The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) initiated a WSR review of all BLM-administered public lands along waterways within the Worland and Cody planning areas. This review was to determine eligibility, assign a tentative classification, and screen for suitability factors, as identified in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968, as amended (see Table F-1). No waterway segments were determined eligible during this review in the Grass Creek Resource Area. The review process and decisions can be reviewed in the Grass Creek Resource Management Plan (RMP) (1999). Those segments in the remainder of the Planning Area determined eligible and assessed for suitability are all recommended as suitable in Alternative B.
The BLM WSR review includes a three-step process:
Determining whether public lands along waterways meet the WSR eligibility criteria to be tentatively classified as wild, scenic, or recreational.
Determining whether any of those public lands that meet the eligibility criteria are also assessed for suitability.
Determining what rivers and adjacent public lands are determined suitable and recommended for designation and how they will be managed.
The WSR review was conducted separately from the RMP planning process to expedite the review process, resulting in a stand-alone WSR review report. The BLM will use this land use planning process to gather additional data, in the form of public comments and the impact analysis contained in Chapter 4 of this Draft RMP and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to support eligibility and suitability findings. This WSR suitability assessment may be modified as a result of public comments. Following the review and response to any public comments on the Draft RMP and Draft EIS that address WSR recommendations presented in this document, the BLM will release the map and Record of Decision that contain the agency’s WSR findings.
The Worland and Cody Wild and Scenic Rivers Review reports may be viewed at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/bighorn/docs.html.
Table F.1. Characteristics for Waterways Determined Eligible for Wild and Scenic River Designation in the Planning Area
| Name | Length of Segment on BLM-administered Lands (miles)2 | Outstandingly Remarkable Values | Tentative Classification | Suitability Determination | Justification for Determination of Not Suitable3 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cody Field Office | |||||
| Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone (2 segments)1 | 8.35 | Cultural; Fish; Geologic; Historic; Other Values (whitewater); Recreational; Scenic; Wildlife; | Scenic | Suitable (4.63 miles) Not Suitable (3.72 miles) | Segment 2: Majority private surface land and mineral estate Segment 3: Waterway segments met suitability factors |
| Cottonwood Creek1 | 4.05 | Geologic; Historic; Other Values (endemic/rare vegetation, aspen stands, riparian); Scenic; Wildlife | Scenic | Suitable | Waterway segment met suitability factors |
| Cow Creek (2 segments)1 | 1.92 | Cultural; Geologic; Historic; Other Values (aspen stands, riparian, endemic/rare vegetation); Scenic; Wildlife | Wild | Suitable | Waterway segments met suitability factors |
| Deer Creek | 1.46 | Cultural; Fish; Recreational; Scenic | Scenic | Suitable | Waterway segment met suitability factors |
| Meeteetse Creek1 | 2.80 | Geologic; Historic; Other Values (riparian, alpine vegetation, volcanic-specialized vegetation); Wildlife | Wild | Not Suitable | Private mineral estate |
| North Fork Shoshone River1 | 0.85 | Cultural; Fish; Geologic; Historic; Recreational; Scenic; Wildlife | Recreational | Not Suitable | Majority private surface land and mineral estate |
| Oasis Spring Creek | 2.07 | Cultural; Fish; Recreational; Scenic | Wild | Suitable | Waterway segment met suitability factors |
| Pat O’Hara Creek1 | 2.00 | Cultural; Historic | Scenic | Not Suitable | Effective current management |
| Porcupine Creek | 10.8 | Cultural; Fish; Other Values (riparian); Recreational; Scenic | Wild/Scenic | Suitable | Waterway segment met suitability factors |
| South Fork Shoshone River1 | 1.99 | Cultural; Fish; Geologic; Historic; Recreational; Scenic; Wildlife | Recreational | Not Suitable | Majority private surface land and mineral estate |
| Trout Creek | 0.96 | Cultural; Fish; Other Values (riparian); Recreational; Scenic | Wild | Suitable | Waterway segment met suitability factors |
| Worland Field Office | |||||
| Canyon Creek | 1.30 | Cultural | Scenic | Not Suitable | Land ownership conflicts; manageability; WSR designation is inappropriate |
| Deep Creek | 5.20 | Fish; Recreational; Scenic | Wild | Suitable | Waterway segment met suitability factors |
| Dry Medicine Lodge Creek | 10.61 | Cultural; Geologic; Other Values (caving, aquifer recharge); Recreational; Scenic | Scenic | Suitable | Waterway segment met suitability factors |
| Kirby Creek (3 segments) | 0.14 | Historic | Recreational | Not Suitable | Majority private surface land and mineral estate |
| Medicine Lodge Creek | 5.72 | Cultural; Geologic; Other Values (sinking streams, aquifer recharge); Recreational; Scenic | Wild | Suitable | Waterway segment met suitability factors. |
| Laddie Creek (2 segments, part of Paint Rock Creek unit) | 1.37 | Cultural | Recreational | Suitable (0.63 miles) Not Suitable (0.74 miles) | Segment 1: Land ownership conflicts and manageability Segment 2: Waterway segments met suitability factors |
| Paint Rock Creek (2 segments, part of Paint Rock Creek unit) | 7.02 | Cultural; Recreational; Scenic | Recreational | Suitable | Waterway segment met suitability factors |
| Paint Rock Creek, South Fork (2 segments, part of Paint Rock Creek unit) | 3.46 | Cultural; Fish | Recreational | Suitable | Waterway segment met suitability factors |
| Powder River (Middle Fork) | 1.41 | Recreational | Recreational | Suitable | Waterway segment met suitability factors |
| Trapper Creek | 10.91 | Cultural; Geologic; Other Values (caving area); Recreational; Scenic | Wild | Suitable | Waterway segment met suitability factors |
| White Creek (4 segments) | 7.00 | Cultural; Scenic | Wild | Suitable (5.72 miles) Not Suitable (1.28 miles) | Segments 1-3: Land ownership conflicts; manageability Segment 4: Waterway segment met suitability factors |
| Sources: BLM 2002a; BLM 2003a; BLM 2009a; BLM 2009t 1 Waterway Segment Revaluated as part the 2009 Cody Field Office Wild and Scenic River Addendum Report 2 Approximate length based on available geographic information system (GIS) data; segment lengths have been rounded to the nearest hundredth of a mile. 3 To provide for a range of alternatives, all Wild and Scenic River eligible segments are recommended as suitable under Alternative B and none of the Wild and Scenic River eligible segments are recommended as suitable under Alternative C. 4 Detailed explanations of how suitable waterways met each of the suitability factors appears in the Worland and Cody Field Office Wild and Scenic River Reports, available on the project website. | |||||