The NHTs and Other Historic Trails, National Back Country Byways, and CTTM sections describe impacts to these resource areas that are often used for recreation. This analysis focuses on impacts to recreational opportunities, experiences, and benefits for users, which often are associated with the recreation setting. Recreation management matrices in Appendix O identify the primary market strategy, niche, recreation management objective, desired RSCC, experiences, and beneficial outcomes, and implementation strategy/actions for each SRMA.

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Surface Disturbance

Under all alternatives, activities that result in surface disturbance (e.g., facilities construction, clearing land, prescribed fires, and drilling activities related to minerals exploration and development) would result in adverse impacts by displacing recreationists from degrading the desired RSCC, opportunities, experiences, and desired beneficial outcomes for the life of the disturbance, or until the area is reclaimed or recovers. Surface disturbance would more intensively affect areas where the desired RSCC necessitates a high degree of naturalness (i.e., back country). Adverse impacts from surface disturbance would be less intensive in areas where the desired RSCC allows for moderately dominant alterations to the natural setting (i.e., middle country and front country). Development activities that improve legal access to public lands, establish new and improve existing roads, and increase opportunities for motorized travel may benefit recreational experiences. Refer to Appendix O for descriptions of the desired RSCCs throughout the Planning Area. Management actions limiting surface-disturbing activities in identified SRMAs would benefit recreational experiences by ensuring the maintenance of the recreational setting.

Resource Uses

Under all alternatives, minerals leasing and development would further alter supplemental values important for recreation such as scenic quality and natural, social, and administrative settings, and open previously limited areas to recreational use. The industrialized character associated with oil and gas activity would introduce new contrasting elements affecting the scenic quality of the recreation setting, interfering with recreationists’ experiences and beneficial outcomes, which will displace recreationists from their desired settings to alternative areas. Travel off existing roads for “necessary tasks” associated with minerals management and other programs may generate new primitive routes for recreation opportunities, but the proliferation of roads and trails may threaten the recreation setting of certain areas and adversely affect such values as scenic quality, solitude, and wildlife. Hazards associated with road use would be proportional to the amount of mineral activity plus the historical recreational use. Minerals development would cause mostly adverse impacts to recreation under all of the alternatives.

Locatable mineral exploration and mineral materials disposal may result in adverse impacts to recreation. Mining activities may displace recreational activities and have an adverse impact on the desired recreation settings by altering the viewshed of some areas, and associated supplemental values such as wildlife and habitat, resulting in indirect impacts to recreation. Mining activities can also disrupt wildlife and alter habitat resulting in indirect impacts to recreation. Mitigation measures would minimize impacts to recreation resources from surface disturbance, but no mitigation would be applied to locatable mining activities to minimize adverse impacts to scenic qualities. The development of mineral resources may adversely affect recreation management due to hazardous conditions, noxious odors, and dangerous gas (such as H2S) (see Section 4.8.3 Health and Safety).

Land tenure adjustments, including acquisition and disposal of land, generally benefit recreation if the adjustment considers recreational values. Acquisitions can result in beneficial impacts by improving public access in areas with intermingled land ownership and facilitating increased or improved access to recreation areas and resources such as WSAs and river access points. Private land that fragments BLM-administered land may interfere with recreationists’ access, goals, activities, experiences, and benefits, and affect local and regional tourism. Acquiring and consolidating BLM-administered land and disposing of inholdings of private or state land would result in beneficial impacts to recreation, especially in SRMAs, WSAs, and other areas managed for specific recreation experiences. The acquisition of access easements can also increase recreational use across the Planning Area and would generally result in beneficial impacts to recreation.

Development activities associated with ROW authorizations would include renewable energy development, utility/transportation systems development, and communication site development. These developments, especially wind-energy facilities, may have a substantial impact on the recreation setting and recreationists’ goals, experiences, and benefits by altering the scenic quality of open space and displacing users.

Under all alternatives, motorized and mechanized travel may enhance some recreationists’ goals, experiences, and realize desired beneficial outcomes by allowing greater access to BLM-administered land while impairing others’ by degrading the recreation setting and opportunities for solitude. Therefore, impacts from motorized and mechanized travel are likely to be site-specific. The BLM would address these impacts in more detail in assessing RAMPs.

