. Motorized vehicles could no longer be used locatable mineral entry. The only activity that is except where prescribed by the area's wilderness expected would be annual assessment work on exist­ management plan. Mineral resources would not be ing claims on the western boundary of the WSA. available for development after the date of designa­ tion, subject to a validity examination orfuture Con­ gressional actions. Conclusion: The entire 6,858-acre Copper Moun­ tain WSA would be open to all forms of mineral entry and leasing. There would be no impact to mineral resources under the Proposed Action.

82 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Irreversibel and Irretrievable value of solitude and primitive recreation because visitors would not encounter or hear ORV users in Commitment of Resources the area. There would be no impact on the WSA's special features under this alternative. Activities such as mining and mineral leasing could create an irreversible commitment of the wil­ Conclusion: Wilderness values would be protected derness resource in part or all of the WSA, if not des­ on the entire 6,858-acre Copper Mountain WSA. ignated wilderness. Wilderness designation would not create an irretrievable or irreversible commit­ ment of resources within the WSA. Designation Impacts on the Development of Energy would restrict or stop development activities and and Mineral Resources maintain the area's natural condition. If, in the future, Congress decided it would be in the national Under the All Wilderness Alternative, the entire interest to develop certain resources within a wilder­ WSA would be withdrawn from all forms of mineral ness, they can modify the law to allow it. entry and leasing. There would be no development of oil and gas resources in the WSA. It is assumed that the existing claims within the WSA would con­ All Wilderness Alternative tain valid discoveries. However, because of current market conditions and known resource values, it is expected that the only activity on these claims would Impacts on Wilderness Values be the annual assessment work. Under the All Wilderness Alternative, wilderness The WSA has moderate to high potential for oil values on the entire 6,858 acres of the Copper Moun­ and gas. Future opportunities to explore for and tain WSA would receive the special legislative pro­ develop these resources would be forgone. The tection provided by wilderness designation. The development of an oil and gas field of four wells area would be withdrawn from all forms of mineral would be forgone. entry and leasing. No oil and gas development would occur. It is assumed that the existing claims within Conclusion: The entire WSA would be closed to all the WSA would contain a valid discovery, but the forms of mineral entry and leasing. The small oil field only activity expected would be the annual assess­ development that is projected would not occur. This ment work, resulting in less than five acres of surface is considered to be a significant impact on the devel­ disturbance over the long term. The wilderness opment of oil and gas. value of naturalness would not be affected because the disturbance would occur over the course of sev­ eral years and would affect less than 1% of the WSA Impacts on Recreational ORV Use (less than 650 acres). ORVs would be eliminated from the entire Copper ORVs would be eliminated from the entire WSA. Mountain WSA. The impact would be minimal Although there are currently no roads in the WSA, because there is currently no ORV use in the WSA. the All Wilderness Alternative would preclude con­ struction of roads and there would be no increase Conclusion: The impact would be minimal because in vehicle accessibility in the WSA. Thus, the All Wil­ no ORV use is presently occurring in the WSA. derness Alternative would benefit the wilderness

83 CHAPTER 5

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Casper, and Rock Springs, and in the county li­ INTRODUCTION braries in Fremont, Natrona, Sweetwater, and Car­ bon Counties. This document has been prepared by specialists from the BLM's Lander Resource Area office, with assistance from the Rawlins District Office and the Wyoming State Office. Disciplines and skills used to LIST OF PREPARERS develop this EIS were livestock grazing, soils, recre­ ation, geology, cultural resources, public affairs, wildlife, editing, and word processing. Research Leadership began in 1978 with the wilderness review required by FLPMA; the writing of this EIS began in Sep­ tember 1984. The process included inventories of Rick Colvin, District Outdoor Recreation Planner resources, public participation, and coordination Qualifications: District Outdoor Recreation Plan­ with organizations, individuals, and other agencies. Care has been exercised to ensure that the public ner, Bureau of Land Management, 9 years. M.A., Interdisciplinary Studies, Oregon State University; was consulted and informed throughout the wilder­ B.S., Resource Recreation Management, Oregon ness review process. State University. An active public involvement process aided in the Respnsibility: Final EIS Team Leader, overall direc­ development of this EIS. Public opinion was elicited tion and management on the Final EIS. through public meetings in Landerand Dubois; mail­ ings to an extensive list of groups and individuals; personal interviews; and a notice in the Federal Reg­ Bob Tigner, Regional Planner ister. Qualifications: Regional Planner, Bureau of Land Management, 5 years; Wildlife Biologist (Research), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 21 years. Ph.D., Biol­ ogy, University of Colorado; M.S., B.S., Wildlife Man­ CONSISTENCY agement, Colorado State University. Responsibility: Draft EISTeam Leader, overall direc­ Coordination with other agencies and consis­ tion and management on the Draft EIS. tency with other plans was accomplished through continual communications and cooperative efforts between the BLM and involved federal, state, and local agencies and organizations. The Wyoming Interdisciplinary Team Governor's Clearinghouse was supplied with numer­ ous copies of this draft document for review to Craig Bromley, Archeologist ensure consistency with the state's ongoing plans. County land use plans have been reviewed by the Qualifications: Archeologist, Bureau of Land Man­ EIS team to ensure consistency. agement, 5 years; Cultural Resource Specialist, National Park Service, V2 year. B.A., Anthropology, The BLM also has coordinated with the Bureau of University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Indian Affairs from the Wind River Reservation, the Bureau of Reclamation forthe adjoining Boysen Res­ Responsibility: Cultural resources. ervoir project, and the U.S. Forest Service for the adjoining Shoshone National Forest. Missy Cook, Clerk/Typist Local groups have been consulted to ensure that Qualifications: Wang Operator, 2 years; Office all parties are aware of the plans and objectives. A Clerk, 2 years; A.A.S., Retail Merchandising, Casper copy of the newsletter was distributed to all persons College, Casper, Wyoming. Refresher courses in on the Lander EIS mailing list. This list is available grammar, spelling, and other related secretarial at the Lander Resource Area Office. duties. Copies of this document are available for review Responsibility: Word processing. in the BLM offices at Lander, Rawlins, Worland,

85 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Tom Crawford, Economist Jan Macey, Clerk-Typist Qualifications: Economist, Bureau of Land Manage­ Qualifications: Wang Operator, 2 years; Computer ment, 4 years; Research Specialist, New Mexico Assistant 2 years, Bureau of Reclamation; Secretary State University, 6 months. M.S., B.S., Agricultural (Steno) 8 years, Bureau of Reclamation. Economics, New Mexico State University. Responsibility: Word processing. Responsibility: Economics. Debra MacPherson, Lead Clerk Fred Georgeson, Geologist Qualifications: Wang Operator, 6 months; Secre­ Qualifications: Geologist, Bureau of Land Manage­ tary (Steno) 10 years, legal secretary, 2 years. Re­ ment, 11 years. B.S., Geology, University of Wyo­ fresher course in grammar, spelling, and other re­ ming. lated secretarial duties. Responsibility: Minerals. Responsibilties: Work processing.

Bob Janssen, Geologist Brad Nelson, Wildlife Biologist Qualifications: Geologist, Bureau of Land Manage­ Qualifications: Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land ment, 9 years. M.S., Geology, Colorado State Univer­ Management, 6 years; Raptor Research Specialist, sity; B.S., Earth Science/Regional Analysis, Univer­ Appalachian Environmental Laboratory, 1 year. sity of Wisconsin. M.S., Wildlife Management, Frostburg State Col­ lege; B.S., Animal Science, University of Maryland. Responsibility: Geology and Minerals. Responsibility: Wildlife. Beverly Kolkman, Writer-Editor Craig Sorenson, Recreation Planner Qualifications: Writer-Editor and AMtext Operator, Bureau of Land Management, 5 years; Reports Offi­ Qualifications: Outdoor Recreation Planner, cer and Intelligence Analyst, U.S. Government Bureau of Land Management, 10years; Park Ranger, (Middle East and Washington, D.C.), 7 years. B.A. Utah State Parks, 1 year. B.A. Forest Recreation, History and Anthropology, University of Colorado. Utah State University. Responsibility: Editing of draft. Responsibility: Recreation, Visual Resources, Wil­ derness. Lou Layman, Writer-Editor Fred Stabler, Fisheries Biologist Qualifications: Editor, Bureau of Land Manage­ ment; 8 years editing BLM documents, 2 years edit­ Qualifications: Fisheries Biologist, Bureau of Land ing National Park Service documents. B.S., Journal­ Management, 5 years; Fisheries Biologist, U.S. Fish ism, University of Colorado. and Wildlife Service, 1 year. M.S., Fishery Resources, University of Idaho; B.S., Wildlife Biol­ Responsibility: Editing of preliminary final. ogy, Washington State University. John Likins, Range Conservationist Responsibility: Fisheries. Qualifications: Range Conservationist, Bureau of Jack Welch, Wildlife Biologist Land Management, 7 years. B.S., Forestry and Range Management, Utah State University. Qualifications: Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, 18 years. M.S., B.S., Wildlife and Responsibility: Livestock grazing. Range Ecology, University of Wyoming. Gary Long, Outdoor Recreation Planner Responsibility: Wildlife. Qualifications: OutdoorRecreationPlannerandWil­ derness Coordinator, 5 years, and Land Use Planner (economist), 4 years, Bureau of Land Management; Technical Review Research Assistant, University of Wyoming, 1 year. B.A., Geography, University of Wyoming. Jack Kelly, Area Manager, Lander Resource Area Responsibility: Recreation, Visual Resources, Wil­ derness. Jerry Valentine, Branch Chief, Lands and Renewable Resources, Lander Resource Area

86 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Technical Review (Continued) Printing

Wayne Erickson, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Jerry Carter, Printing Specialist, Wyoming State Wyoming State Office Office

John Naylor, Chief, Planning and Environmental Sheri Morris, Editorial Assistant, Wyoming State Coordination, Wyoming State Office Office

Ed MacTaggart, Environmental Coordinator, Wyoming State Office CONSULTATION Michael Bies, Archeologist, Rawlins District Office Agencies and Organizations Walter George, Natural Resource Specialist, Divide Resource Area Consulted

Don Glenn, Range Conservationist, Rawlins The planning team consulted with, mailed notices District Office or drafts to, and/or received comments from the agencies and organizations listed below during de­ velopment of the plan. An asterisk (*) indicates that Mary Hanson, Technical Coordinator, Rawlins the agency or organization commented on the draft District Office wilderness EIS. Two asterisks (**) indicate agencies that commented on the draft Lander RMP but had Kraig Howe, Realty Specialist, Rawlins District no specific comments regarding the wilderness EIS. Office These letters are included herein to illustrate that a response was received. Gene Kolkman, Assistant District Manager, P&EA Rawlins District Office Federal Agencies Vernon Lovejoy, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Medicine Bow Resource Area U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Barbara Pitman, Geologist, Rawlins District Bureau of Indian Affairs Office Bureau of Land Management (other offices) ‘ National Park Service Office of Surface Mining "Fish and Wildlife Service Photography U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Bureau of Mines Gary Long, Rawlins District Office U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Bob Tigner, Rawlins District Office Soil Conservation Service "Environmental Protection Agency Tennessee Valley Authority Cartography U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Defense Terri Mitchell, Cartographic Technician, Wyoming State Office "Department of the Air Force U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Carol Ross, Illustrator, Wyoming State Office U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Transportation Jon Winemlller, Supervisory Engineering Draftsman, Wyoming State Office

87 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Congressional Offices Organizations

Office of Congressman Cheney National Outdoor Leadership School Office of Senator Simpson The Wilderness Society Office of Senator Wallop Continental Divide Trail Society Sierra Club Friends of the Earth, Inc. Wyoming Wilderness Association State Agencies Fremont County Audubon Society

'Wyoming Office of the Governor State Planning Coordinator's Office ‘ Game and Fish Department PUBLIC COMMENTS AND Recreation Commission Highway Department Public Lands Commission RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT Public Lands and Farm Loan District Public Service Commission EIS University of Wyoming (various departments) State Historic Preservation Officer Central Wyoming College "Archives Museums and Historical Department Introduction Department of Environmental Quality ‘ Geological Survey ‘ State Engineer’s Office The issues addressed in this EIS have generated Oil and Gas Conservation Commission a large number of public comments. There were approximately 600 letters that solely addressed the State Legislators wilderness recommendations. The writers of most of these letters either were in favor of wilderness for all Senators and Representatives of Fremont, Carbon, six WSAs or were opposed to any wilderness desig­ Sweetwater, Hot Springs, Sweetwater, Laramie, and nation. The content of these letters is summarized Albany Counties below because there were too many to reproduce in this document. Comments in favor of wilderness designation Tribal Business Councils generally voiced concern that these valuable lands and resources would not get deserved protection Arapahoe Business Council Shoshone Business Council without wilderness designation. They expressed the opinion that there is already too much development in Wyoming, such as a proliferation of roads, cleared Local Governments forests, scenic degradation through mining and min­ eral leasing, and loss of wildlife and habitat. These Board of Fremont County Commissioners writers said they thought that the Proposed Action Natrona County Commissioners for wilderness designation of approximately two- Carbon County Commissioners thirds of the Sweetwater Canyon is not sufficient. Sweetwater County Commissioners Hot Springs County Commissioners They included estimates that the total study area City of Lander acreage makes up less than 1 percent of the land in ‘ City of Riverton the resource area. ‘ Town of Dubois Town of Shoshone These writers said all the WSAs are deserving of Town of Jeffrey City wilderness status as the last remaining vestiges of Town of Atlantic City the environment that contain special resource Town of South Pass Fremont County Planning Commission values. They also said the values that qualify the Natrona County Weed District areas for wilderness study should be protected from Fremont County Weed District development so that something unique can be pre­ Fremont County Extension Agent served for the benefit of this generation as well as Fremont County Solid Waste Disposal District future generations. Most of these letters also expressed support for Business and Industry wilderness designation of the Whiskey Mountain and Dubois Badlands WSAs. Those two areas are Monsanto Company not part of this EIS. Study and analysis of those Exxon Company, USA areas, comprising 487 and 4,520 acres, respectively, Numex Colorado Interstate Gas Exploration, Inc. will be carried out in 1989. Hugh Jones Agency American Nuclear Corp. 88 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The comments against wilderness designation The final step of the reporting process is for the generally expressed the opinion that Wyoming President to make his recommendations to Con­ already has too much wilderness in the national for­ gress. Only Congress can designate an area as part ests and national parks. The commenters said they of the National Wilderness Preservation System. are concerned that federal lands are being “locked We appreciate the efforts of so many people in tak­ up" and that multiple use will be lost by more wilder­ ing time to provide comments. All the letters will be ness designation. These writers said wilderness is retained on file in the Lander BLM office and will be detrimental to the state and local economies available for review throughout the remainder of the because it reduces development in industries such study process. as the timber and mineral-related businesses and adversely affects such “spin-off" values as jobs and tax base. They also expressed the feeling that wilder­ ness is restricted to young and physically fit persons Persons Favoring or Opposing and to those economically able to enjoy the benefit. Designation Some of these correspondents said wilderness should not be set aside for such a small segment of Commenters who wrote to express opposition to the public. Further concerns were expressed that wil­ or preference for wilderness designation are listed derness would draw more people to a particular area below. and increase the social problems involved such as trespass on private lands, litter, and vandalism. Opposed to Wilderness Designation A recommendation that an area is nonsuitable for Robert G. & Jon D. Hill wilderness does not mean the area will be stripped Robert R. Dahlstedt Jim Moore of all protection against surface-disturbing develop­ Ray Shanor ments. Any study areas released by Congress from Clyde A. Ray the interim management guidelines would be man­ Elizabeth H. Moore aged under the provisions of the Lander RMP. The Dwight Sempert study areas lie within the Gas Hills and Beaver Creek Mike Ibach Charles S. Tubman resource management units, so they would be man­ Dennis Davison aged under the same protective stipulations as pre­ L. R. Esp scribed for those two units. Thus, resource values Sharon Chumley would be protected by such measures as “ no surface Gary Stover Peggy Bartlett occupancy” and seasonal restrictions for oil and gas Lanny Applegate activities where appropriate, withdrawals from locat- Kenneth L. Stroh able mineral activities for some specific areas, min­ Mark A. Hickerson ing plan of operation requirements on other specific W. A. & Mary Svoboda areas that are open to mining, and avoidance areas David Englert Lee W. McRae for major utility systems. Mike Yardas Helen & H. Thomas Weisz The public lands around the WSAs are not highly Donald R. Johnston developed. Livestock grazing and wildlife habitat are Nancy Gimple the primary uses and there is little visual or physical Sherrie Cox impact involved. Joseph W. Scott Wayne D. Gotfredson On the other hand, the partial wilderness designa­ Mark Miller tion, the Proposed Action for Sweetwater Canyon, Raymond P. Virdin Shane K. Carey does not entail serious tradeoffs between wilderness Robin Griffin and nonwilderness uses. For example, there would Mark McDonald be minimal impacts on the present access in Sweet­ Helen Dunning water Canyon, and the economic impacts would be Jerome T. Bergstrom negligible. Frank Gunsaullus P. Tutton FLPMA requires that the Secretary of the Interior Ina Baker Sandy Smail complete his review of the public lands for wilder­ Norman Leicester ness potential and report his findings to the Presi­ Vickie Garcia dent within 15 years from the time the act was passed Janice Bergstrom (October 21, 1991). The Secretary's reports will Daniel C. Wyrick include the BLM’s final suitability report, the final George L. Patik William L. Bregar EIS (including analysis of public comments), the Wilbert & Nancy Weitzel public hearing records, and the mineral evaluations Kay Feutz conducted by the Geological Survey and the Bureau Robert A. Stanker of Mines on any area recommended as suitable for Parker Land & Cattle Co. wilderness. 89 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Opposed to Wilderness David Heyborne Chad Sable DeWayne Appleby Lyn Sinclair Designation (Continued) Kent C. Johnson Cortni Sable Myrtle Shanor Wayne Griffin Duane Clubb Gary Martin Michelle Gunsaullus Rudy Herbst Rev. Gilbert B. Moore Kody Hilpp Henry J. Hudspeth John Holdaway L. M. Chipley Donald Davison Patricia Moore Robert C. Peterson George Hornecker Mike Black Tom Freed Mary F. Alexander John & Gladys Weber Lander Area Chamber Commerce Eileen Milburn Tom G. Massey, Sr. Paul Davidson Ruby C. Herman E. O. Sowerwine Alan L. McOmie Martha McRae Dallas G. Bissell Tom Heil Angela V. Davey Monroe Harvey Christine Rushing Alfred & Virgina Lindell Tom Outland Gerald Applehans Jim Waters Barbara M. Stroh Norman L. Tutton Norman Cronk Don McOmie Robert Cecrle Don Metzger Vannis D. Parkhurst Cindy Hale Shannon Dickinson Rocky Yardas Terry K. Thompson Donna Applegate Sharon & Bob Campbell Frank Madewell Bill Hirasawa Charles Yardas, Jr. Charlotte Wentworth Laurel Christensen Cal Hancock G. Mike McDonald Ken Jones Make Krassin Jack Weger Wendell V. Shields Carol J. Moore Dave Tafoya Sandy Siwik Fred Cox Earl W. Smith W. L. Taylor Paul C. DePrlest Kathy Lacy Mike Larsen Marge Palmer Jack Armstrong Richard Cooper Mike Nemeth Moine C. Kisor Karley Watt Bill Hallam Maryann Rathbone Darel L. Wentworth Kenneth J. Carey Frank S. Reed Jeff Palmeno Carl Lockard Jim Sable Lynn McRann Daniel M. Logue Elaine Hudspeth Ron Given Clint Dunning Tracy Davison Dorthy Hill Don Gunsaullus Mrs. George Hornecker Thomas R. Jeffres Vera Gunsaullus Janet Picherd Becky Downs Scott Smail Robert Milburn James L. Hubble John L. Larsen Clydene R. Allen Donald E. Reed Dave Smail, Jr. Steve Brown Mavis Hubble Gary M. Carrol Nancy Corbett Marjorie Graham Ronald G. Glasscock Bud Carpenter Charlene Seely Mark Miller Tammi Tutton Joan Saltz Brian Martinsen Gladys Felix Millie Rhoads Don Metzger Darin Raymond Don Kramer Duane R. Kaiser Terri Edwards Ethel Tutton Dan Shatto Keith Bieber Jarold W. LaDoucer Kathy Majdic Bill & Cyd Freese Judy K. Sutt Patricia E. Carr Elton D Martin James W. Gibson John D. Story Colleen A. Martin Diane Atwood Barbara A. Speyer Lewis B. Diehl Betty Sable Joseph C. Palladino James Siwik Bud Sinclair E. Ralph McCall Donald C. Clausen Priscilla Herbst Joseph L. Malek Tom Lucas Mark Newton James D. Soumas, Mayor of Riverton Mike McRann Ken Rathbone Randy Lehman Jeannie Larsen Jerry Alexander Larry Christensen Karla J. Cooper Alice O. Freese Dorothy Davison Bille Dutcher Wendy Minemyer Trinidad Herrera Hugh McRae Sidney Freese Jim Chumley Mervin Thompson Tahna Balzly Diana Currah Leslie Wilson Shawn McRae Joyce Pickett Dale Jacob Glen E. Herman Ken Rhoads Aaron Shatto Cyd Freese Maryann Blackerby Nancy Van Fleet Michael S. Tutton Carrie Hilpp Lee Parrill Betty Weger Max T. Evans John E. Murphy Debby Metzger Brian Englert Deborah L. Derbish Wilson J. Felix Shawn D. McRae Gerald Moats Bill Heninger Roland Gimple Fred Steward Denise R. Nelson Curtis Syme Carol L. Boyd Chris Peterson Michael Wright Mr. & Mrs. Mark Keiser Don Calhoun Tom L. Gotfredson Leon Atwood Molly Browall Andy Palmer Don Jacobs Viola Wickstrom Bill Locke Larry Sutt C. Jack Minter Michael D. Deep Melba R. Gibson Richard Davey Vicki Metzger Thomas J. Cooper