Under all alternatives, the BLM would manage livestock grazing toward achieving the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, which would minimize impacts to the recreation setting, experience, and opportunities. In many cases, promoting shorter duration of livestock use and manipulating the season of use would incorporate timing of recreation in order to reduce the impacts of livestock grazing on recreational experiences. The presence of livestock in a landscape setting is probably not detrimental to the experience of most recreationists; however, on a site-specific level, high levels of livestock use and facilities associated with grazing (e.g., water developments) may degrade recreationists’ experiences due to noise, odor, and damage to vegetation. Such impacts would be more likely to occur around campgrounds, picnic areas, and trailheads. Off‐road motorized vehicle use to support livestock management activities (e.g., round‐ups) may affect the desired recreation settings by introducing new trails that may be used by other motorized travelers introducing new conflicting uses, as well as further augmenting the contrasting elements to the scenic characteristics, all of which would further interfere with recreationists’ goals, experiences, and benefits.

Special Designations

Management actions in special designations under all alternatives would maintain legal public access and natural scenic qualities that will maintain the recreational setting characteristics and continue to provide for recreation opportunities and experiences. These actions include continuing the Red Gulch/Alkali Road National Back Country Byway designation and developing educational materials and facilities to enhance the knowledge of the Red Gulch/Alkali Road National Back Country Byway; closing BLM-administered lands in waterway corridors of WSR eligible and suitable segments to land disposal actions; closing WSAs to renewable energy development and mineral leasing; and various resource protection measures in the Spanish Point Karst ACEC. Resource protection measures also would preclude other forms of recreation, such as motorized travel. Impacts to special designations and the values for which they are designated are discussed in their respective sections of this chapter.

Resources

Management to protect soils and water quality and watershed management actions such as avoidance, mitigation, or application of BMPs (Appendix L) would protect water sources for campground facilities and would enhance recreation opportunities by providing potable water. Water and watershed management activities indirectly protect existing flow conditions and water quality that benefit activities and opportunities such as fishing and other river-related recreational activities, and maintains and enhances other related recreational resources.

Caves provide recreational opportunities but must also be protected for their unique and fragile biological and paleontological resources. Actions that restrict or limit access to caves for resource protection would result in adverse impacts to recreational use in these areas.

Short-term impacts to recreation from fire and fuels management would result in temporary closure of areas during and after fire events (including prescribed burns) and mechanized fuel treatments, which would displace recreationists. Long-term impacts from wildland fire may degrade the recreation setting and displace recreationists, but would also create new recreation opportunities and experiences.

Temporary recreation displacement would occur during commercial timber harvest activities because of a change in recreation settings, such as increased traffic, dust, noise, and loss of solitude. Logging operations that degrade the physical setting of naturalness may displace visitors. The intensity of the displacement would vary with the change in setting. Allowing harvests of minor wood products would provide recreation opportunities such as fuel wood gathering for campfires and may improve the recreation setting by improving forest health.

Vegetation management actions in riparian, wetland, and upland areas may displace recreationists from closed areas undergoing vegetation treatments (e.g., noxious weed control). In the long term, managing vegetation to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would, overall, maintain or improve the desired natural recreational resources and recreation setting conditions, thus improving desired opportunities, activities, experiences, and a realization of desired beneficial outcomes.

Fish and wildlife management decisions affect the habitat and health of fish and wildlife populations. Many recreation activities, such as hunting, wildlife viewing, bird watching, and fishing, would benefit from the presence of healthy and abundant wildlife habitats and populations. Spatial and temporal restrictions (e.g., CSU, TSL), and BMPs and mitigation to protect and improve habitat would benefit recreation under all alternatives, although the extent of these impacts varies by alternative. Management actions to protect or improve wildlife habitat that restrict certain activities, such as OHV use, may adversely affect some recreationists.

Wild horse management actions would protect, maintain, and control viable, healthy herds while retaining their free-roaming nature and providing opportunities for public viewing of wild horses. These actions would maintain a quality recreation setting and provide for unique supplemental values, opportunities, and experiences.