90 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Opposed to Wilderness Alice B. Morrison Sue Lowry Laurie Redland Lois Wilson Designation (Continued) Jerriet McIntosh Mllda Hester John Gilmore Anona M. Helmbigner George Lucas Tom & Marjorie Graham Daphne O'Regan Pat Cooper Damon Wilson Jeff Thleret Linda Van Fleet Tom Redland Hortense Mclver Irene Bernier Justin Jamerman Ron Guenther (Sierra Club Redwood E. G. Macfarlane Wayne Fox Chapter) Mary Herbst Billy McLaughlin Grace B. & Daniel L. Morris Don Hundley, Jr. Chuck Mott Jeanette Alosl Brlgida Guymon Betty Lou Gustin Rex & Betty Mason Lowell A. Morfeld Scott Ward Joesphine Briggs Roy Trimmer Evelyn C. Newell Catherlng Kuhnle Robert Van Fleet Elizabeth A. Metcalf William & Genevieve Sattler Jack Corbett Martin Mazurle Ron P. Good Florence Faulkner William A. Coats Robert T. Johnson James W. Heath Mark L. Morris John F. Wurzel Lee W. McRae Donna Wintermote Sheri Behrens Harry C. Norris William C. Burris Gerald L. Boomer Charlie McIntosh Dara Newman-Samuels Jack Wlllert In Favor of Wilderness Edgar E. Hancock Tom Sun Scott Schulke Mike Mariner Designation Edith Olson Larry L. Morrison Kenneth S. Warren Mr. & Mrs. Richard Burke Mary A. Gravitt Bruce Edwards Dennis H. Sun Gerald R. Brookman Linda & Bill Alexander Fay Gilmore Larry Murante B. Newell Collins Jamerman Pat Boomer John Canfield, M.D. Walter Cassell M. J. Anderson S. Henry Hall J. H. Main Jeffrey Schneiber David H. Hepler Doug Thompson David R. Wallace Ralph Delfino Bruce Graham Marl Tustin Dean Diers Rita McLaughlin George A. Bridges Helen Scull Mary R. Oliver Nancy L. Russell Marla A. Telesca E. F. Thompson Dr.& Mrs. Larry Allen George Catalano Damon Wilson T. Russell Mager Sidney M. Hirsh Chad G. Morrison Anne Model Charles H. Ellis, III Leo Larson John M. Kuzmlak William J. Sander, D C. Delores C. Fessler Priscilla Kezar Celia Llndlom Valera Gulnard James B. Breese William J. Laden Roy Darnell Norman Johnson Philip M. Harmon Lorle Darnell Gary C. Wong Ned W. Stone Fred E. Ereckson Gregory Pals Frank Norris Sherolyn Hollingsworth Lydia Edison Jane Denton Charlie Bobbitt Drummond Mansfield Neltje Bernard Sun George Lagomarslno Gene Anne Parker Kenny Jamerman Mrs. E. Harold Coburn Kenneth J. Macklin Jim & Shirley Baker William T. Rose Elizabeth Howell Joe E. & Jennifer McIntosh William MacAulay Jeff Vaughan William M. McIntosh Elliott Bernshaw Alex Bennett Mrs. Robert Wiley Mrs. Andrew Wills Randy & Dierdre Rand James M. & Nadine A. Graham Erwin A. Bauer Carl D Mitchell Ron Wilmes David S. Gussman Steven W. Patwell, M.D. Thomas E. & D'Arlyn Murphree Tom Sewell Marian Gruenfelder Albert Myers Abraham Wllensky Ken Bunch Don O. Fox Robert & Lynn Seisehnop Alex L. Pugh Don Steward R. Saigh Gertrude Platt Denise Thompson Martin H. Gerber Mrs. Thomas N. Bowdle Lynn M. Heath Rhea Moss Ola Harrison Larry L. Morrison Reed Secord Neil McMillan Michael W. Allington Joe & Adia Cabell Thomas J. Kluk Jeannete Morrison Beverly Fogleman Laurie A. Whitlock Arnold West M. Boysen Mary B. Donchez Judy Graham Alison Hutchings Carl Rouch William I. Coats Kathryn Hlestand Harold A. Keelen, Jr. Leonard Graham Thomas Young Joaqulm Panozzo David Ward Jeffrey R. Foster (Sierra Club-Wyoming Jennifer Lawson Mrs. Wyoma Burris Chapter) Joan J. McCrory William Hollingsworth R. W. Van Alstyne Allen L. Hammer John E. Mikkelson Marcus Jernigan Richard G. Cook Audrey Wlllert Mary Flnlayson James and Sheri Beck Noellne Sun Jerry T. Drake R. Craig Stotts Romona Shull Thomas H. Slone Sterling Vinson

91 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

In Favor of Wilderness Designation (Continued) Eleanor P. & Dennis J. Fleming Sherill Lori John F. Pamperin Bob Hoffman Robert Zalkin, Cantor Walter & Dorothy Pelech Dr. Laura Pare Angus Brown Elizabeth Heestaeed Timothy W. Pemberton Kennile B. Prosser Jim Allard Neal Miller Thomas G. Eick Dennis R. Nelson Betty Follls Thomas Ribe Joseph D. O’Neill Anna M. Koval Gregory J. Hickey Joel Goldstein Donald Purinton Stephen W. Keith Betty L. Starratt Thomas J. Messenger Kevin Fernlund Jack & Joshua Groff Celia Scott-Von der Muhll Ann Fisk Paul J. Conn Joseph Lee Boyle Hazel Koehler Thomas Grisham, M.D. Caren Zimmern Jack Hinrichs Joan Tockstein Kirk W. Genger Gerda Mansell Kathryn A. Holden Dennis Hining Gerald Ottone Allan Sweger Ernest W. Mueller Mark Derichsweiler Nancy L. Nesewich Tom & Virginia Angenent Thomas A. Bliss Robert O. & Ruth W. Zeller Nancy Gingrich Rudolph Sucharda Randy E. Holder R. E. Peterson, II Richard H. Hiers James V. Lewis John B. Lund Eric A. Greschner Rebekah Johnson Neil 0. & Jennifer S. Miller Mark Gooding Christopher S. Cockey Andrew Graham Mary Kleinert Lois O. Ormand Thomas Gregory Mrs. Fannie Lee Ford Katherine A. Gagne Fred K. Gray Paul C. & Pamela R. Bosch Hollis Marriott Alison Gieschner Marian Fox Alan Car.ton Trudy Smiley Caroline Yorke Rima Freid, Ph.D. Brian Suderman Mr. & Mrs. R. L. Olsen Timothy Rockhold Dan Chatfield Kurt O. Otley Robert Markeloff Leonard Burkhardt Orley Pitt Dorene D. Johnston Stephen Becker Tina Gregory Jim McCann Helen A. Newhouse Sherry & Weldon Shelley John M. Chaplick Richard E. Cooper Thomas W. Giblin, Jr. John M. Walkenhorst Jim Wilson Robert W. Graves Mark S. Gailey J. L. Wyatt Erika Schnurmann Barbara K. Girdler Olga M. Rosche Ronald P. Lewis Max Zischkale, Jr. Barbara H. Trought Gwendoly Boudreaux Mrs. Catherine Giggs Tony Chambers Brenda K. Harms, OTR Virginia Bucknam Ray Vaughan Rosemary Michalec Gerald Haslam Lawrence A. Papp Tim DiChiara Barbara R. Hume Leslie A. Rogers John E. Earl R. A. Rosenberg David Clarendon Matt McWenie lola Jokoboski Robert F. Mueller Ted Rosa Stephen B. Johnson Sara Traum David Barron Joyce Holmes Richard C. Wilson Ken Driese Leonard J. Choate Steve Kuchera Ken Berian Dorothy J. Boulton Donald J. Walsh D. Mark Parr Robert Mosman Robert H. Kravich Steve Warble Connie Clauson-Pearce Joseph R. Hunkins Janet Carruthers Lashly Ruth M. Loeffelbein Connie Wilbert Charles E. Axthelm Ernest Wilson Dr. Mike & Rae Newman Maureen Lindh Carter 92 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

In Favor of Wilderness Designation (Continued) All comments are printed verbatim. Handwritten comments have been typed verbatim for better read­ Elisabett J. Lamback ability and have been noted as such. Ken Berg Norman F. Richardson In addition to letters received from agencies and Rosa McCann John Sargent organizations, letters from the following 21 individ­ Frank Traficante uals were received. Michael & Constance Schmotzer Steve Champoux Robert F. Bucknam Susan C. MacGillis Alice L. Gustin Pete Weiba Mary Scharda Jean M. B. & James E. Genasci Sharon E. Dooley Dan Ritter Norman & Gaynell Park M. Skov Joe Brandi Holly Jensen Bruce Hamilton Brad Young Dexter Perkins Melvin E. Gustin Bruce J. Noble, Jr. Rob Kindle Comments and Responses Meredith Taylor Gary Keimig George D. Langstaff Letters in the following section are arranged in the W.H.B. Graves order received, first from agencies and organiza­ Martie Crone tions followed by individuals. The BLM's response Donald A. Smith immediately follows each letter. Comments within Jim Minick Mark Hughes each letter are numbered, and the responses are Tory Taylor numbered correspondingly. Some of these com­ Lynn Kinter ments were used in making changes from the draft EIS when this preliminary final EIS was prepared.

Response to Letter 1

Thank you for your comments.

93 2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Response to Letter 2 REGION VIII ONE DENVER PLACE - 999 18TH STREET — SUITE 1300 DENVER. COLORADO 80202-2413 1. Thank you for your comments. 8PM-EA Jack Kelly, Area Manager *986 Bureau of Land Management Lander Resource Area Post Office Box 589 Lander, Wyoming 82520 Re: Lander Draft Resource Management Plan/Envlronmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS), and Grazing and Wilderness Supplements Dear Mr. Kelly: In accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean A1r Act, the Region VIII Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the referenced documents. Mr. Gene Kolkman of the Rawlins D istrict Office has provided very helpful assistance during our review. These documents contain several highly commendable components that contribute to the objective of a "comprehensive framework for managing and allocating public land and resource uses In the resource area" as discussed on RMP/EIS page 1. Examples of such components Include: o recognition of areas of deteriorated resource conditions, o recognition of Important fisheries and watershed values throughout the documents, o mapping of Important fisheries ano streams, o Identification of priority areas for riparian-wetland area and aquatic habitat management/lmprovement, and o use of the Grazing Supplement for setting an assertive approach to addressing areas of deteriorated rangeland resource conditions. Our enclosed comments are Intendeo to constructively contribute to this “comprehensive framework” by covering a range of concerns and recommendations regarding water quality, riparian and wetland areas, aquatic life , and watershed and rangeland resources. Many of our detailed comments relate to water quality objectives shared by both BLM and EPA. We feel that existing impairments and trends In water quality and designated beneficial uses should be described more thoroughly. Water quality-related values are to be considerations 1n future

activity planning; however, a better description of the status of these values In the RHP would help provide a better base for such planning. Based on the above information, we would like to see the water quality objectives (both for numeric and narrative crite ria , Including anti degradation, bqneflclal uses) more directly described by management area. j The preferred alternative appears to be designed to provide BLM with maximum fle x ib ility In managing leases 1n areas of hlah potential for oil and gas development. This approach can provide an Incentive to lessees to be actively Involved 1n developing project-specific requirements for environmental resource protection. However, we feel that the leasing constraints for meeting water quality beneficial use objectives should be addressed more specifically. Additionally, regarding locatable mineral development, we have expressed concerns that the RMP adequately describe the applicable constraints from the Clean Water Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The State of Wyoming w ill be addressing antidegradation requirements for appropriate stream segments during this fiscal year. We encourage the BLM to be aware of this process and the applicability of any new requirements that may apply to Lander Resource Area streams. The State of Wyoming contact person Is Larry Robinson 1n Cheyenne (777-7075), and the EPA contact person Is B ill Wuerthele (FTS 564-1586 or 303-293-1586). Based on our concerns and the criteria established by EPA to rate adequacy of draft EISs, we have rated these draft EIS documents as Category EC-2 (environmental concerns-lnsufflclent Information). The EPA review has Identified additional corrective measures, data, analysis, and discussion that are recommended for the proposed RMP and final EIS and supplements. If further EPA assistance 1s needed, please feel free to contact Doug Lofstedt of mv sta ff at FTS 564-1717 or 303-293-1717. Sincerely, OMU) Dale Vodehnal, Chief Environmental Assessment Branch Enclosure cc: Richard Bastln, Rawlins BLM D istrict Manager Hillary Oden, Wyoming BLM State Director Randy Wood, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality William Dickerson, A-104(0FA, H.Q.)

94 EPA OETAILED COMMENTS ON BLM DRAFT LANDER RESOURCE MAMA6DCKT PLAH/EHVIMHKH1AL »»ACT STATEMENT (RHP/EIS),

Mater Quality, Watershed, Aquatic Life The PMP/EIS and supplements recognize water quality and fisheries throughout. Mapping and lis tin g the affected fisheries (pages 81-92) Is particularly cocroendable 1n establishing a framework for future activity planning. The discussion of existing chemical water quality monitoring on pages 76-79 needs to be correlated to the numeric crite ria 1n the State water quality standards (WQS) for the streams. Existing Impairments to WQS (numeric criteria and designated beneficial uses) and trends need to be documented as part of the affected environment. Such Information should Include condition and trend of any flsherles/aquatlc life beneficial uses designated for the Lander Resource Area (LRA). The WP/EIS should address the consistency of the Issue resolution determinations with EPA's current water quality standards regulation (40 CFR Part 131) trtilch does not allow the state to remove a designated use if , 1) the use 1s existing (unless a use requiring more stringent crite ria 1s added), or 2) If the designated use can be attained through required technology controls or best management practices (Part 131.10(h)). On page 79, the RMP/EIS states that “streams without a viable trout population, but with the potential to support trout, have not been discussed." However, If these streams fa ll Into the second category above, l.e ., are considered “attainable uses" as defined at 40 CFR Part 131.10(d), they should be addressed In the beneficial uses/WQS discussions. The RMP/EIS should document BLM coordination with the State 1n addressing the management of any p riority water bodies for the LRA that may have been Identified 1n the most recent Section 305(b) water quality assessment report. The Grazing Supplement mentions an “Informal agreement" with the Hyomlng Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) for coordination In "solving water and air quality problems In the state" (page 48). The RMP/EIS and Grazing Supplement need to document the specific BLM-WDEQ coordination process. Including provisions for periodic meetings for RMP follow-up, for setting watershed p rio ritie s, and for evaluating BMP effectiveness 1n meeting HQS. The Grazing Supplement also recognizes BLM consistency with completed 208 plans. However the status of the plans and BLM consistency requirements (as part of the comprehensive management framework) need documentation In both the RMP/EIS and Grazing Supplement. Under the preferred alternative, "protection of streams, riparian areas. . . . could be significantly reduced on about 453,000 acres of high oil and gas potential" (page 44). The PWP needs to address the protection of water quality standards as a matter of policy for all alternatives during the leasing and lease development processes. Can measures other than no surface occupancy and seasonal restrictions be prescribed to provide the necessary water quality protection? In addition, the above direction appears to be

contrary to BLM Manual 6740 which states BLM policy to: “A. Avoid the long- and short-term adverse Impacts associated with destruction, loss, or degradation of wetland-riparian areas", and “C. Preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetland-riparian areas. . ." (Part. 06). The preferred alternative (page 43 and elsewhere) would give considerable discretion to BLM to waive leasing requirements for resource protection. The RMP needs to address the publIc/lnter-agency coordination process for such waivers when water quality standards (Including beneficial uses) may be affected. Furthermore, the publ1c/1nter-agency coordination process for setting leaseable mineral development requirements for resource protection In areas of high o il and gas potential needs to be described. What Is the coordination process for setting locatable mineral development requirements? Another mineral development concern that needs to be thoroughly “fleshed out“ In the proposed RMP/flnal EIS Is the legal resource degradation allowable under the 1872 Mining Law (page 195 and 276). The document states that “placer mining and dredging, which causes destruction or long-term degradation of a trout stream and riparian habitat, can legally occur" (page 195). The RMP/EIS needs to Incorporate the requirements to protect WQS (both numeric and narrative criteria and beneficial uses such as for cold water fisheries) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) (Section 303(c) and 40 CFR Part 131) and EPA's antidegradation requirements. FLPMA requirements to comply with WQS (Section 202(c)(8)) and to prevent "unnecessary and undue degradation" (Section 302(b)) should also be Incorporated. A CWA Section 404 dredge and f i l l permit or Section 402 point source NPDES discharge permit may be required for a particular operation. See U.S. v. Earth Sciences. Inc., 599 F. 2d 368 (10th Clr. 1979T The use of watershed planning In the LRA for cumulative Impact analysis and as a mechanism to coordinate site-specific project priorities and objectives for multiple use and/or multiple ownership watersheds should be addressed. What are the decision criteria for doing such plans vs. Individual project activity plans? What are the watershed planning/treatment priority areas? Regarding the discussion of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) on Grazing Supplement page 47, we believe that the discussion should be expanded to create a stronger framework for mixed ownership watershed planning and Implementation. We commend BLM for proposing a strong approach to improving deteriorated rangeland resource conditions, at least for Category I allotments, In the area covered by the Grazing Supplement (pages 33 through 44 and elsewhere). We would like to see the Supplement define in more detail the implementation strategy, particularly budgeting, needed to make the Improvements happen. We do not feel that ground water resources were sufficiently addressed; however, general management practices are discussed which relate to ground water protection. The draft RMP/EIS mentions that ground water resources, namely water wells and springs, may be affected by geophysical (seismic)

95 exploration. On page 60, the plan states that "shot-holes (from geophysical exploration) are plugged according to Wyoming 011 and Gas Conservation rules . . These plugging practices should greatly enhance ground water protection. Under EPA's rules for the Underground Injection Control Program (40 CFR Part 146.22(b)(1)), operators of injection wells must protect all fresh water aquifers (defined as any aquifer of 10,000 parts per m illion total dissolved solids or less) by setting surface casing with cement through all fresh water aquifers and into the underlying confining zone. We support consistency between EPA and BLM In protecting "fresh water aquifers" under the same definition. Consequently, further elaboration on BLM requirements for oil and gas leasing to protect "fresh water aquifers" 1s requested. We suggest that the RMP describe the formal, predischarge coordination process between the Lander Resource Area and the Corps of Engineers (COE) 1n applying the Section 404 program on projects that would affect streams and wetlands under COE jurisdiction. Such factors as: notification of projects to be done under nationwide (or state or regional) 404 permit; Identification of projects needing an Individual permit; and development of mutually agreeable mitigation requirements for individual projects should be part of the description. We recommend that the coordination process Include notifying the COE of all projects that would discharge dredged or f i l l material into streams, lakes, or wetlands. The COE w ill then determine whether an Individual permit 1s required. In addition, the EPA is currently developing Its wetland mitigation guidelines which w ill be forwarded to BLM when completed. We suggest expanded use In the final RMP/EIS and grazing supplement of summary tables (such as Table 4-3) for comparing environmental consequences between alternatives. Our specific concern is to use the sunmary tables to consolidate environmental impact disclosure for water quality beneficial uses, watershed protection, and for air quality and air quality related values. Riparian Areas - Wetlands Areas of existing poor riparian area conditions are recognized 1n the RMP/EIS and Grazing Supplement. We commend BLM for addressing management direction to Improve riparian and associated resources. Examples of such actions Include the Intent to develop "aquatlc/rlparlan habitat management plans" for “parts of the upper Sweetwater River and Beaver Creek drainages and for the Green Mountain Area" (page 293), and to Improve riparian areas in the Gas H ills grazing planning area. Are there to be demonstration areas? How many miles of Improvement are targeted? The RMP/EIS discusses habitat values of the resource area wetland-riparian areas. Waterfowl habitat condition Is not expected to “Improve significantly on Category I allotments" 1n the Gas H ills grazing

planning area, except for only small areas (Grazing Supplement page 39). This direction appears to contradict the fa irly aggressive direction in the rest of the Supplement to correct degraded wetland-riparian conditions. Standards for wetland-riparian area restoration and improvements for the resource area need to be described. Examples Include RMP guidelines for forage utiliza tion rates and ecological conditions necessary for meeting water quality standards/ beneficial uses, streanbank sta b ility, and for wetland protection/ rehabilitation. Over-hanging vegetation 1s Important to water quality and riparian condition. What are the LRA criteria for over-hanging vegetation? The resource area wetlands (Including ephemeral and seasonal) should be more clearly located. Logging within 100 feet of perennial streams would be allowed (page 35). More specific RMP stipulations and management criteria should be described that would provide adequate protection of riparian areas and associated aquatic systems from logging activities. What are the BMPs for controlling and revegetating riparian area disturbances? The acceptable percentage of tree removal under selective cutting methods for riparian areas should be stated. Additionally, the requirements for keeping logging roads out of wetland-riparian areas need to be Identified. A1r Quality Emissions of "potentially dangerous gases" from o il and gas wells are recognized on RMP/EIS pages 224 and 273. The flaring of sour gas at Individual wells should be addressed. Flaring 1s a significant source of sulfur dioxide emissions at many Wyoming wellheads. It may contribute to acid deposition 1n nearby wilderness areas. The WDEQ Is concerned about flaring In the well fields since It may represent a substantial portion of the total sulfur dioxide emissions from the natural gas Industry 1n Hyomlng. Currently, these emissions are not regulated by the State except possibly as open burning or emergency upsets, yet such emissions may 1n some Instances be a routine, planned activity. It 1s recommended that the BLM (through RMP direction) Include 1n Its o il and gas leases a clause requiring that such emissions be quantified and reported. Resource Monitoring We realize that detailed resource monitoring requirements are usually developed at the activity planning stage. Due to the technical complexities Involved 1n designing and Implementing a monitoring program that adequately links watershed activities and water quality objectives (including anti degradation requirements and other narrative WQS such as for aquatic life , as well as numeric WQS), the RMP should be quite specific about BLM plans to conduct monitoring and evaluations to determine achievement of water quality objectives. We suggest that the following components of the comprehensive water quality monitoring strategy be addressed to the extent possible at this level of planning:

96 o goals and objectives, o types of surveys (long-term, Intensive) or assessments (Including habitat evaluations and b1omon1tor1ng) to be used, o parameters and frequency to be monitored and their su ita bility 1n achieving the monitoring goals and objectives, o management and environmental Indicators, e.g., aquatic habitat, sediment delivery, to be used 1n assessing Impacts of past, ongoing, and proposed activitie s, o use of activity monitoring In sensitive areas, o monitoring responsibilities of BLM, mineral development lease/clalm holders, and other state and federal agencies, o mechanism for monitoring Implementation, o determination of adequacy of best management practices, o reporting requirements. o position or person responsible for monitoring program data collection, analysis, reporting, etc.,

o vegetation (Including riparian area) monitoring Intensity, type, and p riorities, o fisheries objectives, monitoring methodology, and threshhold levels for modification 1n management direction, o the feedback loop to achieve timely modifications to activities In response to monitoring results.

Response to Letter 3 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Thank your for your comments. £fylangered Species, Field Office Federal Bldg., U.S. Courthouse 301 South Park ¡ . , 3 P.0. Box 10023 Helena, Montana 59626 December IS,

MEMORANDUM To: State Director, BLM, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, WY Prom: Acting Field Supervieor, PVS, Endangered Species, Helena, MT Subject: Lander Resource Management Plan Biological Aaaeaamenc

Ue have reviewed your biological assessment (BA) and Lander Resource Man­ agement Plan (RMP) Pinal Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). Based upon your commitments in the BA and PEIS to consult with ua on future management actlona, and the management actions dlacussed in the BA; we concur with your determination that the Lander RHP will not adversely affect the endangered bald eagle (Hallaeetus leucocephalua), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrlnus), black-footed ferret (Mustela nlgrlpea), and gray wolf (Canla lupus), or the threatened grizzly bear (Ursua arctos horrlbllla). We do have some concerns

We realize that the peregrine falcon, black-footed ferret, grizzly bear, and gray wolf are not currently known to occupy the Lander Resource Area (RA) and that there are limited recovery actlone that you can be Involved in at the present time. However, we were disappointed by the lack of specifics regard­ ing threatened and endangered (T/E) apecles In the RMP. Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programa for the conservation of T/E apecles. Furthermore, the RMP process provides the opportunity for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to set a positive management direction that will promote conservation and recovery of listed species. This is true not only for the bald eagle, which winters on the Lander RA, but also for the other four listed species. Consultation on T/E apecles, pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of ESA should be completed prior to issuance of the PEIS. The Intent of Section 7 consultation la to lnaure that T/E species are considered, and that management actions to protect T/E species are Incorporated early in project and resource planning

The PEIS preferred alternative ldentiflea the use of seasonal restrictions and "No Surface Occupancy" (NSO) stipulations to protect T/E species. NSO stlpu- ranges can also provide Important protection to T/E apeclee habitat and food supplies. We would be happy to work with you in developing euch stipulations and can provide examples of stipulations used in T/E habitats.

97 98 Response to Letter 4

Thank you for your comments.

99 100 Responses to Letter 5 Uniled Slates Deparimeni of ihe Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 1. While there are paleontological resources within ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL OFFICE 6H Pirfo Sirtrt the Lander Resource Area, there are no recorded significant paleontological resources L7617 (RMR-PP) JAN 15 within any of the WSAs. Thus, these resources would be unaffected by wilderness designation Memorandum or nondesignation. To: Lander Resource Area Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Lander, 2. Thank you for bringing to our attention the prob­ From: Associate Regional Director, Planning and Resource Preservation, lems with the geologic time scale. It has been revised for the final EIS. Subject: Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the Lander Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management (DES 8S/50) This memorandum constitutes our comments on the draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS). No areas administered by the National Park Service would be directly affected by Implementation of any of the alternatives outlined In the draft RMP/EIS. The document includes excellent discussions on recreation, historic trails, and cultural resources. Especially noteworthy lo the slte-by-slte analysis of National Register eligibility. Likewise, the discussions of proposed National Natural Landmark (NNL) areas and other natural resources beginning

In sum, the concerns (direct and Indirect) of the National Park Service have been covered In the draft RMP/EIS. However, we have some comments you may wish to consider as the final document is being prepared. The document, as expected, reflects the Bureau of Land Management policy of multiple use of all resources. The four alternatives weigh in a general manner the entire spectrum of possible management approaches to each resource. We concur with the conclusion that Alternative A (page 238) . .would be the least beneficial choice of all the alternatives from a cultural/natural history resources protection viewpoint." Implementation of this alternative would adversely affect the Oregon/Mormon Trail corridor and

Although we note (page 252) that Implementation of Alternative B . .would be the most beneficial choice of all the alternatives from a cultural/natural history resource protection viewpoint," we agree that the and provision for active management (mineral extraction, grazing, etc.).

Scattered throughout the draft RMP/EIS are references to "national significance." In some Instances the criteria on which "national significance" is based are clear (e.g., National Register eligibility, disposal (page 11) we note the statement that "Lands with national significance will not be conveyed." Although we agree with the various criteria for exchange and disposal, we could not, from the material presented, ascertain how or by whom "national significance" is determined.

Insufficiently detailed to give the reader an adequate picture of what lands are subject to disposal. This discussion should somehow be tied Into a specific list of "nationally significant" areas, or at least Into descriptions of key resources contained In the document. The brief list of "significant resources" on page 298 leaves out several described earlier (e.g., on page 57 - " . . .the Wind River Formation contains vertebrate foBslla of national significance"). The selection of certain sites as "Areas of Critical Environmental Concern" (page 304) is appropriate, but we would like to see more explicit Information on the plans for the management of other "nationally significant" areas. A few comments on the geological aspects of the "Wilderness Supplement" are In order. For each wilderness study area there Is a discussion of geology ■\ and geologic resources. Nowhere could we find mention of paleontological resources, even though exposures of significant fosslllferous strata occur

Appendix III of the "Wilderness Supplement" contains a geologic time scale. Some headings (for example, the Tertiary Period) could be misleading to the 2 general public, which usually Is unaware of the direction to read the scale. Also, the scale omits the Ordovician Period. review the draft RMP/EIS.

101 Response to Letter 6

1. Thank you for your comments. Please be assured that BLM will work with the State of Wyoming regarding public comments, new resource information, use and management opportunities, and enhancement needs.

102 Response to Letter 7

Thank you for your comments.

Responses to Letter 8

1. Wilderness designation would preclude water impoundments and diversions within the area. It would also require that high water quality be maintained. It is unlikely that such a transbasin waterdiversion as you suggest would need phys­ ical facilities in the WSA or adversely affect water quality. 2. This section has been deleted from the final EIS.

103 1986

104 Responses to Letter 9

1. Thank you for your comment. We have adopted your suggestion to use a block pattern using tra­ ditional quarter section lines for the Sweetwater Canyon Proposed Action. 2. It is true that a wilderness designation would res­ trict certain types of wildlife projects. A wilder­ ness designation would not significantly restrict hunter access into the Sweetwater Rocks WSAs. 3. The section you refer to has been deleted from the final EIS. 4. The Lankin Creek (1622) and Jamerman Pas­ tures (1623) allotments are within the Green Mountain EIS area, and the final text has been changed to correct this error. The Diamond Springs Allotment (1509) is not contiguous to or partially contained within the WSA boundaries. The southern boundary of allotment 1509 is in the center of sections, 10, 11, and 12, T. 30 N., R. 90 W. This boundary is approximately 2'6 miles north of the Lankin Dome WSA boundary; thus, it is not discussed in the "Affected Environment" section. 5. This section has been rewritten. 6. We have added a reference to the pronghorn cru­ cial winter range. 7. See response 4 above.

105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 Responses to Letter 10

1. We agree with your reasoning, and the informa­ tion on the Hemlo discovery is appreciated. The sentence, “Since this gold was not recovered when it was worth over $700 per ounce, it prob­ ably will not be mined at its present value of about $300 per ounce.” has been taken out. 2. We agree with your statement; the appropriate section has been revised accordingly. 3. We agree, and the sentence has been changed to, “Commercially valuable mineral deposits are not known to occur in the WSA.” 4. Although USDI, GS (1970) (formerly Love, 1970) was not referenced as often as Tetra Tech (1983) throughout the “Geology and Mineraliza­ tion” sections of the draft wilderness supple­ ment, this in no way implies we relied on one more than the other. 5. We agree, and the favorability for jade occur­ rence has been changed from “ low to moderate" to “moderate to high.” 6. This has been noted in the mineralization sec­ tion for each of the Sweetwater Rocks WSAs. 7. The final EIS has been revised to reflect this.

115 8. Precambrian rocks have been added to the “Geology" section of chapter 3 for Copper Mountain, Corrections in capitalization and spelling have been made. 9. This information has been incorporated into the final EIS. 10. During the interim management period for WSAs, no restrictions would apply to academic studies of the geology provided such studies would not impair wilderness suitability. Drilling of exploratory holes for academic studies would not be allowed, for example. Drilling would be permissible on claim properties meeting “grand­ fathered" uses and/or valid existing rights. Pre- FLPMA oil and gas leases could be explored by drilling. 11. The “Geologic Time Scale" in the appendix has been changed.

116 State Planning Coordinator Noveaber 26, 19S5

Page 69^ Map^3-4 - This map does not show all the mineral localities

P«ge 70, Zeolite section - The Wagon Bed (Eocene) Formation ashes are notlro5~nvTlf7nowstone Volcanics (Quaternary). They are from that region, but the writer apparently did not understand the distinction. There are aore theories, including more recent ones, for the foraation of zeolites than the Van Houten (1964) reference. J.D. Love's Professional Paper 49S-C on the Granite Mountains contains an example, and this report isn't even referenced in

"Van Houten" (1964) is aisspelled in the 1st paragraph. There is also no reference to the existing zeolite production froa Arizona, which attests to the fact that zeolites are not in the "infant stage” of developaent. In the next to the last paragraph "Hansel" (1978) should be "Hausel" (1978). Page 70, Other Minerals section - Although the value of gravel, crushed stone, etc. Bay be saall on a piecemeal basis, the cumulative value is significant. There is a flagstone quarry just south of Dubois, which was not aentioned. Tungsten, which is an important strategic aincral, should be dis­ cussed more fully in this section. Significant tungsten anomalies occur at Copper Mountain, Lewiston, and South Pass. Copper-silver- zinc red bed deposits along the flank of the Wind River Range should also be included in this discussion. Page 70, Physiography section - The term "Shoshone Mountains" is no longer used for the area between the Owl Creek Mountains and the Absarokas. Washakie Range is now used (see Love and Christiansen, 198S - Geo­ logic Map of Wyoming, sheet 2). Similarly, the Bridger Mountains are generally thought to be simply the eastern portion of the Owl Creek Mountains. The Green Mountains and Sweetwater Arch are generally considered to be part of the Granite Mountains uplift. A more modern description of the physiography is given in Thombury, W.D., 196S, Regional Geomorphology of the United States: John Wiley 6 Sons, Inc., NY, Chapter 19. The term "Wyoming Basin" generally refers to all the basins and uplifts between the Southern and Middle Rocky Mountains, not just the features described in this RMP.

State Planning Coordinator November 26, 198S Page S

Thombury spells "Shoshoni" Basin, "Shoshone" Basin, and describes it as the eastern part of the Wind River Basin. Also, there is no mention of the structurally important Casper Arch on the east mar­ gin of the Shoshone Basin. On line 7 of the last paragraph (right column), "Mountains" should be capitalized after Wind River. Page 71. Map 3-5 - Minimally, "Wyoming Basin" should be deleted from this Bap. Page 70 and following pages - This section or the previous section of the RMP should include some mention of geological hazards. There are numerous known or suspected active faults in the southern and southeastern part of the Resource Area. There has also been his­ toric seismic activity in the area. Refer to U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 75-279 - Known and Suspected Active Faults in Wyoming; Geological Survey of Wyoming Open File Report 84-13 - Preliminary map of Earthquake Epicenters in Wyoming; and, U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 82-1033 on aaxinua horizontal accelerations expected in the area. There are numerous landslides and landslide-prone areas, shrinking and swelling clays, coapactible soils, and selenium-rich areas that were not mentioned as occurring in the Resource Area. In the latter case, refer to Geological Survey of Wyoaing's Open File Report 8S-14. Page 72. 2nd paragraph, left column - It is not clear what is meant by "The area is not typical because the foothills occur in the basin, away froa the mountain front". Most "foothills" adjacent to Wyoaing mountains are in the adjacent basins. The description of relief in the rest of the paragraph is confusing-- aost readers will not understand any of this, especially the last part about aost of the valley being carried away. Page 72, 3rd and 4th paragraphs, left column - The rocks in the Absarokas are better described as "volcanically-derived sedimentary rock" or "volcaniclastic rocks" than "layer? of magma". The Shoshone Moun­ tains are not siaply made up of the Wiggins Foraation. The Washakie Range (Shoshone Mountains of the RMP) is a partially exhumed, granite- cored uplift of Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks. The Wiggins Foraation is part of the volcanic pile that once co^iletely buried the Washakie

Page 72, Sth and 6th paragraphs - "Mountains" should be capitalized in the first line, the Dinwoody and Phosphoria Formations are Paleozoic rocks, not Mesozoic rocks; and, there is a fair amount of Paleozoic as well as Mesozoic rock exposed on the southern end of the Bighorn Mountains.

117 118 State Planning Coordinator November 26. 198S

Page 278, Forestry lapact Number 1 - This statement is not true for the South Pass gold mining area. The principal gold deposits do not occur in timbered area. Page 280, Locatable Minerals, 1st paragraph - This section could use a discussion on what the "plan of operation" involves or does not involve. For instance, what is required in the "plan"; what type of exploration can be pursued without such a "plan"? If explora­ tion is not allowed without first having a plan of operations, this could greatly affect the potential for discovering any gold deposits. Page 292, Hap 5-2 - Like most maps in this RHP, this map does not have any township and range grid to help a reviewer or user locate

Page 320, Locatable Minerals section - Potential mining in the Lander Slope area is probably limited to limestone aggregate, which has a low possibility for development. There are parts of the area, however, that could be mined without affecting the aesthetics of the Lander Slope area. EfiL 321, Phosphate section - This section is referring to "resources" not "reserves" of phosphate. Page 329, Locatable Minerals section - Requiring "plans of operations" in the South Pass District could have a severe iispact on mining and exploration in this area, depending on the requirements. Page 341 - "No surface occupancy*' restrictions for locatable minerals wTTl essentially close this area to non-oil and gas mineral develop­ ment. Although it is unclear if this restriction only refers to oil and gas, it would seem like the BLM would have to impose the same restrictions on all mineral activity. Page 357 Locatable Minerals - This section should include a discussion of the Clarks Fork gold placers. Page 441, Glossary - "Gneiss" is misspelled. Page 442, Mesozoic - What is the citation for the timespan used for the Mesozoic? Page 443,^Tertiary - What is the citation for the timespan used for the

age 44S, References - Although the University of Wyoming's Institute for Policy Research (IPR) was cited for some material in the text (pages 172-174), their publication is not cited in the "References". Also, the material cited as IPR was prepared for IPR by our agency.

State Planning Coordinator November 26, 198S Page 9

Page 44S, Hausel and Holden citation - "uplifts" is misspelled. Also, it should be "Hausel, W.D.", not "Hausel, D.W.".

WILDERNESS SUPPLEMENT (DRAFT) Page 31, 1st paragraph, left column, last sentence - Before a deposit can be mined, it has to be discovered. Only after a gold deposit is dis­ covered and its reserves drilled out, does the gold price come into play. There are several gold mines presently being developed around the world (at $325 an ounce) that were not rained at $700 an ounce, simply because they were not discovered early enough to take advantage of the $700 per ounce price. In fact, the percentage of gold mines operating at $700 per ounce were quite small conpared to mines operat­ ing at today's prices. One of the more significant gold discoveries this century was made in an area that had been prospected more than 100 years, yet the first gold wasn't produced until gold fell to $320 an ounce. This is the Hemlo discovery in Ontario that lies adjacent to the Trans-Canada Highway (Engineering and Mining Journal, Sept. 1985). Page 31, 2nd paragraph, left column - Although Tetra Tech's assessment of uranium at the Caabrian-Precambrian contact is low, the anomaly is important and may guide some future exploration. Page 31, left column, last paragraph, last sentence - This last sentence Is an unsupported statement. Page 31, 39, etc. - The reliance on NURE studies (the Tetra Tech reference) for geology and mineralization potential is questionable. More re­ 4 liance should be given to Love (1970), although portions of the RMP's text suggest that the authors may not have understood it. Page 42, 4th paragraph, right column - Since there was jade mined in the the Sweetwater Rocks area in recent years, we fail to see how there could only be a low to moderate favorability for its occurrence. We would call the occurrence of jade, a certainty. •[ i;'.KI‘ir 6 found in the Moonstone Formation [ Page 42, paragraph 7 - We have shown occurrences of gold, silver, and other 7 " minerals in or near this WSA (see Geological Survey of Wyoming Map 1 Series MS-14, 1985). ( Page 48, Geology and Mineralization - This discussion does not mention the Prccaabrian rocks exposed in this WSA. There are also much better references to the geology of this area than Tetra Tech (1983), which is a NURE study. Stato Planning Coordinator November 26, 1985 Page 10

There are also numerous errors in capitalization in this discussion, and the Tensleep Sandstone is misspelled. Mineralization section - Precambrian rocks 1 : of t host a variety of minerol resources, including iron, copper, , silver, tungsten, feldspar, tantalum, beryl, rare earth ments, and lithium. Several mines were developed for many of commodities. In particular, there has been production of dspar within the past ten years; some gold was mined from the d Nugget region; and, gold, silver, and copper were mined at

and 73 - If taken literally, these discussions of the BLM's rules wilderness exploration disallow any "geologic studies" except for 10 ervations conducted after filing an approved plan. Does this ro- iction include academic studies of the geology, or does the BLM ju t menn drilling, etc.? , Appendix 111 - Although 1 e of this Appendix is formations listed. The a and Period boundaries; Ordovician Period is missing; the units present in the Hind River in are not annotated as such; and, there is no citation to where listed ages came from. In regard to this latter comment, the age imates do not agree with those adopted in 1983 by the Geologic Name; mittee of the U.S. Geological Survey.

11 Response to Letter 11 TOWN OF DUBOIS DU SOIS. WYOMINO Thank you for your comments.

Jack K elly, Area M anager Bureau of Land M anagement Lander Resource Area P.0. Box 589 Lander, W yoming 8 2 5 2 0

Dear Mr. K elly, On February 12, 1986 the Dubois Town Council instructed me to comment on the Lander Resource M anagement Plan D .E.I.S. We are concerned prim arily about three areas that we feel could seriously affect Dubois and its surrounding area. F irst, the no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing in two areas, W hiskey M ountain sheep w inter range and the East Fork elk w inter range seem to the town fathers and our constituent population not altogether adequate. Please do not construe this to mean Dubois is against O il and Gas Leasing, quite the contrary. We support M ultiple Use to its fullest extent. We feel these two areas would be better managed for their w ildlife potential. B enefits for our community seem to be w ildlife rather than oil and gas. These areas are sm all but can contribute much to preservation of our Sheep and Elk herds and the economic benefits we receive from those resources. Secondly, we feel Wyoming has enough w ilderness areas. U ntil the w ilderness areas we have are being adequately managed and used we can not support that type of designation. T hirdly, we think the B.L.M . should address the W olf Recovery Plan in W yoming. We feel the B.L.M . should take an active role in preventing anything like that from happening. W olves could be detrim ental to our Big Horn Sheep and Elk calving areas. C ritical habitat is hard enough to manage w ithout creating additional threats to a w ildlife population. One last note, the Warm Springs Tie Hack Flume is a significant part of the Dubois heritage. N atural history is part of Dubois and its surrounding area. Dubois would like to see the B.L.M . pursue histo ric designation and interpretive prom otion of some aspect of our Tie Hack history. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your D .E.I.S. The B.L.M . deserves a vote of confidence for a job w ell done.

M ayor, Town of Dubois D ubois, W yoming

120 Response to Letter 12

Thank you for your comments.

Response to Letter 13

Thank you for your comments.

121 Responses to Letter 14

1. Visual resources are an integral part of the wil­ derness value of naturalness. If naturalness is THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY unaffected, then the visual resource would be unaffected. Thus, in designated wilderness, there would be no noticeable human-caused intrusions into the natural landscape. Given the February 13, 1906 low likelihood of intrusions into the WSAs, the Jack K elly, Lander Resource Area M anager P O B o x 5 8 9 differences between visual resources in desig­ Lander, Wyoming 82520 nated areas or in nondesignated areas would be Re: Lander RMP/DEIS negligible. Dear Mr. K elly, The W ilderness Society is a national organization Concerning water quality, the only manage­ dedicated to the preservation and w ise management of public lands. We support w ilderness designation for the Sweetwater ment action likely to occur that has the potential Canyon as you have recom mended, but believe that the surrounding w ild h ills of the WSA should be included result­ to affect water quality negatively is the develop­ ing in a to tal w ilderness recom m endation of 9,056 for that WSA. We cannot agree that the outstanding resources found ment of the placer mining claims in Sweetwater in the Sw eetw ater Rocks Complex w ill be protected w ithout w ilderness designation and recommend that the fu ll 32,175 Canyon WSA. However, the potential for devel­ acres be added to the N ational W ilderness Preservation System . Likew ise, Copper M ountain WSA contains crucial opment to occur on these claims is low. w ildlife habitat, outstanding scenery and recreation opportunities. It too should, in its entirety, be designated w ilderness. Although designated w ilderness is The primary cause of impacts on vegetation is w ithin close proxim ity to these areas being discussed, those forest w ildernesses are not sim ilar in ecology or opportun­ livestock grazing, and as noted in the EIS, live­ ities. They cannot "substitute" for protection of these BLM lands. Putting these WSAs into the N ational w ilderness stock grazing will not change in any of the Preservation System is an im portant investm ent for the future. No com modity resources w ill be foregone and WSAs, regardless of the alternative selected. expressed objections are not serious. The DEIS states that among the environm ental resources not affected by the plan are vegetation, visual resources 2. The Proposed Action now encompasses the por­ and w ater resources. This sim ply cannot be true. Surely im pacts from m otorized activ ity, m inerals or o il and gas tions of those streams within the WSA. developm ent, and livestock production w ill affect all three of the resources. Perhaps it is a result of this perception 1 on the part of BLM that has resulted in essentially no 3. We currently have no ecological range condition analysis being presented in the docum ents on the affects of a no w ilderness recom m endation for the WSAs other than the inventory for the Sweetwater Canyon WSA. Veg­ canyon portion of Sw eetw ater Canyon. How the w ilderness values of these lands w ill be affected is a very im portant etative conditions were not a factor in determin­ ing the WSA designation. The canyon is con­ tained within two category “ I” allotments. 4. As noted in this document, the potential for the occurrence of surface-disturbing activities occurring is low. Please note that the Oregon/ part of the data base that must be reviewed in order to make Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails are not an inform ed decision about these resources. This proposed plan cannot be considered com plete until these issues are within any of the WSAs. See Chapter 1, for more addressed for all of the areas and for all possible activ ities under m ultiple use management. information. The w ilderness recom m endation is sorely sm all com pared to the resources that deserved protection. As pointed out 5. The Final EIS has been revised to better reflect in the DEIS, the socioeconom ic base of the area depends upon tourism as much as any other aspect of the local economy. the impacts that designation of the Sweetwater It also appears to contribute more directly to jobs and income (refer to Table 2-6 1 than any other industry. Those Rocks WSAs as wilderness would have on adja­ very resources that would be jeopardized by inadequate management are the lifeblood of Frem ont County. The DEIS cent landowners. Please see appropriate sec­ states in num erous places that the livestock industry would rem ain essen tially the same and that the likelihood for tions of Chapters 1, 2, and 4. Trespass onto pri­ m inerals production is low. O il & gas production potential is low in all areas except one where the geologic form ations vate lands was a major consideration because indicate a m oderate possibility of com m ercial production. Such insubstantial adverse im pacts positively support the the WSAs are nearly surrounded by private land, desirability of w ilderness designation. and the best access to the WSAs is across pri­ Sw eetw ater Canyon WSA vate land. We now estimate that nonmotorized C learly the canyon itself supports many outstanding forms of recreation would increase by an esti­ resources including a regionally im portant trout fishery, habitat for m oose, elk, deer, pronghorn antelope, many mated 5% after wilderness designation in the furbearers, rapto rs, and num erous sm all game and game birds. The canyon riparian zone provides critic al w inter nabitat Sweetwater Rocks WSAs. Although the for moose from the Wind River Range, severe w inter habitat for elk, and yearlong habitat for mule deer. The fishery in increase would be slight, it would in ouropinion, the river is generally described as good in term s of popula­ tion however no clear statem ent is made regarding potential cause a significant increase in trespass prob­ and optimum condition or the present m easure of sedim enta­ tion, against which im pacts of future activ ities could be lems for the adjacent landowners and increase m easured. The EIS does state that stream banks are "m ostly" stable and that "spawning gravels have variously been intrusions into their lifestyles. described as good to poor." It also states that "one trout problem w ithin the study area is localized damage to stream s Dy livestock." It points out that there is a range of severity w ith th is problem . Stream w idening and sloughing have occurred as w ell. Furtherm ore, two of the tribu taries. W illow and Morman C reeks, receive sign ificant damage from livestock including vegetation destruction, bank damage and siltation all of which result in fishery degradation. The Wyoming Game and Fish D epartm ent has Iden tified the Sweet­ w ater River in the canyon as an im portant regional fishery that should be protected and enhanced. The current manage­ ment approach clearly is inadequate and the fishery and w ildlife habitat resources are in jeoprady. Although this plan recommends w ilderness protection for the canyon itself, it does not recommend protecting portions of the WSA through 2 whicn W illow and Morman Creeks run. These tribu taries need