Management actions for cultural resources may require the relocation of potential recreation facilities in areas where the integrity of the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility. Areas containing significant cultural and paleontological resources may restrict certain recreational access or activities such as OHV use. However, developing cultural resource interpretive sites and making use of scenic overlooks, signs, and walking trails would increase recreation opportunities in these areas. Such actions may minimally impact recreation opportunities by moving facilities or rerouting access, displacing recreationists to other potentially less desirable areas.

Management of visual resources would maintain the overall integrity of the Planning Area’s scenic qualities while allowing for development of existing and future uses. Limiting the visual impacts of management actions in VRM Class I and II areas would retain the recreation setting, whereas VRM Class III and IV areas would allow more modification of the natural environment that may detract from the recreation setting. Altering the recreation setting would influence recreational activities and may displace some recreationists seeking a back country recreation setting. Managing WSAs as VRM Class I areas under all alternatives would benefit recreationists seeking back country settings.

Proactive Management

Recreation management provides opportunities for outdoor recreation activities at both developed sites and dispersed areas. Under all alternatives, the BLM would manage recreation to provide for visitor health and safety, coordinate with other programs to minimize conflicts and adverse impacts to recreation opportunities, protect resources, maintain the desired RSCC, and enhance recreation by managing for realization of desired beneficial outcomes. Proactive management actions that would benefit recreation under all alternatives include continuing a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws in the Castle Gardens Scenic Area; maintaining an easement across private land for public access to Rainbow Canyon; retaining recreational access in the Bighorn River HMP/RAMP area; and mitigating surface-disturbing and disruptive activities associated with constructing, maintaining, and using roads, campgrounds, interpretive sites, and other recreation facilities, as described in Appendix H. Short-term benefits from proactive recreation management actions would preserve or increase visitor satisfaction by maintaining recreational settings, opportunities, and experiences. Long-term benefits would result from sustained recreation activity and realization of beneficial outcomes.

Managing areas as SRMAs would result in beneficial impacts to recreation in the Planning Area. In identifying SRMAs, the BLM manages the respective areas to provide specific “structured” recreation opportunities (i.e., identified settings, activities, experiences, and beneficial outcomes). SRMA management focuses on meeting outcome objectives developed in response to identified desired activities, experiences, and benefits. Recreation settings are prescribed to achieve the outcome objectives and guide allowable use decisions and management actions. In areas managed as ERMAs, recreation is not the predominant resource use, but recreation is recognized as one of the many uses on public lands. ERMA management actions are custodial in nature to address visitor health and safety, user conflicts, resource protection, and local planning issues. Management actions in ERMAs would result in a lower amount of recreational related focus such as niche-matching, marketing, and desired RSCC than the SRMAs. Table 4–15 summarizes ERMAs and SRMAs by alternative.

Source: BLM 2009a

¹For Alternative D, this area is broken up into the West Slope SRMA (126,920 acres) and the West Slope of the Bighorns SRMA (191,465 acres), which contains the Canyons and the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZs.

Alternative A

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative A, a total of 136,415 acres of short-term and 15,710 acres of long-term surface disturbance is projected (Appendix T), most of which would result in adverse impacts to recreation. A portion of this disturbance would result from new facilities development (campsites, interpretive areas) and roads that may benefit recreation, but most would result in short- and long-term adverse impacts by displacing recreation and impairing the recreation setting for those seeking undisturbed landscapes. The intensity of impacts to recreation would depend on the location of surface disturbance in relation to the desired RSCC in the area being disturbed (see ’Impacts Common to All Alternatives’). Although Alternative A manages the second most acreage in SRMAs, it does not manage for the realization of desired outcomes and benefits to the same degree in these areas as alternatives B and D. Therefore, under Alternative A surface disturbance may limit the realization of benefits to recreationists more than alternatives B and D.

Resource Uses

Oil and gas development in areas of moderate potential (where most development is anticipated) is expected to add 1,130 new federal wells (Appendix T) resulting in 3,390 acres of short-term surface disturbance during the planning cycle (Appendix T). The additional oil and gas facilities, equipment, noise, dust, vehicles, night lighting, pipelines, and human activity would alter the recreation setting to an industrial setting in certain areas, which would interfere with recreationists’ goals, and influence their opportunities, activities, experiences, and benefits. Under Alternative A, 3,124,724 acres of BLM-administered surface are available for locatable mineral entry and 10,000 acres of long-term surface disturbance are projected from locatable mining activities. Minerals development would result in adverse impacts by displacing recreation opportunities in areas with degraded scenic qualities. The potential increase in the visitor concentration in alternate recreation settings may detract from the quality of recreational experiences in those areas, especially for those seeking solitude.