122 6. Bald eagles are reported to frequent the Sweet­ to be protected for the longterm health of the regional water Rocks. Prairie dog colonies occur, mak­ economy, biological diversity the fishery and the habitats and w ater resources supported by the riparian resource. ing black-footed ferret occurrence a possibility, W itn w ilderness protection greater assurance exists that dam age, especially from escalating livestock grazing and and peregrine falcon habitat appears good, but surface disturbing activ ities w ill not occur. none have been observed. The Sweetwater Can­ In the plan no description was given of the ecological and range conditions and trends of the Sw eetw ater Canyon w s a yon is in the range of these three species, but beyond the classification that there were one or more severe problem s in the canyon, what is the condition of the observations of them have not been docu­ riparian zones w ithin the canyon and tribu taries? This 3 inform ation is im portant for the public to review in order mented. We would not consider the potential for to determ ine what kind of management and protection is necessary. The ecological condition of the h ills surround­ these species as “ high" in these areas, with the ing the canyon is im portant in its own right but is also im portant for the fundam ental contributions they make to the possible exception of wintering bald eagles. We canyon. The vegetation contrast betw een the canyon and the surrounding rolling h ills is dram atic. None of the three agree that designation would complement hab­ ecosystem s in the WSA are represented in the N ational W ilderness Preservation System . C onflicts that do exist are itat protection, but it could inhibit habitat m inim al in that they involve elim ination of m otorized vehicles yet this represents a sm all problem since most of enhancement by preventing projects for the WSAs are roadless and current activ ity is insig nificant. W ithout w ilderness protection for the 3.300 acres beyond the improvement of vegetation or water. canyon, possible introduction of surface disturbing activ ities would change erosion rates and could cause 4 adverse effects on the Oregon/M ormon Pioneer T rail. As pointed out in the DEIS, the im portance of this portion of 7. The Sweetwater Rocks WSA complex is noted the T rail is derived in great part from the pristine in the Lander RMP/EIS as an “avoidance area" character of it and the surrounding area. We certainly support BLM's recom m endation for w ilderness protection for the canyon and point out that this recom m endation is also for utility corridors. The likelihood of such devel­ supported by the N ational Park Service which studied the Sweetwater River for inclusion in the w ild and Scenic River opment is extremely low; therefore, the discus­ System . We believe, how ever, that because of outstanding values and no significant conflicts or adverse im pacts on sion was deleted from the final EIS. the local socioeconom ic factors that the entire WSA should De designated w ilderness.

Sw eetw ater Rocks WSAs The four WSAs w ithin th is management unit nave sig n ifi­ cant recreation and histo ric value. The large expanses of exposed gran ite, not found elsew here in central W yoming, form an im pressive scenic panorama for this histo ric area. Rock clim bing opportunities are considered w orld class, especially on Lankin Dome, S plit Rock, M oonstone and the G reat Stone Face. A dditionally, recreational use and interest in the historic trails has been increasing. None of the ecosystem s found in the WSAs is presently represented in the N ational W ilderness Preservation System . No significant resource conflicts exist w ithin the WSAs

although there are problem s associated w ith access to the WSAs over private lands owned by area ranchers. The conflicts that do occur stem from cattle grazing operators who fear curtailm ents in their operations and the concern of private landow ners who are concerned about trespass. The cattle operations them selves would rem ain basically intact w ith no reductions in AUMs and since m ost cattle herding and fence repair in now done by horseback, the nonm otorized restriction w ill not adversely im pact operations either. Infact, only a sm all portion of the grazing allotm ents in the area are w ithin the boundaries of c the WSAs both in term s of acreage and forage. In regard to objections made by local landow ners it is im portant to point out that their concerns stem from a fear of increased usage yet BLM estim ates that usage w ill only increase by 10% and that this increase would occur w ith or w ithout w ilderness designation. It does appear though that the agency should developing solutions to any problem s public land users cause to the private sector, but foregoing w ilderness protection for these lands is too extrem e a solution and w ill not, lnfact, solve the problem s of access at all. Two of the WSAs are histo ric and present bighorn habitat although no population exists now. A sheep popula­ tion was known to exist as recently as 1982 however none were sighted in 1983. A dditionally, these WSAs have high potential and probability for bald eagle, peregrine falcon g and the black-footed. ‘ BLM has an affirm ation duty to protect these habitats for these threatened and endangered species and indeed enhance their population developm ent. W ilderness designation would com plem ent those goals and guarantee habitat protection whereas a return to m ultiple use management would reestablish an uncertain situation. The DEIS addresses the private secto r's capitalized values of AUMs in num erous places w ith varying degrees of disclaim ers. This repeated consideration gives this situation a status that it should not have in this puolic docum ent. We believe that since the BLM is specifically and legally prevented from officially recognizing these privatized values attributed to public assets, they should not be part of the resources scenario that is considered in the w ilderness designation question. The governm ent has taken the position not to engage in this aspect of grazing on public lands thus it should not be considered in the analysis and planning process. We support w ilderness designation for these four WSAs. It would be unju stifiable not to protect the im portant Sweetwater Rocks' landm arks and histo rical sites. The cultural and w ildlife resources, especially those habitats for bighorn, peregrine falcon and black-footed ferret, could be displaced by surface disturbing activ ities, and the diversity found in these WSAs would not be added to the

123 NWPS. As m entioned earlier, the recreational opportunties have international significance. The w ilderness areas nearby do not represent a sim ilar type of environm ent and cannot be considered as equivalent opportunities or resources. Grazing would continue virtu ally as it is now, and since the potential for o il & gas, and m inerals develop­ ment is low tnus unlikely, conflicts in general are insignificant. It appears that the only opposition to w ilderness designation comes from six local landow ners. The possible construction of pow erlines was m entioned in the "Environm ental Consequences, Sw eetw ater Rocks" portion of the DEIS yet such corridors and the im pacts they cause were not addressed elsew here in the DEIS. C ertainly u tility corridors are m ajor activ ities and cause m ajor adverse im pacts to the environm ent. Full data collection, analysis and public review of any u tility corridor activ ity under consideration m ust be incorporated into this stage of the review process. In conclusion, The w ilderness Society supports w ilder­ ness designation of the Sw eetw ater Canyon WSA (W Y-030-101) 9,0S6 acres; Lankin Dome WSA (W Y-030-129) 5,956 acres; S plit Rock WSA (W Y-030-122) 12,749 acres; Savage Peak WSA (W Y-030-123a) 7,041 acres; M iller Springs WSA (W Y-030-123b) 6,429 acres; and Copper M ountain WSA (WY 030-111) 6,858 acres for a total or 48,089 acres. This total represents less than 2% of the land managed by the Lander Resource Area. We take this position because of the natural resource values found in these w s a s including but not lim ited to im portant w ildlife habitat, w orld class recreational opportunities, im portant histo rical trails and cultural resources, and the unique contributions they would make the N ational W ilderness Preservation System . No significant conflicts exist that would be adversely affected by this

Thank you for th is opportunity to comment.

Responses to Letter 15 15 Wind River 1. The mining claims on lands open to mineral loca­ Multiple Use Advocates tion within the Sweetwater Canyon WSA after October 21, 1976, are valid to the extent that they were located properly and recorded as required by law. Whether each claim has a dis­ February 10, 1986 covery of a valuable mineral or not could only Mr. Jack K elly be determined under a stringent validity exam­ Lander Resource Area M anager P.0. Box 589 ination and other legal proceedings. The BLM's Lander, W yoming 8 2 5 2 0 Wilderness Management Policy (1981) D e a r S i r : describes how unpatented mining claims and We, the 100* members of the W .R.M .U.A. wish to comment upon operations are to be managed in WSAs. The your Lander W ilderness Supplem ent, D raft Resource M anagement Plan /EIS, and upon the associated Resources Management plan. Thank BLM has always had the authority to conduct you for the chance to respond to your plan. validity examinations on mining claims. The wil­ The Copper M ountain (WY 031-111) plan We agree w ith the No A ction proposal and the continued derness management guidelines better explain present management plan, If that plan means m ultiple use for the when examinations can be conducted. There is m oderate interest in the m ineralized area Included in the northern bounty of this study area. This interest may 2. The BLM does not regulate water rights. Wilder­ w ell increase w ith changing econom ics, changing costs, and better equipm ent. This probable Increase in technology w ill make the ness designation would not result in any change oil and gas potential, present in the southern part of the Copper M ountain area a useful econom ic com m odity. in grazing in this WSA. Upward or downward ad­ All grazing rights and their related riparian rights with access to w ater for livestock should be continued. justments in numbers of livestock would be Since no documented sightings of endangered species have been determined by monitoring of vegetation condi­ made in the Copper M ountain area, we suggest that it is highly probable that these species do not consider its use for more than tions and would be based on sound range man­ agement principles. Fencing would be used W ilderness slgnatlon for this area, in the forseeable future, You stated al under the W ilderness supplem ent indicates "the area would only if other management methods were not t be managed specifically for w ilderness values." We support is conclusion and request that your w lthold the ar«ea from any achieving the desired results. rther W ilderness classification , (see page 20.)

124 3. Access to the Sweetwater Canyon Overlook and Sw eetw ater Canyon Thia area la prim e m ining country, particularly for placer Strawberry Creek involves I'/smiles of vehicle mining downatream from the A tlantic City and South Pass city areas. Some gold tungsten areas (scheellte) may be present. O il trails leading to the edge of the canyon. The clo­ and Gas leasing has a considerable Interest In the continental fault and the thrust faults In the area. D rilling may well ex­ sure would eliminate problems caused by ORVs tend into the Sw eetw ater Canyon area. such as the watershed erosion on the Straw­ 1 We hold that the raining claim s staked after October 21, 1976 were legally done. They should be recognized as legal since they berry Creek access, but would require recrea­ were a fact prior to w ilderness designation. tionists to walk to the river at these locations. The B.L.M . request for still another exam ining authority for raining claim s. It duplicates other regulatory authority and adds Vehicle access to the river would still be avail­ to the burden Imposed upon the Industry. able at either end of the WSA. This area Is good summer range for sheep and cattle. W ater and grazing are vital to these Industries. R iparian meadows form 2 the best of the grazing In this area. No term ination of water or 4. The primary use for the Sweetwater Rocks riparian rights should be considered. No fencing off of these areas should ever be considered. proper is wildlife use. No forage allocation for The recreational value of the area is high. This usage livestock has ever been made in these rock [ requires access. We object to the proposed closing of the Straw ­ berry creek road and the O verlook road. areas. Forage is allocated to livestock in areas The Sw eetw ater Rocks WY 030-120,122,123a and 123b outside the Sweetwater Rocks proper. The The prim e use for this area Is for livestock grazing. Some springs In the area; those In Sec. 22, T. 30N, R. 90W. and In springs you mention provide water for both live­ Sec. 32, T. 30N.E. 89W. are the main source of w ater In the area. stock and wildlife. 4 Also affected would be the Lankin Spring in Sec. 31, T. 30N ., R. 89W. These springs must have been access through your designated areas num bered 1625 and 1622. 5. Management under the Proposed Action would The recreational potential for these areas is high, lnsplte _ of poor public knowledge of the area. Access to the roads, attempt to retain the area's natural qualities by 5 trails and springs of the area could w ell be improved to perm it greater use by tourists and cam pers, and as a base for clim bers. not allowing recreation developments, major I have personally worked In this area for 30 years, from the utilities, or upgrading of roads. Gas H ills area. I have never seen Big Horn sheep or ferrets in 6 the area. If these 3pecies are not present In what Is classed as "good habitat", then maybe we don't understand what habitat these 6. Very few people have ever seen a black-footed anim als prefer. ferret. They are an extremely rare and extremely The Sweetwater Rocks area Is not probably high potential for major m ining at this tim e. It Is still possible that uranium and selective animal. We do know that they depend thorium may be found here. In addition to the m inerals and In­ dustrial rocks mentioned In your survey. These areas and the largely upon prairie dog colonies for existence. right to benefit from their claim s. It is possible that black-footed ferrets do exist The W hiskey Peak and Dubois Badlandt These areas appear to be below minimum for in the prairie dog colonies near the Sweetwater Rocks. As stated in the EIS, no ferret searches have been made in these colonies. Ferrets were recently found to exist in the Meeteetse area even though people living in the area for 50 years or longer thought they had become extinct. 7. The Dubois Badlands WSA and the Whiskey T W ilderness consideration. The areas do not appear In the "Lander 7 W ilderness Supplem ent, D raft M anagement Plan/EIS." Perhaps these Mountain WSA near Dubois are being studied * areas should not be considered at this tim e; until the BLM cora- I plete adequate notification to the public. under a separate document. (Whiskey Peak, We the people of the W .R.M.U.A. Join the C itizens for Mul­ near Jeffrey City, is not a WSA). The study pro­ tiple Use, based In D ubois, W yoming, In opposing W ilderness status for these areas. cess includes public notification and comment C onclusions periods. 1. There shall be no more w ilderness In the state of Wyoming. 2. The W .R.M .U.A. opposes any more W ilderness In the State 8. Split Rock is listed on the National Register of of W yoming. Historic Places. This encompasses 160 acres of 3. W ater rights are the exclusive control of the State of W y o m i n g . a 640-acre withdrawal area. 4. The Dubois Badlands and the W hiskey Peak W .S.A. should not become w ilderness. The BLM has not given sufficient 9. Only Congress can designate wilderness. notice to the public to consider these area for W ilderness designation. Through FLPMA, Congress directed the BLM to 4. Never has so much land been given over to the use of so few, do wilderness studies on public lands. by so many (the people of W yoming) 5. In the consideration of W ilderness from WSA. studies, the people of Wyoming should be the sole decision m akers. This decision making process. The S plit Rock area of histo rical significance, m ight be better served by a 20 - 40 acre national histo rical 8 monument designation, thus there would be no need for a w ilderness designation of the rest of the Sw eetw ater Rocks

If w ilderness areas are to be foisted off upon the people of W yoming, then equal acreage (49,089 acres, w ith W hiskey Peak and the Dubois Badlands) should be subtracted from the existing W ilderness Inventory, and returned to m ultiple use. Areas for possible consideration m ight Include: summer pasture lands, tim ber lands, favorable recreation areas, or m ining areas. These lands should come from the B rldger-Teton area or the Shoshone W ilderness. W ilderness, by defin ition, Is rem ote and rugged country. B etter roads Into It m ight make these areas accessible to our senior citizens, who are currently excluded from and possibly discrim inated against, In the W ilderness land classification . Such an area m ight be the extension of the road to Big Sandy opening, as far as Big Sandy lake.

125 9. We specifically oppose all the W .S.A. areas to W ilderness classification s w ithin the Lander W ilderness Supplem ent. cc: Senator M alcom W allop Senator A llan Sim pson R epresentative Dick Cheney

W illiam G. King ^

Responses to Letter 16

1. The partial wilderness recommendation includes the “core area" of the Sweetwater Can­ yon WSA—the canyon itself. This alternative would eliminate conflicts with any resource that required motorized access on a routine basis. It would include in the designated wilderness the area containing the river and canyon setting and exclude some mining claims that could con­ flict with wilderness management. 2. In the Sweetwater Rocks WSAs, the wilderness character of the area is not expected to change even if the WSA is not designated, since there is little potential for mineral development. The potential for oil and gas occurrence in Copper Mountain WSA is moderate. If requested, commodity development would be allowed under the proposed action. Any devel­ opment would be subject to the surface protec­ tion stipulations shown in Appendix B. These stipulations are applied to prevent erosion, losses of water quality, and disturbance to wild­ life.

126 Responses to Letter 17 17 F r i e n d s o f 1. The ratings for the potential of an oil and gas dis­ W i l d W y o m i n g D e s e r t s w V P.O. Box 843, L o v e l l 8 2 4 3 1 covery in the Sweetwater Canyon and Sweet­ 1 9 8 6 water Rocks are low to none, respectively. Ac­ cordingly, we do not project any oil and gas M r. Jack K elly Lander R esource A rea exploratory activity in these WSAs. Wilderness P.O . Box 589 Lander, W yoming 82520 designation would close these lands to any oil Dear M r. K elly: and gas leasing exploration and development W hile Priende of W ild Wyoming D eeerta appreciates the opportunity so that the possibility of any future discoveries to comment on the D raft Environm ental Im pact Statem ent for Lander Resource A rea's Resource M anagement Plan, 1 m ust note w ith deep would be foregone. Although the U.S. Geolog­ concern your failu re to notify us of the public m eeting dateB and comment deadline— despite the fact that we expressed interest ical Survey rated the Copper Mountain WSA as months before the draft was released. I request your explanation of such m anifest delinquency, which leads one to question w hether having a low potential for an oil and gas discov­ BUI is sincerely interested in gathering public input on the dEIS. ery, our more recent rating indicates a moderate Based on careful reading and review , the m ajor goal of the RMP appears to em phasize com modity production above a ll other values. to high potential for the occurrence of oil and D esert Friends cannot support this plan which disregards BUI's m andate for m ultiple-use managem ent. gas. A well drilled on the edge of this WSA found This em phasis on com m ercial developm ent is shown in the three o il several thousand cubic feet of natural gas in dif­ and gas alternatives to present management. They a ll call for increased acreage open for leasing. Indeed, the preferred ferent rock formations. The subsurface geology altern ative proposes opening the entire resource area for o il and gas and phosphate developm ent. At very minimum, the follow ing in the Copper Mountain WSA is very favorable areas should be w ithdrawn from o il and gas, locatable m ineral, and phosphate developm ent: lande around Sinks Canyon State Park, for the entrapment of hydrocarbons. Wilderness Red Canyon, Lander Slope, South Pass, W hiskey M ountain, East Pork, and Dubois Badlands. Unique cultu ral and natural resources in designation would preclude the exploration and these areas deserve the highest degree of protection. development of this high to moderate potential The RMP's com modity production slant is evident in proposed forest managem ent. The preferred altern ative recom mends 6.2 MMBP area. As you will note in Chapters 2 and 4, we of tim ber harvested annually— an increase of over 100 percent from the current level of 5.0 MMBP. Friends of W ild Wyoming project some oil and gas development in the D eserts in sists that tim ber should not be harvested on the Lander Slope and South Pass M anagement U nits. Even sm all volum es taken Copper Mountain WSA. there would not be w orth additional roads and im pacts on w atersheds. While there are no pre-FLPMA leases in the The preferred plan for graeing alBO concentrates on costly, publioly-fin& nced developm ent. It calls for construction of WSAs, this does not mean there has not been 45 to 55 m iles of fence, 10 reservoirs, and 57 other w ater projects, and for 8500 acres to be burned or sprayed w ith herbi­ an interest in leasing. Applications to lease cide to reduce sagebrush. within the WSAs have been rejected. During any given five- or ten-year period, several thousand

127 leases on public lands are never drilled, but that does not positively identify the lands as having We oppose the use of herbicides and new developm ents for the no potential for oil and gas resources. The benefit of privately-ow ned Btock. W atershed, w ild life, and vegetative resources should be im proved through a reduction in absence of pre-FLPMA leases in the WSAs does livestock grazing, rather than the possible increase of up to 21 percent. R iparian zones in the resource area have long been not identify the lands as having no potential or in need of greater protection, and should now be seriously a d d r e s s e d . high potential for oil and gas. The RMP states that public lands in the resource area are available for u tility system s on a demand basis. We must oppose 2. As indicated in this document (Chapter 1), live­ this provision and in sist that BLM accept its responsibility, rather than leave protection of many pristine areas in the hands stock grazing would continue at present levels of developers. even under the All Wilderness alternative for W hile advocating many actions which degrade natural ecosystem s, BLM proposes little to defend a fragile ecosystem , or even to each WSA. There would be only minor changes m itigate environm ental im pacts. R estrictions contain weak w ording, such as "where needed", "when possible", and "subject in the permittees' operations. to w aiver." The draft fails to name parties responsible for m onitoring and ensuring protection during developm ent activ ities. Should budget cuts occur, it is unclear how BLM w ill prevent 3. See Response 5 to Letter 14. unchecked environm ental im pacts. D esert Friends urges protection of natural and cultural values. The portions of Beaver Creek, Gas H ills, lander Slope, Red Canyon, 4. Vehicle restrictions in the wilderness alterna­ and South Pass M anagement U nits stated in the dEIS, as w ell as the Oregon/M ormon T rail corridor, deserve designation as A reas of tives would limit motorized recreation use, but C ritical Environm ental Concern. We support Beaver Rim and Red Canyon as N ational N atural Landm arks, and South Pass as a this was not expected to have a major impact N ational R egister d istrict. in any of the the WSAs. Copper Mountain would We appreciate efforts to preserve histo ric structures and rock art. However, there rem ains a great need for further archeolog­ continue to be used primarily for hunting, and ical inventories across the resource area. access would be available along the east bound­ We call for maximum protection of crucial and critic al w ildlife range. We also advocate habitat im provem ent w ithout the use of ary. Access to and within the Sweetwater Rocks herbicides and fertilizers. E fforts to restore Bighorn sheep to their form er hom eland in Sw eetw ater Rocks, as m entioned in WSAs is dictated by the topography and land the RMP, would be an extrem ely valuable project. ownership pattern. Lankin Dome, the unit on the Our com ments for Sw eetw ater Rocks, Sw eetw ater Canyon, and Copper M ountain W ilderness Study A reas are Included in the accom panying far west end, is bordered by a county road. Ve­ position statem ent. A ll six areas, as w ell as W hiskey M ountain and Dubois Badlands, should be included in the N ational W ilder­ hicular access to other portions of the Sweet­ ness Preservation System . We look forw ard to receiving the dEIS for the latter two areas. water Rocks WSAs would require road improve­ As BLM revises the Lander plan, we hope that non-com m odity uses ments and/or easements. Please refer to w ill be carefully appraised. Most of the resource area has already sustained a trem endous amount of exploitation and degra­ Chapter 4 in the Final EIS. dation. It is long past tim e for BUI to protect rem aining w ild areas and values, and to begin balanced m ultiple-use management. 5. This issue has been eliminated from the final EIS. Please see Chapter 1.

S i n c e r e l y ,

Lynn K lnter D i r e c t o r cc: Senator David R. «ioholsj T ravel, R ecreation, and W ildlife C o m m i t t e e R epresentative Peg Shrevej T ravel, R ecreation, and W ildlife C o m m i t t e e Congressm an R ichard Cheney Senator A lan Sim pson Senator M alcolm W allop

128 Friends of Wild Wyoming Deserts W V P.O. Box 843, Lovell I- - J 2 4 3 1 2/ 10/86 ■FRIENDS" CALLS OH BUI TO MEET ITS WILDERNESS MANDATE The Lander Resource Area of central Wyoming has released a Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and a Wilderness Supplement for six Wilderness Study Areas. These WSAs total 48,089 acres— 1.9 percent of the land managed by lander Resource Area. To our disappointment, the Bureau of Land Manage­ ment recommends designation for only part of Sweetwater Canyon WSA— 5760 acres. BIM states— and we wholeheartedly agree — that all the WSAs have exceptional wilderness values, outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, and many special features. •Copper Mountain WSA. 6858 acres of steep canyons and rocky slopes, has spectacular views and crucial deer and antelope winter range. «Sweetwater Canyon. 9056 acres along Sweetwater River, provides critical moose ana elk winter range and "Class 1" waters for wild brown, brook, and rainbow trout. Although they are not mentioned in the Draft, we have eeen wild horses several times on the rolling hills above the canyon. »Sweetwater Rooks— a complex of four WSAs totaling 32,175 acres— were frequented by Native Americans as long as 12,000 years ago, and by Oregon Trail emigrants more recently. Huge granite domes in Sweetwater Rocks were landmarks for pioneers and now offer world class rock climbing. Sweetwater Canyon and Sweetwater Rocks contain three ecosystem types not represented in the National Wilderness Preservation System. According to the Draft, all the WSAs would be manageable as wilder-

BUI addresses several concerns in the Draft EIS— but with peculiar logic. The first is that "designation would adversely affect mineral development." However, oil and gas potential in Sweetwater Canyon and Sweetwater Rocks has been rated as low to none, and OS Geological 1 Survey rated potential in Copper Mountain as low, although BIM rated it high. None of the areas have pre-FLPMA oil and gas leases (valid rights predating Ootober 22, 1976). Potential for development of other minerals is low in all six areas. BIM also considers effects of designation on the livestock indus­ 2 try. According to the Draft, grazing would remain basically the same, and any vehicle restrictions would have little effect on management. However, some of the private landowners near Sweetwater Rocks object to having a wilderness bordering their ranches. That appears 3 the major— if not only— reason for failure to recommend this complex of national significance. The Draft actually states that designation for each area is expected to cause few, if any, socioeconomic impacts. BIM is concerned that vehicle restrictions will limit recreation use. Yet Copper Mountain is unroaded, and short two-track ways total only 3 miles in eaoh of the other two areas. Sweetwater Rooks access seems to be the main concern, since the complex is largely surrounded by state and private land. Visitors cannot drive to the boundaries on public roads, but can walk to them on public land. Currently, private citizens allow access across their land. bIM also raises the issue of poeeiule overuse due to wilderness classification. But this has never been the case in Wyoming. This 5 is the weakest possible rationale, an obvious attempt to avoid meet­ ing the dear mandate of law. Congress has directed BIM to provide wilderness opportunities for the public. Friends of Wild Wyoming Deserts hereby requests, and urges, that Lander Resource Area revise the Resource Management Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement to recommend designation for all six areas reviewed. Our members and supporters should communicate their feelings to Mr. Jack Kelly, Area Manager, lander RA, PO Box 589, Lander WY 82520, and to members of Congress. We shall continue to monitor and report on developments. For the present we call on BIM and the Department of the Interior to respond in a positive manner.

129 18 Continental Divide Trail Society Responses to Letter 18 1. Designating Sweetwater Canyon as wilderness would not preclude consideration of the canyon as a possible route for the Continental Divide Na­ tional Scenic Trail. The section of the BLM wil­ derness policy to which you refer concerns min­ imizing conflicts associated with concentrated , K e l l y : visitor use but allows sufficient flexibility so that i n k y o u f c ■ invitation tc oubm it commenti j Sw eetw ater Ce yon WSA, as pn reasonable alternatives need not be forgone. ;he follow ing, or incorporation in the Some important factors to consider when we im portant histo rical addition to other scenic and recreational values of Sweetwater Canyon, evaluate the canyon as a possible route include would have included references to the accounts of Fremont and Stansbury (as ' Guide to the C ontinental Divide T rail, vol. 3: Wyoming, pp. 129- livestock use, visitation, primary or side trail ■ Ö8 ' n . a J t o b . t Æ n l o routes, or co-locating the Continental Divide

. p r o v i d e s 1 National Scenic Trail and the Oregon/Mormon , stemming from a provision of t tnagem ent Pc Pioneer National Historic Trail. Section III.A .2.a .(3) etates that heavl prim ary trails. It is not clear how (whar are "prim ary trails" and what t 2. We recognize our responsibility for route selec­ flexibility is im plied by 1 i C ontinental D ivide Natl tion which will be accomplished with the use of in the car W hile th is would necessitate r >le be regarded as a "prim ary t rail" c management guidelines established in the p h y s i c a l c Lander RMP/EIS for the various land uses along plans no tra il designation foi the Continental Divide. More detailed planning i n g a g e and more specific guidance will be developed c o m p o r t i in the future. xiingly, it is our view that the W ilderness Supplement t • any differences which adoption of one alternative or : ¡apability of a route along the bottom of Swei 3. We have not identified any impacts that designa­ tion or nondesignation would have on the poten­ tial for Sweetwater Canyon as a route alternative ! any question regarding these comments. for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. SJmcerely,/^ r — Nothing being considered in this EIS would pre­ clude consideration of Sweetwater Canyon as a possible route for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.

Response to Letter 19

1. There are no oil and gas leases in Sweetwater Canyon WSA. You are correct in saying that the opportunity to explore for and develop oil and gas resources would be forgone under wilder­ ness designation. However, information used in our analysis indicates that there is no potential for oil and gas in the Sweetwater Canyon WSA. Therefore, the true effect on future leaseholders would be negligible because of the very small likelihood that development would occur under any alternative.

130 January 7, 1986

This approach seems only reasonable since It provides Industry with the op­ portunity to devise new ways in which to conduct Its operations. New technology nay be developed which could Improve how industry operates in sensitive areas. Mhen Industry Is constrained to operate In a rigidly specific manner, there Is minimal opportunity to develop new methods. Performance standards, rather than design standards, provide for more flexibility, thereby encouraging new ideas on how to mitigate adverse Impacts. The BLM has gone to great lengths to compile and analyze resource data for the RHP In terms of existing resources and possible environmental consequences which would result from various activities. The BUM has indicated that certain tradeoffs were made between energy and mineral resources and sensitive environ­ mental values, but only where the mineral potential was considered significant enough to warrant top consideration. Even so, when a potentially impacted sen­ sitive resource exists In an area with high potential, the BLM is committed to protecting this resource In a reasonable manner and In accordance with existing laws governing such activities. Me believe, however, that the BLM should modify this standard to Include areas rated as having moderate potential for oil and gas. According to Table 4-1, Percent of Total Hells Drilled . . ., found on Page 191 of the proposed Plan, It Is apparent that nearly as many wells are drilled in areas considered to have moderate potential as those drilled In high potential areas. These sta­ tistics Indicate that the moderate areas are Just as Important In terms of oil and gas exploration and potential discoveries as are the high potential areas. The rationale for adding more severe constraints to these areas Is lacking. Instead of merely considering the potential of an area, the level of activities and mineral Interest should also be Included In the determinations as to appro­ priate stipulations to be applied. He do not support the BLM's decision regarding wilderness recommendations. The BLM has determined that the Sweetwater Canyon Mllderness Study Area Is suit­ able for wilderness. However, It seems unreasonable that the BLM has chosen to recommend as wilderness an area covered with oil and gas leases. The wilderness study policy provides a specific set of criteria by which these decisions are made. These Include ecologloal diversity and balancing the geographic distribu­ tion of wilderness areas. Uyomlng already maintains over three million acres of 1 wilderness, and has reasonable access to much more. Therefore, additional wil­ derness considerations must be weighed particularly In conjunction with other resource needs and uses. The fact that five of the six HSAs In the Lander RA do not meet the established wilderness criteria is Justification enough for not recommending them as wilderness. However, we believe It Is Irresponsible to recommend additional wilderness Just for the sake of creating more wilderness. If the Sweetwater Canyon USA, covered with oil and gas leases, were to be desig­ nated as wilderness, rights of leaseholders to explore for oil and gas resources would be Jeopardized.

January 7, 1986 Mr. Jaok Kelly Lander Resource Area Bureau of Land Management page three There Is one point which needs clarification in the Final RMP; that Is the dlsouaalon on Page 188, Environmental Consequences, regarding No Surface Oooupancy (NSO) stipulations. It Is stated on Page 188 that 650,000 acres of the Lander Resource Area are subject to NSO stipulations; while Table 2-3 on Page 43 Indicates that 171,000 acres are subject to NSO stipulations. Apparently there are different types of NSO stlpuatlons: those which may be waived and those which are mandated by management direction. He urge the BLM to be more speoiflo In ita discussion of these stipulations and to Incorporate a comparison Into the Plan.

the documents which were released earlier this year should have been prepared as a major revision to the Platte RHP and the Kemmerer RMP, and should have been inoluded In the Lander RMP. He are unsure as to how the management decisions contained In the Trails Plan will be utilized In conjunction with the RMP. He further believe that the proposed Trails Plan adds yet another layer of restriction which is unnecessary when viewed In light of other regulations already In existence. For example, a 1/4 mile buffer zone on either side of the trails or the visual horizon Is unreasonable. These types of buffer zones would oause an undue burden to operators who find that rerouting of pipelines or other rtghts-of-way are coat-prohlbltlve. A 1/2 mile buffer zone removes hundreds of thousands of acres from surface occupancy for oil and gas activities. It Is our opinion that a width of 100 feet or so total corridor Is more reasonable. i existing operations whloh i within 100 I ise no Impacts to the Trail further constrain activities. In oonoluaion, we support the BLM's proposed land management decisions, pro­ vided that the above-mentioned modifications are made. It Is our opinion that these changes will make a more reasonable, balanced plan. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. He would be happy to dla- ouss our views with you. Please do not hesitate to contact me If you have any questions. Sincerely,

Alice I. Frail Public Lands Director

131 Response to Letter 20

Thank you for your comments. Response to Letter 21

1. Our analysis agrees that opportunities to develop leases in the Sweetwater Canyon would be forgone. However, information used for our analysis indicate no potential for the occurrence of oil and gas in the WSA.

133 Response to Letter 22 Thank you for your comments.

134 Responses to Letter 23

1. In the final EIS, we have changed the alternative to read simply, “No Wilderness.” The area would be managed according to existing land use plans and any special stipulations that are printed therein. There would be no overriding special designation that would automatically constrain certain land uses. If the WSAs were managed thus, certain activities could occur that have been precluded under the BLM's interim management policy. To assess the im­ pact of this, one looks at the magnitude of the activity and the likelihood of its occurrence. The analysis leads to the conclusion that in most cases anticipated activities are not extensive and that the likelihood of their occurrence is low. Thus, it is highly likely that even though the WSAs would not be designated as wilderness, their natural character would change very little over time. 2. The prime wilderness values of the Sweetwater Canyon WSA are found within the canyon itself. The Partial Wilderness alternative for the Sweet­ water Canyon WSA would resolve several con­ flicts and would not eliminate important wilder­ ness attributes Motorized access is a conflict that would be eliminated. Motorized vehicles are not easily kept out of the area outside the partial wilderness area. If full wilderness designation was recommended, there would be conflicts with unauthorized motor vehicle use in the wil­ derness area. A partial wilderness alternative

Wyoming Chapter Sierra Club eliminates this potential problem while still pre­ Lander Reeource Area RHP Commenta Page Two serving the wilderness values of the canyon itself. We think any level of ORV use in a desig­ are not compatible with the dedicated uae of this area." Once again, the 8LH ahould honor thla agreement and continue the withdrawal of this 16,911 acre area nated wilderness would be a management prob­ from oil and gaa leasing. lem. In a 1903 decision on the Sun River area of Montana, the Interior Board of Land Appeals auatained a OLM decision to deny oil and gaa leasing in this critical wildlife area. Like Whiakey Mountain and the Cast Fork, the BLM had entered 3. Please see Response 5 to Letter 14. into an agreement with other agencies to manage the Sun River area for its wild­ life habitat. With this precedent and considering all the work that the OLM has performed in the past in managing Whiskey Mountain and Caat Fork, I fail to 4. In the draft EIS, the four WSAs that make up the understand why the bureau wishes to lease these areas and significantly impact bighorn eheep and elk. We urge the OLM to withdraw these areas in order for "Sweetwater Rocks” were analyzed together. In theae herda to continue to survive. the final EIS, each WSA is analyzed individually, Concerning other wildlife laauea, any critical wildlife areas in Red Canyon, Sinks Canyon, and the Lander Slope should also be withdrawn. We support the with each having an All Wilderness and a No Wil­ DLM'e preferred alternative to withdraw the Duboia Badlands from ORV use and to limit vehicles to existing roads in the Whiskey Mountain area. Crazing ahould derness alternative. Thus, a possible scenario be limited in critical game areas in the Whiakey Mountain area (Red Creek and Little Red Crock additions) and the Dubois Badlands WSA. the BLM should convert for the Sweetwater Rocks as an aggregate could allotment #2124 from category "M" to "I" and allotment #2112 from "C" to "I". be that one or more of the WSAs could be des­ If the BLM purauea the proposed oil and gaa leasing and timbering, then I am quite concerned about the wildlife on Green Mountain. This amount of development ignated wilderness while the others would not. activltlea will certainly adversely affect this area. Mot only will the entire mountain be leased for oil and gaa development, but the OLM plana to increase This would create the “core” you suggest. How­ the timber harvest from 750,000 board feet to 2.2 million board feet. Ihe new roads alone will devastate the elk herd. Unfortunately, the RHP fails to ever, this scenario can be addressed only when analyze thie impact. We urge the OLM not to allow any new roads to be built on Creen Mountain, retain the present output of timber (750,000 board feet) and Congress begins the formal designation pro­ cess. Please refer to Chapter 1. In some areas, the DLM has resolved perceived land use conflicts by placing MS0 stipulations on oil and gaa leaaea. While we agree that oil and gaa activities would significantly impact these areaa, issuing leases with MSU provisions may 5. The potential for primitive, unconfined recre­ not adequately protect them. Ihe legality of the NS0 stipulations has never been tested in court. Many energy company representatives believe that MSOs ation in the Copper Mountains is outstanding. would prevent them from developing their lease, especially if they could not acceaa the property by angle-drilling. If a court cliallenge of an NS0 in the This is offset by a lack of water and rough ter­ country were successful, then oil and gas drilling could occur. rain, and those features result in low visitation. Alao, NSO provisions are a management deciaion made by the 0LH. Hie agency could drop these stipulations in the future, thus, MSOs do not offer permanent It appears that this situation will continue protection, no mrt\?r Ik>w good the DLM'a Intentions are at present. despite the high use of the adjacent Boysen Res­ Aa a raiult oi HesJ problems, the BLN should not issue oil and gaa leases with WS0 sUpulatipfo. lhstead these areas ohould be withdrawn from mineral entry. ervoir and Boysen State Park. Ihi* lA-ttiw only w«^ to insure the continued preservation of historic altes, recreational opportunities, and wildlife habitat.

135 136 Wyoming Chapter Sierra Club Lander Resource Area itHP Comments

Ue coemend the OLH for its appreciation for and desire to preserve Wyoming's historical heritage in the South Pass area ond along the Oregon Trail. As I have already noted, we hope that the fllH withdraws these iuportant areas from oil and gas development rather than allow leasing with NSO stipulations.

24 Response to Letter 24

1. See the response to letter 19.

Lander, Wyoming 82520 Dear Hr. Kallyi We are In support of your Preferred Management D, because it recognises resource values. However, we would like to see lose minor change* to your proposal. Your plan shows that certain tradeoffs were wade between energy and was done only where the wlneral potential was considered significant enough to warrant top consideration. We request that this tradeoff analysis be expanded to areas with suderste oil snd gas potential. According to Table 4-1, on page 191 of the Proposed Plsn, almost ss many wells sre drilled In areas of moderate potential as In high potential areas. This Indicates that the oil and gas Industry recognises these moderate potential areas as significant exploratory areas also, and the rationale for adding more severe constraints to these areas Is not

Secondly, Wyoming maintains over 3 million acres of wilderness. Your recommendat Ion for more wilderness Just for the sake of creating more wilderness at the expense of oil and gas lessees who would lose their 1 rights on existing leases, Is unjustifiable. We want to mitigate adverse Impacts, and are willing to cooperate with you to ensure that this happens. However, once an area is designated as wilderness, almost all of the multiple uses allowed on other federal lands are prohibited. Thirdly, we request a more specific discussion of the NSO stipulations. We understand that there are 2 types of NSO stlpulatIonsi those that may be waived and those that are mandated. We would Ilka to know what types of NSO stipulations are being referred to on page 1M, where you state that 630,000 acres of the Lander »A area subject to NSO stipulations, as well as In Table 2-3 on page 43, where you state that 171,000 acres are subject to these stipulations.

Nonhsra Rspon -1

137 Response to Letter 25

1. The wilderness study for Dubois Badlands and Whiskey Mountain is being completed under a separate document.

138 Response to Letter 26

1. BLM in Wyoming manages 17.8 million acres of public lands. Most of the public lands are in the western half of the state. The Lander Resource Area administers approximately 2.5 million sur­ face acres and approximately 2.7 million acres of federal mineral estate. The Sweetwater Canyon WSA contains 9,056 acres, of which the Proposed Action recom­ mends 5,760 acres for wilderness designation. The Copper Mountain WSA contains 6,858 acres, and the Sweetwater Rocks group, 32,575 acres in the four units. The total acreage involved in the six WSAs addressed in this plan is 48,489. The two study areas that will be ana­ lyzed in 1988 are Dubois Badlands (4,520 acres) and Whiskey Mountain (487 acres). There are no other locations in the Lander Resource Area that would qualify for wilderness study. Competing interests in the areas are conflicts involving recreation and wildlife interests with mineral interests, private landowner concerns, and access. The BLM is required to report to Congress on the study areas by 1991.

Responses to Letter 27

1. The Proposed Action for the Copper Mountain WSA is a preliminary recommendation for con­ tinuation of multiple-use management. As directed by the Secretary of the Interior, the WSA will remain closed to oil and gas leasing until Congress makes the final decision, but it will be open to mineral entry under the General Mining Law. The BLM determined the Copper Mountain WSA to be a roadless island of 5,000 acres or more of public land during the initial WSA inventory. As such, the WSA is not inter­ rupted by numerous prospecting pits and trails, as you have indicated. Minerals prospecting and diggings have occurred outside the WSA and are common throughout the general Copper Mountain area to the east. The Proposed Action for the Sweetwater Can­ yon WSA is to recommend partial wilderness. Lands within the WSA that are encumbered with older mining claims were excluded when the lands for further study were selected. Further mineral potential studies will be conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the Geological Sur­ vey on the lands within the WSA. The results of their studies will be presented to Congress, which makes the final wilderness decision. The

139 mineral evaluations of the Copper Mountain and Sweetwater Canyon WSAs are correct to the best of our knowledge and could not be changed without new field studies. 2. The Proposed Action for the four Sweetwater Rocks WSAs is a recommendation for continu­ ation of present multiple-use management. However, the four WSAs will remain closed to mineral leasing but open to mineral entry pending a decision by Congress. The potential of these WSAs for locatable minerals can con­ tinue to be evaluated by interested individuals. Exploration and mining operations would be permissible so long as wilderness suitability is not impaired. 3. Both the Whiskey Mountain and Dubois Bad­ lands WSAs will be studied for wilderness suit­ ability, including the mineral potential. An EIS will be published in 1989. 4. Although the wilderness authority in FLPMA is critical to the BLM's wilderness review effort, the Wilderness Act identifies the criteria for eval­ uating public lands for wilderness and gives direction on how designated wilderness will be managed. FLPMA sets deadlines for reporting wilderness recommendations, requires studies to be conducted, and specifies how the lands under wilderness review will be managed. To fulfill these requirements, the BLM basically performs five functions in the wilderness pro­ gram. The agency (a) inventories the public lands for wilderness characteristics, (b) pro­ tects areas under going wilderness review, (c) studies identified WSAs, (d) reports these rec­ ommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, and (e) manages all wilderness areas desig­ nated by Congress to preserve their natu ral char­ acter. Many people use the word "wilderness” in the traditional sense to describe any piece of undeveloped land. Since passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the word has also come to mean federal land officially designated by Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. In the Wilderness Act, Congress said federal lands must have the following special character­ istics to be considered for wilderness preservation: (a) they must be in a generally nat­ ural condition, (b) they must have outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation, (c) they must be at least 5,000 acres in size, or large enough to preserve and use as wilderness, and (d) they may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, scenic, and histor­ ical value.