Acquisitions and land tenure adjustments under Alternative A may increase recreation opportunities and enhance recreationists’ experiences as described under ’Impacts Common to All Alternatives’. Considering and pursuing acquisitions for public access in areas such as the Bighorn and Greybull rivers and in SRMAs would result in beneficial impacts to recreation by increasing recreation opportunities in these areas.

Pursuing withdrawals results in beneficial impacts to recreation by reducing surface-disturbing activities associated with mining, protecting the scenic quality, and maintaining the recreation setting. Alternative A withdrawals of 174,554 acres, including the Beck Lake Scenic Area, result in a direct beneficial impact by preserving the recreation setting of this area.

The BLM considers renewable energy development, including wind-energy development, on a case-by-case basis throughout the Planning Area under Alternative A. Due to the lack of management actions to facilitate its consolidation, wind‐energy development may result in adverse impacts to recreation opportunities and scenic values important to the desired RSCC and associated opportunities, experiences, and benefits under Alternative A. The designation of ROW corridors would concentrate ROW authorizations and result in adverse impacts in and around these areas. However, concentrating ROWs in designated areas and avoiding or excluding ROW development in areas may result in beneficial impacts to recreation by prohibiting or limiting ROW infrastructure that can detract from the desired RSCC, opportunities, experiences, and benefits. Alternative A manages 941,778 acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation and 61,416 acres as ROW exclusion areas.

Alternative A places few restrictions on motorized vehicle use and most of the Planning Area is limited to existing roads and trails, which would result in beneficial impacts by facilitating access for recreation opportunities. Allowing OHV use for big game retrieval would result in beneficial impacts to hunting and recreation. Alternative A, however, opens the smallest area to off-road use, limiting recreation opportunities in this regard. In the 15-mile and Rattlesnake Ridge areas, where cross-country motorized travel is allowed or tolerated, recreationists would have off-road opportunities, though the use of these areas may result in adverse impacts to the cultural and recreational opportunities along some Other Historic Trails (see Chapter 3 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management for additional information). Allowing OHV use for big game retrieval, dispersed campsite access, and other “necessary tasks” may result in route proliferation and alterations to the scenic qualities of the landscape, which would affect the recreation setting and experience of those desiring solitude or primitive forms of recreation.

Closing Bighorn River tracts and campgrounds to livestock grazing, and managing livestock grazing for the protection and enhancement of other resource values, would maintain the recreation setting and minimize the potential for the displacement or impairment of recreation opportunities or experiences in these areas.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative A would affect the desired RSCC, opportunities, experiences, and realization of beneficial outcomes to recreationists in the Planning Area. Alternative A designates nine ACECs, seven of which have recreation values that include scenery, spelunking, hunting, and camping. Placing various restrictions on activities (e.g., mineral development, motorized vehicle use) that threaten the scenic values and natural setting in these areas would benefit these recreation values. Avoiding surface-disturbing activities and applying an NSO restriction within ¼ mile of the Nez Perce (Neeme-poo) NHT and Other Trails would preserve the recreation setting of these areas.

Managing WSR eligible waterway segments to protect their free-flowing characteristics and ORVs, including prohibiting water impoundments, limiting various mineral development activities, preventing an increase in grazing, and managing segments as VRM Class I or II would preserve the recreation setting and would maintain or enhance the primitive and recreational experiences and opportunities these segments provide. Under Alternative A, there are 12 WSR eligible waterways in the West Slope SRMA, and the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone segment is in The Rivers SRMA. Prohibiting water impoundments, major diversions, or hydroelectric power facilities; pursuing a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws; applying NSO restrictions, and limiting geophysical exploration to foot access on various WSR eligible segments would provide beneficial impacts by helping to maintain the desired setting and experiences in these areas. However, closing segments to recreational dredging would adversely affect recreation management by eliminating recreational opportunities in these areas and opening the Middle Fork of the Powder River, Dry Medicine Lodge Creek, and Paint Rock Creek Unit segments to various mineral activity (e.g., leasing, geophysical exploration).