140 28 Response to Letter 28

(Typed copy of a handwritten lattar.} 1. Wilderness designation has not been proposed Dear nr. rally, for the Copper Mountain WSA. Wilderness des­ I would Ilka to voice ny opinion agalnat a wlldarnaaa dealgnatlon within the ignation of the Sweetwater Canyon WSA would Sweetwater Canyon area and the Copper Mountain area. I would be very lntereated In how eany people aaylng they want this have been In theae araaa not impose significant access restrictions. Par­ ' In the laat year. 1 have been In both areaa numerous occasions. Every time I have had snail children with me and we viewed the natural phenomenon and other tial wilderness designation of Sweetwater Can­ wonders with awe and reverence. The children would not have had the 1 experiences of rock climbing, gold panning (no shovels), rock hunting, sage yon would have very little impact on access chicken hunting or watching out of season Just to mention a few things we have shared with the children and friends when they cone with us. Due to the long because (a) river access would still be available hike that would be lnpoaed to get there they would not go. at Chimney Creek and Wilson Bar, and (b) clo­ Another reason I aa very such against the Copper Mountain area being cloaed Is due to ny background as a geologist. I feel there are eany mlnerala and other sure of the Strawberry Creek access route deposits that shouldn't be shut off. Many of these deposits only have a few locala In which they are found within the United States many of these are would still allow motor vehicle use to within already closed off. We as a country should not deny ourselves the access to our vital mlnerala. Emergenclea due arise and the tine Involved to turn the V« mile of the river at this point. The activities you tide of bureaucracy Is historically slow. appreciate so much—sightseeing, rock climb­ Many of the areas now proposed especially the Sweetwater Canyon area are far from being expolted due to rough terrain and even worse weather much of the ing, rock hunting, hiking, and sage grouse hunt­ year. Even In July camping there Is frost on the ground In the morning and believe ne being a veteran campeY, the slob camper, and casual defacer of our ing and observation—would not be curtailed by land doesn't want such hardship. partial wilderness designation; instead, they As a person who has eany outdoor lntereats that have been taught to ne since I wae three and started primitive canping In Missouri and the Lake areas of would be allowed to continue and would be Ontario. I feel enough land has been locked for the future generations and that for the economic good of this area, (mining, ranching, and tourism) I do enhanced in some cases. not think these areas need wilderness designations.

/•/Alle* L. Guatln Riverton, MY 82501

29 Response to Letter 29 (Typed copy of e handwritten letter.) Thank you for your comments.

Dear Hr. Kelly, I for one am agalnat any kind of wllderneaa on B.L.M. landa. for the elmple reaaon that It cloaea the area off to the ederly and our young people or even the handycapped People. So what beauty la to be aeen can only be viewed at a dlatance that la not applicable to the view peraon. I know alao the copper ntn. area to be very rich In vital metala to thla county and the whole nation. I happend to know of aome very apeclal mlnerala on copper mtn. and thla apeclal natal are not found but only one other plaae In the U.S.A. and could prove vital In our apace program later alao In medical field. I will not elaborate any further on copper mtn. for lt'a multiple uaea. the aweetwater rocka are In It own a wllderneaa becauae of the weather condltlona out there but It too had lt'a Importance aa a multiple uae. Sweetwater canyon la a nother example of multiple uae from mining to hunlng. So In your management plan I would like you people to take In conelderatlon the very young and vary old and handy cap and the under develope people In mind. People that have to beable to be mobile and would need tranapertatlon to theae areaa. Alao the need of future mlnerala needed. Sincerely Youra

/a/Helvln E. Guatln

141 Responses to Letter 30

1. Manageability is not an environmental issue, and the discussion has been deleted from the final EIS. 2. On the basis of analysis done in the Lander Resource Area RMP/EIS (USDI, BLM 1985b), we believe that the Copper Mountain WSA is more accurately rated as moderate to high for oil and gas potential. 3. See response 3 to letter 17. 4. Vehicle restrictions would limit certain types of recreation use. The magnitude of this is dis­ cussed in chapter 4 for each WSA. 5. This discussion has been deleted in the final EIS.

142 31 Responses to Letter 31 (Typ«<1 copy of • budvcittM Utter.] 2315 Sky View Unt 1. No commercial timber resources have been iden­ Utttli, Myo«ln9 tified in the WSAs. Consequently, sale of timber was not considered in the decisions affecting the proposed wilderness areas. 2. We have considered the value of wilderness areas to the state of Wyoming and the general economy. Please refer to the socioeconomic analysis in the Lander RMP/EIS (USDI, BLM, 1985b).

Response to Letter 32

1. As outlined in the Lander RMP/EIS, the Oregon/ Mormon Pioneer Trail protective corridor cov­ ers ’/< mile on each side of the trail, or visible hori­ zon, whichever is closer. The BLM has determined this to be a sufficient corridor to pro­ tect trail values. Management recommenda­ tions outside of this corridor (such as the Sweet­ water Rocks WSA wilderness suitability) may take into account effects on the trail, but these effects must be weighed against other values and uses. Outside the corridor, an effect on trail settings is just one of many considerations to be considered for land-use recommendations.

143 Response to Letter 33

1. You are correct, of course, that more mineral values may be found in the future in some areas that are now evaluated as having low potential. If Congress decides to designate the Sweet­ water Canyon as wilderness, new mineral explo­ ration would be precluded from that area, except in instances of valid existing rights.

34 Responses to Letter 34

1. The differences shown in our analysis between impacts from wilderness designation and those from nondesignation are slight (see the compar­ ative impact summary tables). Please refer to the response to letter 17 for additional informa­ tion on your concerns. 2. The potential for activities that could affect suc­ cessful réintroduction of bighorn sheep into the Sweetwater Rocks is extremely low. Bighorn sheep could be reintroduced whether or not the area is designated wilderness. 3. It would be difficult to keep recreational ORV use from occurring in that portion of the Sweet­ water Canyon WSA that is not recommended for wilderness. Little, if any, mineral activity is expected in the nonwilderness portion also. 4. If the Sweetwater Canyon was designated as wil­ derness, the lands would be closed to mineral entry and mineral leasing. Such a closure would preclude any future prospecting, exploration, or mining to determine whether or not there are any mineral resources of economic importance. It is this preclusion that is evaluated in the final EIS. The statement that the gold was not mined at $700 an ounce has been taken from the final

144 EIS. In addition, the final EIS has been revised to show that little mining activity would take place in the nonwilderness portion of the WSA. 5. Your observation on the Oregon/Mormon Pio­ neer Trail being outside the Sweetwater Canyon Partial Wilderness boundary is valid. Effects on cultural resources are not analyzed in the final EIS for reasons explained in chapter 1.

145 Response to Letter 35

1. Present management would not ensure protec­ tion of all wilderness values, only that unneces­ sary and undue degradation would be prohi­ bited. Existing primitive recreational oppor­ tunities could be displaced by mining or future water developments. Opportunities for solitude could be adversely impacted by development. The protective corridor for the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer Trail applies only to V4 mile either side of the trail and does not include the river or the canyon itself.

Responses to Letter 36

1. The Whiskey Mountain WSA is being studied under a separate document. 2. The Dubois Badlands WSA is being studied under a separate document.

146 Response to Letter 37

Thank you for you comments.

Responses to Letter 38

1. Our analysis in the final EIS shows that visitation would probably not increase significantly because of wilderness designation. 2. The Dubois Badlands WSA is being studied under a separate document.

147 Response to Letter 39

1. The wilderness study criteria are used in the anal­ ysis of the management actions of each alterna­ tive. Public comment is one of the required quality standards. The criteria address a wide variety of interests and concerns and are not necessarily the same as the concerns expressed in the scoping process. 2. A wilderness EIS analyzes the impacts to certain resources in an area if an area was designated wilderness or if it was not. The scoping process itself identifies for the agency and the public those issues regarding what changes may occur with or without designation that need to be addressed in an EIS. The issues identified for analysis in an EIS are not always part of the ratio­ nale for the proposed action. Further, an EIS basically answers two questions: “What do you plan to do?" and “What are the impacts of doing so?” In a wilderness EIS, the rationale for the proposed action is necessarily absent. The ratio­ nale is detailed, however, in the wilderness Study Report presented to Congress by the Sec­ retary of Interior through the President.

148 thoroughly consider alternatives to proposed actions requires substantive, good-faith consideration of alternatives to the fullest extent possible, a very high standard Libby Rfld &.fiun Club v. Poteat, 457 F Supp 1177, affd In part, reversed In part on other qroimds 594 F 2d 742

While four alternatives are discussed In the Draft Resource Management Plan (DRMP), the alternatives In no way represent a spectrum of choices. Instead the alternatives are mere variations on a single development strategy, and the choices considered were unreasonably constricted. Every Alternative considered would result In further development of the Lander Resource Area, no Alternative consistently considers reducing or restricting development. The Alternatives selected give the appearance of compliance with statutory mandates while leaving the substantive choices undtscussed and ^scrutinized.

2 The Process Used to Identify Issues and Develop Planning Criteria Was Seriously Flawed.__The C riteria Do Hot Reflect. Consideration of the Public IntflreaL

The limited range of Alternatives considered is the result of the faulty procedure used to Identify Issues and develop planning criteria.

The BLM has a statutory mandate to consider the public interest In formulating management policies, not merely the comments of a portion of the public The BLM has a duty to consider the public Interest, even If the comments it received about the Plan reflect only a narrow range of opinion.

In developing the Lander DRMP, the BLM considered only the desires of a very limited segment of the public, a segment whose self-interest Is closely tied to the BLMs Lander Resource Area development policies. The greatest public Input about the proposed plan came from Interests In the Immediate vicinity of the Lander Resource Area The agency did not seriously solicit the views of Interests outside this small area

This Is clear from the issues ultimately identified Grazing rlQhts, ml and gag development commercial timber rights, and the desire of local interests to buy portions of the Resource Area are hardly the Issues most

Americans would place high on the list of Issues Important In the management of the public lands of the United States, yet these are tbe Issues the agency Identified as those to be resolved bv the RMP.

These Issues clearly do not represent the views of the public as a whole and certainly do not reflect the public Interest Yet they serve as the basis for the criteria set by the BLM By relying on a small, self-interested group, the BLM avoided Its statutory duty to consider the public Interest The agency must do more than listen to the desires of local Interests It must base Its decisions on what Is best for the public as a whole

3 The Criteria Used To Determine Wilderness S uitability Arc A Sham__ They Represent im p licit Choices Against 1 Wilderness Designation And Do Not Fairly State The Wilderness Suitability__Issue.

The Issue of Wilderness Suitability deserves special treatment because of the absurd manner In Which the BLM states this Issue. While nearly every American, whether favoring additions to designated wilderness or against further designations, would consider wilderness Identification a major concern In the formulation of public land use policies, the manner In which the agency states this Issue makes its Inclusion In the DRMP a sham

Concerns Identified by the agency In Its ‘scoping process' Include whether wilderness designation ‘ would adversely affect mineral exploration and development,’ whether wilderness designation would ‘adversely affect the livestock Industry by reducing or eliminating livestock grazing, limiting motor vehicle access, disrupting traditional 2 use patterns, and Increasing visitor use with resultant problems of vandalism, litte r and fire," whether ‘ livestock operators could be displaced or be put out of business,' and whether ‘ wilderness designation would lim it recreational use through eliminating access by motor vehicles."

These criteria have absolutely nothing to do with preserving and

149 protecting wilderness They have everything to do with preserving and protecting vested economic Interests

While these criteria may help Identify areas of value for grazing, they are completely Irrelevant to whether an area Is suitable for wilderness designation Inherent In the choice of these criteria Is a definition of wilderness which amounts to ‘areas undeslred by any group seeking economic development ‘

The Wilderness Act contains a much different definition See, 16 U.S.C. SS ll3 l.fiL a e a The definition contained In SI 131(c) does not mention suitability for mining or for other economic development, unlike the definition Inherent In the ‘ Issues' used by the BIM In this Plan, It correctly and honestly attempts to define what wilderness Is and why wilderness Is Important

There Is little question that developing a management plan requires the agency to reconcile competing Interests This Is the reason a plan Is necessary Nonetheless the agency should not be allowed to escape the difficult choices Inherent In this process by defining one Interest In terms which are set by a competing Interest. The BLM defines wilderness as areas not useful for grazing or mining Instead of fairly stating the competing Interests, the BLM has Implicitly decided that mining and grazing Interests are superior to wilderness Interests and avoided the very choices the Plan Is Intended to consider

Most of the remaining concerns Identified by the agency during the ‘ scoping process’ are relevant to the wilderness Issue Unfortunately, even a brief glance through the DRMP reveals that these concerns received little actual weight during the decision making process

4 IUft Altamitlm Selected for Discuaaion Either Da Hot Represent Cohesive Strategies, Or The Strategies They Represent Are ¿tot Adequately Explained.

Little needs to said on this point. I am unable to find an explanation of the Alternatives as coherent approaches to the management of Lander Resource Area Within each Alternative, the choices appear to represent

no comprehensive approach Instead, alternatives B and C appear to be mere repositories of relatively, randomly selected choices Similarly the development of the preferred alternative does not represent a reasoned choice based upon policy The preferred Alternative appears to represent an Incoherent series of choices without any single unifying purpose or strategy

Once again, thank you for this opportunity to comment 1 look forward to hearing of your decision In this matter

Sincerely,

Mark Hughes

150 Response to Letter 40

COMMENTS ON LANDER BLM 1. The wilderness study for Whiskey Mountain and RESOCRCE MANAGEMENT FLAN DRAFT Dubois Badlands is being done under a sepa­

Oil and GaB Leasing rate document. The overall theme for management of the oil and gas resources within the resource area to make public lands available for leasing to the maximum extent possible on page 289 will not be beneficial to critical wildlife needs. Many of the areas that would be open to oil and gas leasing serve as important w ildlife habitat and harassment or disturbance by humans can only prove detrimental to wildlife. The Environmental Consequences you mention on pages 189, 190, and 192 portray an accurate analysis of how oil and gas exploration and development stresses, disturbs, and displaces w ildlife and how its effects are compounded on critical h a b i t a t . I feel that the No Surface Occupancy Leasing selected as the preferred alternative does not adequately protect the critical habitat in a long term manner. I suggest that two areas which would be affected greatly by this plan, the Whiskey Basin Bighorn Sheep Winter Range and the East Fork Winter Range should be withdrawn from all oil and gas leasing. You state that locatable minerals should be withdrawn on these two areas, but not the withdrawl of oil and gas leasing. This is very inconsistant.

Off Road Vehicles (ORV)

Dubois Badlands I support the preferred alternative to close the entire unit to ORV. It disturbs me to think that there would be little or no enforcement of this abuse if plan is gone ahead with. BLM has difficulty enforcing laws on current

w i l d e r n e s s I I support the proposal of having the EXjbois Badlands become wilderness. I do not support Whiskey Mountain wilderness proposal. Man has caused himself to manage habitat properly due to past poor management practices. With wilderness areas now, we cannot manipulate or improve existing conditions. For too long we have suppressed fires, overtimbered and overharvested our resources. By just eliminating these activities, the areas become decandent and less productive. We should have allowed some habitat management practices to c o n t i n u e . The Badlands are a fragile ecosystem. Off road vehicles have caused damage to them. By becoming a wilderness area, I feel the BLM can better enforce ORV and protect critical Bighorn sheep, antelope, nule deer and elk habitat. This area requires little or no habitat manipulations. On the other hand the Whiskey Mountain area can properly be managed by burning, fertilization, and reseeding low plfàduction areas. If if becomes wilderness, these options can not take place, (Xir lands demand proper management and the abuse of them only decreases the resources. Let's identify these lands which are critical to wildlife and protect them.

n-i-.-tt rjtn

151 41 Response to Letter 41

1. The wilderness study for Dubois Badlands is being done under a separate document.

Response to Letter 42

1. The All Wilderness alternative was not chosen for the Sweetwater Canyon WSA because of conflicts with motorized access and mining claims. The area outside the partial wilderness is not easily blocked off to keep motorized vehi­ cles out. If full wilderness designation were rec­ ommended, there would be conflicts with unauthorized motor vehicle use in wilderness. The partial wilderness recommendation elimi­ nates this potential problem while still preserv­ ing the wilderness values of the canyon itself. ACEC designation was not recommended for the Copper Mountain and Sweetwater Rocks WSAs. Although both areas have significant values, we think ACEC designation is not nec­ essary. The potential for development in the Sweetwater Rocks WSAs is very low, and other uses of the areas do not pose any danger to the important natural, recreational, wildlife, and cul­ tural resources and qualities. The development potential is higher in the Copper Mountain WSA, but we believe that development can be planned to mitigate possible impacts on wildlife and recreational resources.

152 The Dubois Badlands management unit was reinstated as a WSA following the printing of the llvmacock and vlldlUs alike. Tha BUI and aany grazing laata holders are draft RMP/EIS. If wilderness designation is not doing a good job on numerous allotments. This shows the job can be done right, make profits for the lease holder, and protect other resources. I urge chosen for the Dubois Badlands, they will revert the Bui to correct areas with grazing problems and not continue with status quo management In problem areas. to management proposed in the RMP/EIS. That Specific Recommendations plan recommends ACEC designation for the 1) Withdraw from oll/gas and mineral leasing BUI lands on the Whiskey Basin Dubois Badlands. This management would Bighorn sheep winter range, the east Pork elk winter range, and all critical wildlife winter and birthing areas. 2) Transplant Bighorn sheep Into the Sweetwater Rocks. include "no surface occupancy” restrictions on 3) Examine grazing allotment 12124 for possible ways to enhance Bighorn sheep oil and gas activities in the WSA-encompassed 4) Include all of the Sweetwater Canyon WSA into wilderness status. lands. Mining plans of operations would be re­ 5) Place the Copper (fountain and Sweetwater Rocks WSAs Into ACEC status with 1 a stress on their wildlife end recreation resources. 6) Protect the unique scenery values of the Dubois Badlands with either quired in the entire Dubois Badlands manage­ , wilderness or ACEC status. Withdraw the area from oll/gas and mineral leasing. 7) Seek changes in federal laws which would allow for more efficient ment unit. management and less restrictions of wild horses. Wild horses should not be favored over wildlife or domestic livestock. 8) The transportation system should be examined for: (a) ways to Increase public access to public lands. (b) closing and obllderatlng roads which duplicate or harm other resources. (c) ways of marking and posting signs Identifying BUi lands.

/•/Tory Taylor Springs Ranch Dubois, Wy. 82513

Responses to Letter 43

1. The four WSAs collectively called the Sweet­ water Rocks are analyzed separately in the final EIS. All Wilderness and No Wilderness alterna­ tives were analyzed for each WSA. No boundary adjustment could be made on any of the four WSAs to reduce conflicts or to make a more log­ ical boundary. Please refer to Chapter 1 for a dis­ cussion on the possibility of Congress designa­ tion one or more of the Sweetwater Rocks WSAs in any combination. 2. Wildlife and archeological resources were not identified as resources on which there would be significant impacts; therefore, they are not ad­ dressed in this EIS. No specific wildlife popula­ tion was identified that would be affected with or without wilderness designation. Archeolog­ ical resources would be protected regardless of wilderness status of the area. Recreational resources are discussed in chapters 3 and 4 for each WSA in the Sweetwater Rocks. 3. Dubois Badlands and Whiskey Mountains are being studied under a separate document.

153 I

154 Responses to Letter 44

1. Our recommended management for the Sweet­ water Rocks area is to retain the existing natural setting. Wilderness values probably will be re­ tained because of the existing natural character of the area and the fact that little mineral poten­ tial is known to exist. Displacement of wildlife, primarily bighorn sheep, would depend on the extent and duration of human activity. At present, access is con­ trolled mostly by private landowners. Manage­ ment of access for bighorn sheep viewing and hunting will depend largely on cooperation from the landowners, not on wilderness designation. Ranchers in the Sweetwater Rocks area expressed concern that wilderness designation and uses would cause them more problems than the introduction of bighorn sheep. Only 20 hunt­ ing permits would be available at optimum pop­ ulation levels. There is also adequate high qual­ ity habitat on public land. 2. See response 2 to letter 23. The opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation in Sweet­ water Canyon are confined mostly to the canyon and the river. The deep canyon, dense riparian vegetation, and numerous tributary draws provide a high degree of solitude. This contrasts significantly with the surrounding low, rolling hillsand sagebrush-grass prairie out­ side the area that would be designated under the Partial Wilderness alternative. That alterna­ tive was designed to minimize conflicts with other uses and yet protect the most important wilderness attributes of Sweetwater Canyon. 3. The wilderness study for Whiskey Mountain and Dubois Badlands is being done under a sepa­ rate document.

155 156 Response to Letter 45

Thank you for your comments. Please see the response to letter 17.

157 BIM ahould not open any more land for mineral activities. The current policy withdraws only five percent of our resource area from oil and gas development, and the RMP calls for reducing this to one-fifth of one percent. I hope that the expected 1$ percent yearly growth of oil and gas development over the eixty years will be accompanied by a comparable growth of pristine acreage and quality trout streams. Areas such as Red Canyon, South P u b s , Lander Slope, East Pork, Whiskey Mountain, Dubois Badlands, and the lands near Sinks Canyon State Park deserve withdrawal from all forms of mineral entry. BIM should also curtail mining impacts on Green Mountain. This is one of my favorite places— my home during the summer of '82 when I volunteered for BLM. Yet I hate to go back and see how this mountain oasis is being devastated. Some of the impacts of resource exploitation could be prevented if BUI would implement restrictions with some teeth in them. Por instance, utility systems should be restricted to existing corridors in all cases, not Just "when possible" (or convenient for developers). The RMP should specify maximum allowable levels of siltatlon, surface disturbance, habitat destruction, and other impacts, and measures to insure these are met. I was glad to see that the RMP does not call for additional recreation developments. The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail is no doubt more challenging and enjoyable without a fixed route through the area. And our present oampgrounds are well-suited for appreciation of surrounding scenic and cultural r e s o u r c e s . More of our efforts should go toward preserving historic struc­ tures. At Miner's Delight the buildings are deteriorating badly; and at Radium Springs, one of the three cabins disappeared completely within the last 10 or 15 years. Roofs need to be fixed, walls stabilized, and drainage provided away from the foundations. A small interpretive plaque or brochure at Miner's Delight would also be helpful for visitors. Other cultural resources deserve attention as well. I support designation of the Oregon/Mormon Trail corridor as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and South Pass at a National Register district. The entire resource area should be thoroughly inventoried for archeological values, Just as it has been for range, mineral, and timber values. Most important to me, BIM must strive to preserve the remaining scientific, aesthetic, and natural values of our pristine areas. I support Beaver Rim and Red Canyon as National Natural Landmarks, and portions of Beaver Creek, Gas Hills, Lander Slope, Red Canyon,

and South Pass as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. I would also emcourage establishment of Research Natural Areas to preserve representative communities for baseline data on Wyoming's ecosystems. W ildlife habitat deserves enhancement in all areas, especially those of critical and crucial range. However, I do not feel that we should use herbicides and fertilizers. We need to concentrate on alleviating competition from domestic animals, ORVs, and human development. I would also like to see bighorn sheep restored to their home range in Sweetwater Rocks. Perhaps someday we could restore wolves, grizzlies, bison, and black-footed ferrets to the areas they once frequented, too. Finally, I cannot understand BIM's denial of the worth of our outstanding Wilderness Study Areas. During my work with Lander Resource Area, I inventoried each of these, and have also explored them on my own time. All eight are prime candidates for inclusion in our National Wilderness Preservation System. Eac£ one has scenery, solitude, vegetation types, and recreation opportunities duplicated nowhere else in the nation. Yet BLM downplays their values and contrives excuses not to recommend them for Wilderness designation. I am astounded that such a proposal would come from my collegues— professionals entrusted as caretakers of some of Wyoming's finest treasures. I hope that in revising our RMP, BLM will take to heart its multiple-use mandate and provide a plan which gives fair value to all resources. I want my children to be assured of the same chance I had to hike over rolling hills to Sweetwater Canyon, peer into cabins at Miner's Delight, study tipi rings in Sweet­ water Rocks, and see the beauty of Wyoming from the top of Green Mountain.

158 Hearing Transcripts

This section contains transcripts of the public hearings held in Dubois on December 11,1985, and in Lander on December 12, 1985. Both public hear­ ing transcripts are printed in their entirety.

PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS

BEPORE THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE 6 LANDER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THE WILDERNESS STUDY WITHIN THE RAWLINS DISTRICT, ENCOMPASSING THE 9 LANDER RESOURCE AREA

15 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS

7 Transcript o£ Hearing Proceedings on the B above-entitled matter on the llth day of December 9 1985, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at the Dubois Town 0 Hall, Dubois, Wyoming, Mr. Tim Monroe presiding.

159 160 — 6

1 14th for supplemental information or plain new MR. BENSON: I would like to -- 2 sta tem ents. HEARING OFFICER MONROE: Would you 3 MS. HICKS: I feel uneasy about that. identify yourself, please? « MR. STORY: As I understand the MR. BENSON: Yeah. My name is Scott 5 supplement -- I have read it all, but there is so Benson. 1 am here in Dubois. I would like to know 6 much volume of information, that I didn't get -- I am the BLM seems so afraid of prescribed fires. 7 not 6ure that I retained all of it. HEARING OFFICER MONROE: W ell, as I 8 HEARING OFFICER MONROE: Sir, excuse me. explained during the opening remarks, which 9 Could you identify yourself? unfortunately you missed, this is a hearing to 1 0 MR. STORY: I am John Story. I manage receive testimony and not a meeting that we would 1 1 ranches for Parker Land and Cattle Company. And as I normally have to have a dialogue on issues related t 1 2 read it, basically the entire thing is that there is federal land management. I know we can answer that 1 3 not really going to be much change from what -- you question after the hearing part of this is over, 1 4 know, no drastic changes anyway in the plan. I don't which probably won't be much longer. 1 5 really know whether that's good or bad. So I am Jack Kelly, the area manager here, Dick 1 6 going to just reserve my comments and see what else Bastin, the district manager for the Rawlins Distric 1 7 h a p p e n s . also with us, and I know they can answer your 1 8 I really am more interested in the two new 1 9 proposal -- not new proposals, but reinstated MR. BENSON: Okay. 2 0 proposals to hear what's going to happen or go on HEARING OFFICER MONROE: Did you have 2 1 there. I have some mixed feelings about the any comments on the -- to turn that around a little 2 2 establishment of rules and guidelines for bit, did you have comments on areas or methods or th 2 3 establishing a wilderness area and then just as soon need for burning? 2 4 as that doesn't fit some special interest group's own MR. BENSON: Yeah. I think alternativ 2 5 idea, well, then they can change their criteria. I need for management of fire management should be the Vi) £3 E£-

7

1 don't think that's correct. preferred alternative. 2 HEARiNG OFFICER MONROE: You mean the HEARING OFFICER MONROE: Is your 3 study criteria? interest based on rangeland management needs or « MR. STORY: No -- well, yeah, but on improvement of w ildlife habitat, or what’s your 5 the whole criteria for setting up these isolated i n t e r e s t ? 6 spo18 for wilderness consideration, because neither MR. BENSON: Well, I think BLM should 7 one of those fit the criteria and I don't -- you know. be a professional land management agency. As such, 8 1 can't see where special interest groups can come in they shouldn't take the attitude that all fires are 9 and change the criteria to fit their own bailiwick. bad when I think everybody is aware that some fires 1 0 MS. HICKS: I don't know. I think I in certain areas will benefit wildlife. They.will 1 1 ought to identify myself. My name is Lanie Hicks and benefit the rangeland. I think they should approach 1 2 I am a Sierra Club member and I am a member of the it with that attitude. 1 3 Wyoming W ildlife Federation. And I fully agree with HEARING OFFICER MONROE: The gentlemen 1 4 the interests of John Story, and I am very much in here in the maroon sweater, did you care to make a 1 5 favor of the grazing. But I also support wilderness s t a t e m e n t ? 1 6 and I do think that at least the badlands qualify for UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. 1 just come 1 7 wilderness. And I am very interested in hearing what to listen. I am going to send in written comments. 1 8 you have to say about it. HEARING OFFICER MONROE: Did you hear 1 9 HEARING OFFICER MONROE: Sir, we have that the record is open until February 14th 2 0 already opened the hearing, and the time is now for UNIDENTIPIED SPEAKER: No. 2 1 anyone wishing to make a statement on the draft HEARING OFFICER MONROE: -- for w ritten 2 2 resource management plan and environmental impact comments? Yes, it's a 90-day comment period. 2 1 statement. I know you just came in out of the cold. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What is the 2 4 so to speak, literally. We would sure welcome difference in the value placed on the public hearing 2 5 anything you had to say on it. comments versus the written comments? vQ ~3 =

161 162 I

Responses to Comments Made at Lander Public Hearing

1. See response 1 to letter 23. 2. It does not matter who is using the vehicles; any vehicle use constitutes a management problem when it occurs in the designated wilderness. It IN THE HATTER OF A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE would be extremely difficult to eliminate ORVs 8 LANDER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THE WILDERNESS from the 3,000 acres excluded from wilderness STUDY WITHIN THE RAWLINS DISTRICT, ENCOMPASSING THE 9 LANDER RESOURCE AREA designation under the Proposed Action. 10 11

12 |fjryp»>Rf 1 3 1 4 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS 1 6 Transcript of Hearing Proceedings on the 1 8 above-ent1tled matter on the 12th day of December 1 9 1985, at the hour of 7:03 p.m., at the Lander High

20 School, Lander, Wyoming, Mr. Tim Monroe presiding.

21 22 2 3 2 4 2 5

163 164 N o r l a n d . people who just like to go in there in their Jeep or So essentially what that comes down to, out whatever and run all over the place. So it's not of 29 WSAs that have been looked at so far, three specific as to why these 3,000 acres were thrown out have been recommended for wilderness. So this plan and what user group will be using the area for use by is definitely keeping with that. motorized vehicles. In fact, if you look at the oil and gas If you look at ORVs, they can use pretty recommendations for leasing as opposed to what's much all of the lands throughout the BLM area. And recommended for wilderness, a hundred percent of the there are legitimate uses for ORVs on BLM land. But land in this resource area is recommended for oil and if you look at the thousands and possibly m illions of gas leasing. One-tenth of 1 percent is recommended 10 acres in the resource area that ORVs can use, taking to preserve its natural characteristics. in another 3,000 and putting it in wilderness Essentially, that means a thousand times 12 designation isn't going to make that much difference. more land will be devoted to oil and gas development 1 3 And as far as rancher use, as the study also pointed or at least leasing than it will be for the 1 4 out, there are only two grazing allotments in this preservation of this area's unique beauty. This 1 5 WSA. One of them has 1 percent of the allotment in isn't balanced. This to me is not multiple use. And 1 6 the WSA. The other one has 12 percent. in fact, there are more uses in wilderness than you 1 7 So I don't think motorized use in that area can get by going out and poking a hole in the ground is going to hurt grazing allotments that much. So I or clearcutting an area. don't know why these 3,000 acres have been excluded. I object to the wording in the alternative. 20 On the other hand, they are important to preserve the Several times the recommended or the preferred 21 integrity of the area. alternative is continuation of present management. 22 As the BLM admits in the study, the WSA has Essentially that means not designating the area for 2 3 great fishing, excellent solitude and natural wilderness. It's nonwilderness use. But if you look 2 4 features. So you would have a geater positive impact at the use of the area in the past, since the earth 2 5 on these area's society as a wilderness than anything

165 166 leased and developed pretty such. We think that to protect a lease and they have leases there, other there are conflicts out there and resources that people can still use the roads and disrupt the should be protected that will be impacted by oil and h a b i t a t . gas development . In fact, the Game and Fish has pretty much One of the problems with the study is its espoused the idea that if you have about two miles reliance on surface occupancy stipulations. per square mile of road, two miles of road per square Essentially, that means if you have a lease and if mile of forest lands, then you are going to have an you want the oil, you have got to find some other way adverse effect on the elk. of getting it out of there rather than going on that That's probably even more true on BLM land.

10 land physically and doing it. 10 And that's one thing which I feel is one of the

11 That sounds okay and that sounds like a way 11 weakest parts of the study is it doesn't look at the

12 of protecting what's up on top. And if the oil 12 impact of roads on wildlife. And seasonal 1 3 companies have a way directly of getting that gas out 1 3 stipulations will not get rid of these roads and 1 4 of the land by angle drilling or other types of means, 1 4 their impact. 1 5 then that's fine. But there is a lot of areas where 1 5 Finally, certain areas of real sensitive 1 6 they are not going to be able to do that. And it has 1 6 nature in the Lander Resource Area should be 1 7 been shown in other cases where these oil companies 1 7 withdrawn from oil and gas leasing all together. 1 8 can go back in and get those surface stipulations 1 8 That includes the Oregon Trail, Mormon Trail Corridor. 1 9 dropped. They can remove that surface occupancy 1 9 There is no reason to develop that stuff. The Oregon 20 stipulation somewhere down the line. 20 Trail and Mormon Trail is definitely worth preserving.

21 So there is no guarantee. So if you have an 21 South Pass Mining D istrict: Even though

22 area that has surface occupancy, you think it's going 22 there are no surface occupancy stipulations, once to preserve its natural integrity or the ruts of the 2 3 again on those things, there is no guarantee for the 2 4 Oregon Trail, it does not guarantee it. 2 4 future. Obviously, all wilderness areas, we do not 2 5 In addition, while there has not been a 2 5 believe that those should be leased, and important

1 5

court challenge of NSOs or no surface occupancy w ildlife areas, especially elk, sheep, deer and stipulations, there certainly can be in the future. antelope areas and the natural and recreational areas. Some people, some legal companies who represent oil There will still be plenty out there to lease for oil companies think that there may be a good challenge and gas development. In other words, we need to protect these other resources. In addition, oil and gas leasing, as the For timbering, timbering cau study also admits, is going to have an adverse effect concern on the Green Mountain area, n fact, I am over big game over the next 60 years. Big game now concerned about Green Mountain altoge her. There is fighting for survival and BLM is important. A lot seems to be an awful lot of oil and g s l e a s i n g 10 of people sort of perceive some of these rocks as that's going to be up there as well a an increase

11 sterile. There is some important wildlife habitat, tim bering, from 750,000 board feet pe in fact, quite a bit. million. That’s about a big increase in timbering. 1 3 If the Yellowstone National Park and Grand And once again, there is no analysis of impacts that 1 4 Teton National Park go ahead and .protect all that roads are going to bring up there. But nevertheless, w ildlife after all the Potest Service works hard to Green Mountain has quite a bit of wildlife up there protect all their wildlife, it can still be as well as scenic beauty and there is no analysis as jeopardized by what happens on BLM lands. to exactly what kind of effect it is going to have on There are some critical w ildlife corridors the w ildlife herds in this RHP. as well as summer and winter habitats and they are So I would suggest keeping the present board certainly in the Lander Resource Area. I think those feet and also to looking to removing some oil and gas areas need to be withdrawn from leasing, oil and gas leasing from the area that's affected to protect the wilderness. The six million board feet or generally Seasonal stipulations to protect the what the Lander Resource Area is going to shoot for wildlife doesn't really happen, especially if there is pretty large. I think that should be reduced also, is roads there. If a company puts a road in in order especially in the Green Mountain, Dubois area and the

167 1 8

1 Lander slope. I think that is over -- is going to be 1 South Pass City, Riverton or Dubois or any of those 2 overt inhered. 2 other areas, they will have an impact on the town. 3 Now, l think that one part of the study is 3 This is important to study, too, because towns don't 4 4 depend strictly upon oil and gas development or 5 timbef is going to be. And timbering to provide for 5 timbering or even recreation. It's a balanced 6 the loci econo,,,, lo ci corep.nl... i. fin.. But the 6 approach. And this r.sourc. ».nngement plan ha. to 7 7 be balanced, too. And it has to look at those 8 to CO», in here end t.k. out .o much wood. One. 8 impacts on those towns. It's very important. And 9 again, like the Forest Service study, timbering does 9 because of that, because it's so heavily balanced 1 0 not benefit wildlife. And that is found throughout 1 0 toward development, there really isn't any kind of 1 1 the study. When timbering benefits wildlife is when 1 1 Wyoming characteristics in this plan. 1 2 you have a large forest area that doesn't have much 1 2 You can take this plan and apply it to New 1 3 open spaces. Then timbering can do it. But I don’t 1 3 Jersey. If you were to take the cover off of this 1 4 1 4 1 5 forced that you h... to go in .nd e l e c t it to 1 5 like you could be doing the same thing in New Jersey 1 6 open up some forest. And it isn't on the Green 1 6 or Pennsylvania or someplace like that. There is no 1 7 Mountain. Presently, those conditions aren't present. 1 7 1 8 And once again, roads can have a major impact on it. 1 8 And one of the Wyoming characteristics that 1 9 Now, what are the positive aspects? I think 1 9 I feel strongly about is quality of life. Quantity 2 0 that the RMP is very good on the South Pass Mining 2 0 is important. Jobs are important. But so is quality. 2 1 2 1 The people that live here, what kind of recreational 2 2 area is one of the most historic areas in Wyoming. 2 2 2 3 And this plan docs a good job of protecting that. It 2 3 they have? Up in South Pass City I have a lot of 2 4 2 4 2 5 to b. working in th. arc .nil. at th. .... tie 2 5

W ™ ™

2 1

1 doesn't cut back in the historical use of the 1 the Red Desert, I can still go out in the desert and 2 Mining is a legitimate use of that area. 2 have my own kind of recreation. But that's quality 3 It also protects the historical use 3 of life. But it's not really demonstrated in this 4 resources. And even though my own quibble is the 4 d o c u m e n t . 5 more surface occupancy stipulation on the mining, I 5 So I think when I talk about wilderness. 6 think if those things are stuck to by the BLM, then 1 6 when I talk about cultural resources, I am talking 7 think that area will be preserved, the same with the 7 about quality of life and I am not talking about oil 8 Oregon Trail. And it's important to preserve those 8 and gas fields or how much money or what the tax base 9 cultural resources. In fact, of all of RMPs I have 9 is. When I am talking about quality of life. I am 1 0 read, this is by far the best on cultural resources. 1 0 talking about something like that and that's 1 1 Concluding -- finally, right? -- the RMP 1 1 1 2 needs more balance. It needs more prim itive 1 2 d o c u m e n t . 1 3 recreation. It needs more wilderness areas. It 1 3 Thanks for the opportunity to speak here 1 4 needs less oil and gas use. All of these are 1 4 t o n i g h t . 1 5 legitim ate uses of BLM land but they should be coming 1 5 HEARING OFFICER MONROE: Thanks, Mr. 1 6 closer to the balance. 1 6 Massie. The next person is Donald A. Smith. 1 7 In addition, this study does not really look 1 7 MR. SMITH: My name is Donald A. Smith. 1 8 at what this grandiose plan, the Lander Resource Area, 1 8 I am here representing myself. By profession I am a 1 9 the impact it's going to have on the area's towns. 1 9 mining engineer. 1 am a westerner. I have lived in 2 0 You know, if 2.4 million acres is leased and even a 2 0 western United States my entire life. When I read 2 1 2 1 this plan, I was not too pleased with it. My 2 2 you're going to have a big oil and gas boom in this 2 2 displeasures were very much the opposite of the 2 3 area, something that's going to rival Evanston. If 2 3 previous speaker . 2 4 there is no impact as to what that's going to do on 2 4 i h... don. . little research in recent 2 5 th. social ti.. here in Land.,, «van Atlantic City, 2 5 t!».s In connection with another .att.r »here 1 have

W r S S W E r ...... £ =

168 ntified the amount of wilderness that we have in state afford one more square inch of wilderness state, in our region. The state of Wyoming at within our boundaries. present tine has 4.993 percent of its land area On top of the wilderness that we are saddled d up in wilderness. Of all the wilderness in the :h, we also have about two and a half m illion acres est Service system, which amounts to some 28-plus of national park which is taken out of production for lion acres, Wyoming has about 3.1 m illion acres of • benefit of everybody a s w e l l . or of the total Porest Service wilderness, we I didn't realize when I put an X on the n our boundaries 10.8 percent of the total. 1 paper that I was going tc be following the gentleman hat this price is too much to pay for our that just spoke. But he brought up a number of citizens, for our job opportunities, for our way of points 1 would like to refute. l i f e . I guess everybody is aware if they listened In this region, this wilderness that we are to the radio, read the newspaper, at the present time talking about, 80 percent of it is in our immediate in the United States our balance of payments is locale, in the counties of Premont, Park, Teton and negative in the amount of about a hundred and fifty Sublette and a little bit of Lincoln. This land billion dollars a year. We are at the present time that's tied up in wilderness is being taken out of importing somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of our production for the economic benefit not only of the petroleum needs. Certainly under those circumstances people working in the several industries which are we would be highly foolish to exclude any area that dependent upon this, but for the general tax base. had a reasonable petroleum potential from exploration. In my industry, I know that for every job we It's been said very recently by somebody have in the industry, we create approximately five that if we were to get into a war of the magnitude of more jobs to serve the people that are working in the World War Two, we would not have the petroleum to industry itself. If we let our traditional keep us going for six months at the present state of industries which we have been dependent on this state development. Now, lots of people will say, "Yes, since the very beginning fall into disuse for putting that's fine. We got through the last one.” They

land into wilderness so that somebod will say, "Well, if that happens, we can go and do some solitude which they could get just e l l this exploration and do this development." But there jail cell, we are doing so at the detriment of all a very long lag time between the time that you do people in our community and our s first seismic work and you have a producing oil I just got some information today. 43 field. It's about ten times longer in the case of percent of the tax base in the state of Wyoming is attributable to the mineral Industry, which, of It's essential not only for the good of the course, includes oil and gas. Somewhat close to 80 citizens of for the security of our percent of the taxes that are paid in this state come that our m neral and petroleum resources be from the same set of industries. Certainly anybody x p l o , be ready for production at the time that that looks at these kind of figures must come to t h e y hall be need ere is only one way to do realize that a healthy mineral industry, oil and gas n d t h get out on the land and do the industry, timber industry and agriculture which are f o o t cessary to make these our primary sources of internal revenue must be preserved . I feel that under the Anybody can recreate in almost any kind of s t a n c e s in, both economically and land under almost any kind of conditions. I have whelming burden that our state now lived in a good part of the world at various times. ring under from wilderness and national park, You can find recreational opportunities anywhere from s o r e w i l d e ness should be assigned within our the top of the highest mountain to the seashore and OFFICER MONROE: Thank you, We cannot afford, this state cannot afford Appreciate your the time to come over, to lock up its potentials in wilderness to the Does anyone elselse in the audience wish to detriment of the state. And that's precisely what is o r a l c o m m e n t s ? being proposed. I submit that we cannot in this MB. WOLTERSDORF *

169 170 3 2

1 something that we need to examine. 2 The first speaker addressed the social impact if we allowed development to come to this area, how -- some of the very terrible things, you know, 5 that might happen, the things that 1 can see might happen that might occur if we do allow development in 7 oil and gas and whatever I think would be the 8 unemployment would go down, the foreclosures would go down, the taxes would go down, the filing for 1 0 bankruptcy would go down. And I think, you know, 1 1 that those should be listed in our concerns of quality of life. 1 3 1 have worked near Jeffrey City and I know 1 4 many of the people in Jeffrey City and 1 think we could ask them some real heart-rending questions 1 6 about their quality of life if that's our concern 1 7 with wilderness. 1 8 I think that most of the other comments that 1 9 I would like to make would be probably addressed 2 0 better and asked of people, the gentlemen here with 2 1 BLM when we have a question-and-answer period. And that's all I really have to say right now. But those 2 3 are are some concerns we have to think about when we 2 4 consider wilderness. 2 5 HEARING OFFICER MONROE: Thank you. CD " L EE

3 3

1 Well, if there are no other persons who wish 2 to offer testimony, the hearing will now be closed. 3 And as I said, the hearing is open until the 14th of February. And any comments that anyone cares to make 5 on the draft plan will be welcome at that time. The hearing is now closed. Thank you all for 7 (Hearing proceedings concluded 7:43 p.m., December 12, 1985.)

1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 SV\ CD EE ..¿— =5 arl_

171 172 APPENDIX A

WILDERNESS PROTECTION STIPULATION

By accepting this leases, the lessee acknowledges BLM State Director, the reclamation deadline pre­ that the lands contained in this lease are being inven­ viously specified will cease to apply.) The Secre­ toried or evaluated for their wilderness potential by tary's schedule for transmitting his recommenda­ the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under sec­ tions to the President will not be changed as a result tion 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management of any unexpected inability to complete the reclama­ Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2743 (43 USC Sec. 1782), and tion by the specified date, and such inability will not that exploration or production activities which are constrain the Secretary's recommendation with not in conformity with Section 603 may never be per­ respect to the area's suitability or nonsuitability for mitted. Expenditures in leases on which exploration preservation as wilderness. drilling or production are not allowed will create no additional rights in the lease, and such leases will The reclamation will, to the extent practicable, be expire in accordance with law. done while the activity is in progress. Reclamation will include the contouring of the topography to a Activities will be permitted under the lease so long natural appearance (not necessarily to the original as BLM determines they will not impair wilderness contour), the replacement of topsoil, and the resto­ suitability. This will be the case either until the BLM ration of plant cover at least to the point where nat­ wilderness inventory process has resulted in a final ural succession is occurring. Plant cover will be wilderness inventory decision that an area lacks wil­ restored by means of reseeding or replanting, using derness characteristics, or int he case of a wilder­ species previously occurring in the area. If neces­ ness study area until Congress has decided not to sary, irrigation will be required. The reclamation designate the lands included within this lease as wil­ schedule will be based on conservative assumptions derness. Activities will be considered nonimpairing with regard to growing conditions, so as to ensure if the BLM determines that they meet each of the fol­ that the reclamation will be complete, and the lowing three criteria: impacts will be substantially unnoticeable in the area as a whole, by the time the Secretary is (a) It is temporary. This means that the use or activ­ scheduled to send his recommendations to the Pres­ ity may continue until the time when it must be ter­ ident. (“Substantially unnoticeable" is defined in minated in order to meet the reclamation require­ Appendix F of the Interim Management Policy and ment of paragraphs b. and c. below. A temporary use Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review.) that creates no new surface disturbance may con­ tinue unless Congress designates the area as wilder­ (c) When the activity is terminated, and after any ness, so long as it can easily and immediately be ter­ needed reclamation is complete, the area's wilder­ minated at that time, if necessary to management of ness values must not have been degraded so far, the area as wilderness. compared with the area's values of other purposes, as to significantly constrain the Secretary's recom­ (b) Any temporary impacts caused by the activity mendation with respect to the area's suitability or must, at a minimum, be capable of being reclaimed nonsuitability for preservation as wilderness. The wil­ to a condition of being substantially unnoticeable in derness values to be considered-are those men­ the wilderness study area (or inventory unit) as a tioned in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, includ­ whole by the time the Secretary of the Interior is ing naturalness, outstanding opportunities for scheduled to send his recommendations on that solitude or for primitive and unconfined recreation, area to the President, and the operator will be and ecological, geological or other features of scien­ required to reclaim the impacts to that standard by tific, educational, scenic, or historical value. If all or that date. If the wilderness study is postponed, the any part of the area included within the leasehold reclamation deadline will be extended accordingly. estate is formally designated by Congress as wilder­ If the wilderness study is accelerated, the reclama­ ness, exploration and development operations tion deadline will not be changed. A full schedule of taking place or to take place on that part of the lease wilderness studies will be developed by the Depart­ will remain subject to the requirements of this stip­ ment upon completion of the intensive wilderness ulation, except as modified by the Act of Congress inventory. In the meantime, in areas not yet sched­ designating the land as wilderness. If Congress does uled for wilderness study, the reclamation will be not specify in such act how existing leases like this scheduled for completion within 4 years after one will be managed, then the provisions of the Wil­ approval of the activity. (Obviously, if and when the derness Act of 1964 will apply, as implemented by Interim Management Policy ceases to apply to an rules and regulations promulgated by the Depart­ inventory until dropped from wilderness review fol­ ment of the Interior. lowing a final wilderness inventory decision of the

173 APPENDIX B

WYOMING BLM STANDARD MITIGATION GUIDELINES FOR SURFACE-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES

1. Surface Disturbance 2. Wildlife Mitigation Mitigation Guideline Guideline

Surface disturbance will be restricted in any of the a. To protect important big game winter habitat, following areas or conditions. Modifications to this activities or surface use will not be allowed dur­ limitation may be approved in writing by the Autho­ ing the period from November 15 to April 30 rized Officer. within certain areas encompassed by the autho­ rization. The same criterion applies to defined a. Slopes in excess of 25 percent. big game birthing areas from the period of May b. Within important scenic areas identified in a 1 to June 30. land use plan (Class I and II Visual Resource This limitation may or may not apply to Management areas). extended long-term operation and maintenance c. Within 500 feet of surface water and/or riparian of a developed project, pending environmental areas. analysis of any operational or production aspects. d. Within either one-quarter mile or the visual hori­ zon (whichever is closer) of historic trails. Modifications to this limitation in any year may be approved in writing by the Authorized Offi­ e. Construction with frozen material or during peri­ cer. ods when the soil material is saturated, frozen, or when watershed damage is likely to occur. b. To protect important raptor and/or sage and sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat, activities or surface use will not be allowed during the period Guidance from February 1 to July 31 within certain areas encompassed by the authorization. The same criterion applies todefined raptorand game bird The intent of the Surface Disturbance Mitigation winter concentration areas from the period of Guideline is to inform interested parties (potential November 15 to April 30. This limitation may or lessees, permittees, or operators) that when one or may not apply to extended long-term operation more of the five conditions (a through e) exists, and maintenance of a developed project, pend­ surface-disturbing activities will be restricted or ing environmental analysis of any operational or prohibited, unless or until the permittee or his des­ production aspects. ignated representative and the surface management agency (SMA) arrive at an acceptable plan for mit­ Modifications to this limitation in any year may igation of anticipated impacts. This negotiation will be approved in writing by the Authorized Offi­ occur prior to development. cer. Specific criteria (e.g., 500 feet from water) have c. No activities or surface use will be allowed on been established based upon the best information that portion of the authorization area identified available. However, such items as geographical within (legaldescription) forthe purpose of pro­ areas and seasons must be delineated at the field tecting (e.g., sage/sharp-tailed grouse breeding level. grounds, and/or other species/activities) habi­ tat. Waiver or modification of requirements developed from thisguideline must be based upon environmen­ Modifications to this limitation in any year may tal analysis of proposals, such as, plans of develop­ be approved in writing by the Authorized Offi­ ment, plans of operation, or Applications for Permit cer. to Drill and, if necessary, must allow for other mit­ d. Portions of the authorized use area legally igation to be applied on a site-specific basis. described as (legal description) are known or suspected to be essential habitat for (species

175 APPENDIX B

name), which is a threatened/endangered spe­ Waiver or modification of requirements developed cies. Prior to conducting any on-site activities, from this guideline must be based upon environmen­ the lessee/permittee/operator will be required tal analysis of proposals such as plans of develop­ to conduct inventories or studies in accordance ment, plans of operation, or Applications for Permit with BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to Drill and, if necessary, must allow for other mit­ guidelines to verify the presence or absence of igation to be applied on a site-specific basis. this species. In the event that (species name) occurrence is identified, the lessee/permittee/ operator will be required to modify operational plans to include the protection requirements of 3. Cultural Resource this species and its habitat (e.g., seasonal use restrictions, occupancy limitations, facility Mitigation Guideline design modifications). When a proposed discretionary land use has potential for affecting the characteristics which qual- Guidance ifyacultural property forthe National Registerof His­ toric Places, mitigation will be considered. In accord­ The wildlife mitigation guideline is intended to pro­ ance with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation vide two basic types of protection, seasonal restric­ Act, procedures specified in 36 CFR 800 will be used tion (a and b) and prohibition of activities or surface in consultation with the State Historic Preservation use (c). Item d, of course, is specific to situations in­ Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on His­ volving threatened and endangered species. Legal toric Preservation in arriving at determinations descriptions will ultimately be required and should regarding the need and type of mitigation to be be measurable and legally definable. There are no required. minimum subdivision requirements at this time. The area delineated can and should be defined as nec­ essary, based upon current biological data, prior to Guidance the time of processing an application and issuing the use authorization. The legal description must even­ The preferred strategy for treating potential tually become a condition for approval of the permit, adverse effects on cultural properties is avoidance, plan of development, and/or other use authoriza­ not prohibition. If avoidance involves project reloca­ tion. tion, the new project area may also require cultural The seasonal restriction section identifies three resource inventory. If avoidance is imprudent or example groups of species and delineates three sim­ unfeasible, appropriate mitigation may include exca­ ilar time frame restrictions. The big game species, vation (data recovery), stabilization, monitoring, pro­ including elk, moose, deer, antelope, and bighorn tective barriers and signs, or other physical and sheep, all require protection of crucial winter range administrative measures. between November 15 and April 30. Elk and bighorn Reports documenting results of cultural resource sheep also require protection from disturbance dur­ inventory, evaluation, and the establishment of mit­ ing the period of May 1 to June 30, when they typ­ igation alternatives (if necessary) shall be written ically occupy distinct calving and lambing areas. according to standards contained in BLM Manuals, Raptors include eagles; accipiters; falcons (pere­ in the cultural resource permit stipulations, and in grine, prairie, and merlin); buteos (ferruginous and other policy issued by the BLM. These reports must Swainson's hawks); osprey; and burrowing owls. provide sufficient information for Section 1 (^consul­ The raptors, sage grouse, and sharp-tailed grouse tation. Reports shall be reviewed for adequacy by all require nesting protection during periods the appropriate BLM archaeologist. If cultural prop­ between February 1 and July 31. The same birds erties on, or eligible for, the National Register are often require protection from disturbance during the located within these areas of potential impact and period of November 15 through April 30 while they cannot be avoided, the Authorized Officer shall occupy winter concentration areas. begin the Section 106 consultation process in Item c, regarding the prohibition of activity or sur­ accordance with the procedures contained in 36 face use, is intended for protection of unique wildlife CFR 800. habitat areas or values within the use area. These Mitigation measures shall be implemented accord­ areas or values must be factors that limit life-cycle ing to the mitigation plan approved by the BLM activities (e.g., sage grouse strutting grounds, Authorized Officer. Such plans are usually prepared known threatened and endangered species habitat) by the land use applicant's contract archaeologist that cannot be protected using seasonal restrictions. according to BLM specifications. Mitigation plans

176 APPENDIX B will be reviewed as part of Section 106 consultation where one of the first three general mitigation guide­ for National Register eligible or listed properties. lines will not adequately address the concern. The The extent and nature of recommended mitigation resource value, location, and specific restriction shall be commensurate with the significance of the must be clearly identified. A detailed plan address­ cultural resource involved and the anticipated extent ing specific mitigation and special restrictions on de­ of damage. Reasonable costs for mitigation will be velopment will be required prior to development and borne by the land use applicant. Mitigation must be will become a condition for approval of the permit, cost-effective and realistic. It must consider project plan of development, or other use authorization. requirements and limitations, input from concerned parties, and be BLM-approved or BLM-formulated. Waiver or modification of requirements developed from this guideline must be based upon environmen­ Mitigation of paleontological and natural history tal analysis of proposals such as plans of develop­ sites will be treated on a case-by-case basis. Factors ment, plans of operation, or Applications for Permit such as site significance, economics, safety, and to Drill and, if necessary, must allow for other mit­ project urgency must be taken into account when igation to be applied on a site-specific basis. making a decision to mitigate. Authority to protect (through mitigation) such values is provided for in FLPMA, Section 102(8). When avoidance is not pos­ sible, appropriate mitigation may include excavation 5. No Surface Occupancy (data recovery), stabilization, monitoring, protec­ tion barriers and signs, or other physical and admin­ Guideline istrative protection measures. No surface occupancy will be allowed on the fol­ lowing described lands (legal subdivision/area) because of (resource value). Example Resource 4. Special Resource Mitigation Categories (Select or identify category and specific Guideline resource values): a. Recreation areas (e.g., campgrounds, historic trails, national monuments). To protect (resource value), activities or surface use will not be allowed (i.e., within a specific dis­ b. Major reservoirs/dams. tance of the resource value or between date-to-date) c. Special management areas (e.g., ACEC, known in (legal subdivision). threatened and endangered species habitat, This limitation may or may not apply to extended wild and scenic rivers). long-term operation and maintenance of a devel­ oped project, pending environmental analysis of any d. Other (specify). operational or production aspects. Modifications to this limitation in any year may be Guidance approved in writing by the Authorized Officer. Ex­ ample Resource Categories (Select or identify cate­ The No Surface Occupancy (NSO) mitigation gory and specific resource value): guideline is intended for use only when other mitiga­ a. Recreation areas. tion is determined insufficient to protect the public interest adequately, and it is the only alternative to b. Special natural history or paleontological fea­ “ no development" or “ no leasing.” The legal subdi­ tures. vision and resource value of concern must be iden­ c. Special management areas. tified and be tied to an NSO land use planning deci­ sion. d. Sections of major rivers. Waiver of or exception(s) to the NSO requirement e. Prior existing rights-of-way. will be subject to the same test as was used to justify f. Occupied dwellings. its imposition. If, upon evaluation of a site-specific proposal, it is found that less restrictive mitigation g. Other (specify). would adequately protect the public interest or value of concern, then a waiver or exception to the NSO requirement is possible. The record must show that Guidance because conditions or uses have changed, less restrictive requirements will protect the public inter­ The Special Resource Mitigation Guideline is est. An environmental analysis must be conducted intended for use only in site-specific situations and documented (EA or EIS, as necessary) in order

177 APPENDIX B to provide the basis for a waiver or exception to an consideration was given to development subject to NSO planning decision. If the waiver or exception reasonable mitigation, including no surface occu­ is found to be consistent with the intent of the plan­ pancy. The record must also show that other mitiga­ ning decision, it may be granted. If found inconsis­ tion was determined to be insufficient to protect the tent with the intent of the planning decision, a plan public interest adequately. A “ no development” or amendment would be required before the waiver or “no leasing” decision should not be made solely exception could be granted. because it appears that conventional methods of development would be unfeasible, especially where When the “no development" or “no leasing" option an NSO restriction may be acceptable to a potential is considered, a rigorous test must be met and fully permittee. In such cases, the potential permittee documented in the record. This test must be based should have the opportunity to decide whether or upon stringent standards described in the land use not to go ahead with the proposal (or accept the use planning document. Since rejection of all develop­ authorization), recognizing that an NSO restriction ment rights is more severe than the most restrictive is involved. mitigation requirement, the record must show that

178 APPENDIX C

GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE

Duration in Millions of Millions of Years Years Ago Era Period Epoch (Approximate) (Approximate)

Recent Duration 5,000 Years Quaternary Pleistocene 2.5 = 2.5

Pliocene 4.5 = 7

Miocene 19 = 26

Cenozoic Tertiary Oligocene 12 = 38

Eocene 16 = 54

Paleocene 11 = 65

Cretaceous 71 = 136

Mesozoic Jurassic 54 = 190

Triassic 35 = 225

Permian 55 = 280

Pennsylvanian 45 = 325

Paleozoic Mississippian 20 = 345

Devonian 50 = 395

Silurian 35 = 430

Ordovician 70 = 500

Cambrian 70 = 570

Precambrian 4,030

179 GLOSSARY

ALLUVIUM. Unconsolidated material deposited relatively re­ GNEISSIC. Referring to gneiss, a foliated metamorphic rock cor­ cently in geologic time by a stream or other body of running responding in composition to granite. water. HABITAT. The place where a plant or animal species naturally AMPHIBOLITE ROCKS. Metamorphic rock consisting essen­ lives and grows. tially of amphibole, a group of minerals with essentially like crystal structures involving a silicate chain, OH (Si^O-) -j). HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN. The BLM's plan for habitat maintenance and improvement. The primary vehicle used ANTICLINE. An upfold or arch of stratified rock in which the in the BLM to fund habitat projects. beds or layers bend downward in opposite directions from the crest or axis of the fold. HEMATIFEROUS BIOTITE SCHISTS. A schist containing mostly biotite mica with an unusually high content of hemat­ AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN. An area ite (iron oxide). within the public lands designated for special management attention to protect and prevent irreparable damage to HYDROTHERMAL. Pertaining to the action of hot aqueous important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wild­ fluids or solutions on rocks or mineral deposits. life resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to IGNEOUS. Rock formed by solidification of a molten magma. protect life and safety from natural hazards. LITHIC WORKSHOP. An area where stone tools were manufac­ ARGILLACEOUS. Of, relating to, or containing clay or clay min­ tured. erals. LIVESTOCK GRAZING OPERATIONS. Operations under per­ BIOTITE-CHLORITE SCHISTS. Black or dark green metamor­ mit where the primary purpose is the grazing of livestock phic crystalline rock. for the production of food and fiber. Includes pack and sad­ CHANNERY LOAM. Loam containing thin, flat coarse frag­ dle stock used in conjunction with such operations. ments of limestone, sandstone, or schist, having diameters LOAM. A fertile and humus-rich soil consisting of a friable mix­ as large as 6 inches. ture of 7 to 27 percent clay, 28 to 50 percent silt, and less CHUKAR. An Indian rock partridge that is gray with black and than 52 percent sand. white bars on the sides and a red bill and legs. MAFIC. Containing abundant dark colored minerals such asam- phibolis, pyroxenes, and certain feldspars. COLLUVIUM. Loose incoherent deposits at the foot of a slope or cliff, brought there primarily by gravity. METASEDIMENTS. A sediment of sedimentary rock which shows evidence of metamorphism. CROWNED AND DITCHED ROAD. A constructed road graded to facilitate drainage. MINERAL WITHDRAWAL. Removal of specific federal lands from availability for mineral development. CRUCIAL WINTER RANGE. An area of crucial importance to the survival of a local wildlife population during the periodic NEPHRITE JADE. Less valuable jade. occurrence of severe winter conditions. NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY STIPULATION. A stipulation CULTURAL RESOURCES. Fragile and nonrenewable remains placed on a lease that prohibits any surface-disturbing activ­ of human activity, occupation, or endeavor reflected in dis­ ities in the lease area. See appendix C. tricts, sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, works of art, architecture, and natural features that were of OFF-ROAD VEHICLE. Any motorized tracked or wheeled vehi­ importance in human events. These resources consist of (1) cle designed for cross-country travel over any type of nat­ physical remains; (2) areas where significant human events ural terrain. Exclusions (from Executive Order 11644, as occurred, even though evidence of the event no longer amended by Executive Order 11989) are nonamphibious reg­ remains; and (3) the environment immediately surrounding istered motorboats, any military, fire, emergency, or law en­ the actual resource. Cultural resources, including both pre­ forcement vehicle while being used for emergency pur­ historic and historical remains, represent a part of the con­ poses, any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the tinuum of events from the earliest evidences of humans to authorizing officer or otherwise officially approved, vehicles the present day. in official use, and any combat support vehicle In times of national defense emergencies. DIKE. A thin, sheet-like intrusion of igneous rock cutting across the bedding or foliation of the country rock. PEGMATITE. A very coarse-grained igneous rock with a com­ position similar to granite. It is usually found in veins or DIP. The angle between the bedding plane or fault plane and dikes. the horizontal plane. PERMEABILITY RATE. The capacity of a porous rock, soil, or DIRECTIONAL DRILLING. A method of drilling in which the di­ sediment for transmitting a fluid without damage to the struc­ rection of the hole is planned before. ture of the medium. DRILL-STEM TEST. Bottom-hole pressure information PRECAMBRAIN ROCKS. Igneous and metamorphic rocks obtained and used to determine formation productivity. formed during Precambrian time, which ended approxi­ mately 570 million years before present. ECOSYSTEM. A functional system that includes the organisms of a natural community together with their environment. PREHISTORIC. Pertaining to the period of time before written history. In North America, prehistoric usually refers to the FORB. An herb other than grass; a broadleaf herb. pre-Columbian period (before 1492). GNEISS. A laminated or foliated metamorphic rock. PRIMITIVE AND UNCONFINED RECREATION. Nonmotorized and nondeveloped types of outdoor recreational activities

181 GLOSSARY

PRODUCTION TEST. Test of a well's productive capacity for hy­ SCHIST. A metamorphic rock consisting predominantly of mica drocarbons in a particular formation or reservoir that is per­ minerals with a parallel orientation of the mica plates. formed after the casing is set and through perforations in that casing. SEEP. A spot where a fluid contained in the ground oozes slowly to the surface and often forms a pool. PROSPECT. To search for minerals or oil by looking for surface indications, by drilling boreholes, or both. Also, a plot of SODIC. Of, relating to or containing sodium. ground believed to be mineralized enough to be of eco­ TUFF. Rock composed of material formed from volcanic debris nomic importance. ejected into the air. RADIOMETRIC SURVEY. A survey conducted with a radiome­ URANIFEROUS. Containing uranium. ter, an instrument that detects and measures the intensity of electromagnetic or acoustic radiation. VISUAL MANAGEMENT CLASS. A category describing the dif­ ferent degrees of modification allowed to the basic elements REACH. A straight, continuous, or extended part of a river of the landscape. Class designations are derived from an stream or restricted waterway. overlay technique that combines the maps of scenic quality, RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM. For management sensitivity levels, and distance zones. There are five manage­ and conceptual convenience, possible mixes or combina­ ment classes. tions of activities, settings, and probable experience oppor­ VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. The system by which the tunities have been arranged along a spectrum or continuum. BLM classifies and manages scenic values and visual quality RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. A comprehensive plan that of public lands. The system is based on research that has establishes land-use decisions based on the principles of produced ways of assessing aesthetic qualities of the land­ multiple use and sustained yield. scape in objective terms. After Inventory and evaluation, lands are given relative visual ratings (management RIPARIAN. Of or relating to or living or located on the bank of classes), which determine the amount of modification a watercourse. allowed to the basic elements of the landscape. SCENIC QUALITY CLASSES. Classes that are assigned to the ZEOLITE. A large group of hydro-aluminosilicate minerals land for the purpose of rating an area by landform, vegeta­ formed especially in beds of tuff. Sometimes valuable for tion, water, color, Influence of adjacent scenery, scarcity, chemical properties allowing them to be used in ion and cultural modification. There are three classes. exchange and adsorption. SCHEELITE. A calcium tungstate, CaWO^j, which is a commer­ cial source of tungsten and tungsten compounds.

182 REFERENCES

Boles, James R. and Surdam, Ronald C. United States. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey 1979. "Diageneses of Volcanogenic Sediments in a Ter­ 1970. Cenozoic Geology of the Granite Mountains Area, tiary Saline Lake: Wagon Bed Formation, Wyoming." American Central Wyoming, by J. D. Love. Professional Paper 495-C. Journal of Science 279:832-853. Washington: Government Printing Office. Prepared in coopera­ tion with the Geological Survey of Wyoming and the Department Hesse, K. K. of Geology of the University of Wyoming. 1982. "National Uranium Resource Evaluation: Thermopo- 1974. Geologic Map and Sections Showing Distribution of lis Quadrangle." Bendlx Field Engineering Corp PGJF-030. Re­ Tertiary Rocks Near Southeast Terminus of the Wind River port and map prepared by Bendix under contract to U. S. Depart­ Range, compiled by N. M. Densen and G. N. Pipirangas. Map ment of Energy. Cited in Tetra Tech 1983, below. I-835. Tetra Tech United States. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey 1983. GEM [Geology, Energy, and Minerals] Resource 1983. Petroleum Potential of Wilderness Lands, Wyoming, Assessment of the Granite Mountains GEM Resource Area, Wyo­ by C. W. Spencer and Richard B. Powers. Circular 902-M. N.p. ming." Report prepared under contract for Bureau of Land Man­ agement. On file at Lander Resource Area, Bureau of Land Man­ 1988. Mineral Resources of the Sweetwater Canyon Wilder­ agement. ness Study Area, Fremont County, Wyoming. Bulletin 1757-D. United States. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Wilson, William H. Management 1951. A Schulite Deposit Near Lewiston, Fremont County, 1976. "Evaluation of the Mineral Potential of the Sweet­ Wyoming. Laramie, WY: Geological Survey of Wyoming. water Canyon Natural Area," by William D. Holsheimer. Report on file at Lander Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management. Yeliich, John A.; Cramer, Ronald T.; and Kendall, Robert G. 1983. Green Mountain Planning Area Rangeland Program 1978. "Copper Mountain, Wyoming, Uranium Deposit- Rediscovered." In Wyoming Geologic Association Guide­ Summary. Rawlins, WV. book: 30th Annual Field Conference. N.p.: Wyoming Geologic 1985. Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Association. Impact Statement tor the Lander Resource Area: Lander, Wyo­ ming. Rawlins, WY. 1986. Final Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement tor the Lander Resource Area: Lander, Wyo­ ming. Rawlins, WY.

183 * U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991 -573-071 M4006 BLM-WY-ES-90-009-4332