Allowing motorized vehicle use in WSAs may adversely affect recreationists seeking a natural setting and solitude, although recreationists seeking opportunities for motorized travel in remote areas would benefit. The lack of management prescriptions in LWCs under Alternative A also would threaten the natural setting and opportunities for recreationists seeking solitude in LWCs. Prior to impacting or impairing wilderness characteristics in LWCs, however, Alternative A requires project specific reviews that could help reduce the potential for adverse impacts to wilderness characteristics and associated recreational values..

Resources

Impacts from water quality, watershed, and soils management would be similar to those discussed in the Impacts Common to All Alternatives section, except for the action authorizing surface discharge of produced water from oil and gas development. The surface discharge of produced waters would change the physical hydrology of receiving waters and may affect water quality and create additional temporary water sources or evaporation/infiltration reservoirs that would require reclamation upon project completion. Changes in water quality in recreational fisheries may alter aquatic habitats, as described under Section 4.4.5 Fish and Wildlife- Fish, and cause adverse impacts to fishing and other recreation opportunities provided by functioning and healthy aquatic habitat. Under Alternative A, the BLM allows recreational use of Spirit Mountain cave and manages cave and karst resources under the Worland Caves SRMA to provide for recreation opportunities. Although not requiring a minimum group size in caves may increase safety risks for recreationists, management actions under this alternative would primarily benefit users of caves for recreation.

Wildland fire management actions would allow wildland fire to play its natural role and would be used for resource benefit when appropriate. Short-term localized impacts to recreation from fire and fuels management, including prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments, would result in temporary closure of areas during and after fire events and activities, which would displace recreationists to other areas. Prescribed fires may result in long-term impacts from the displacement of some recreationists because of the altered recreation setting, but would prevent larger catastrophic fires that would displace recreation for a longer time and create long-term safety hazards (e.g., tree fall) for recreationists. Stabilization and rehabilitation activities after a wildfire may prohibit recreational use in the short term while the area recovers, but would reduce the potential for future fires and result in long-term benefits to recreation.

Forest management would use a full range of methods in a manner that protects and benefits watershed, wildlife, and riparian/wetland habitat values to improve forest health. Timber harvesting activities (projected to affect 30,000 acres under Alternative A) would temporarily displace recreationists because of a change of recreation settings, such as increased traffic, dust, noise, and loss of solitude; these activities would also cause a loss of recreation opportunities during logging operations. Timber harvesting, when completed, would alter recreation settings, which would influence recreational opportunities and experiences. In the long term, closing timber access and haul roads, although eliminating potential motorized recreational use, would provide nonmotorized access into areas for other recreational opportunities, activities, and experiences.

Short-term impacts from vegetation treatments would temporarily displace recreationists from treated areas to other areas. The long-term impacts would be to enhance the recreation setting and recreational experiences by improving vegetation health and wildlife habitat.

Management actions under Alternative A that benefit fish and wildlife would benefit recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, bird watching, and general wildlife viewing. However, management actions that restrict public access to protect wildlife or its habitat from disturbance (e.g., restricting OHV use in areas with fragile soils) would limit access for motorized recreation opportunities. These management actions would interfere with some recreationists’ goals and experiences, but would enhance the experiences and benefits for those pursuing nonmotorized related activities and experiences.

Impacts from management of cultural resources would be similar to those described under the Impacts Common to All Alternatives section.

VRM Class allocations for the Planning Area under Alternative A would result in beneficial impacts by preserving or retaining scenic qualities vital to the recreation setting in VRM Classes I and II (see Chapter 2). Requiring a VRM contrast rating worksheet in VRM Class I areas would help preserve the scenic characteristics of the landscape in these areas to be enjoyed by recreationists. However, limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in VRM Class I and II areas would reduce access for those seeking recreational motorized travel in these areas. The BLM manages many areas popular for recreational activities and opportunities as Classes III and IV, which allows for noticeable and observable changes in the landscape. These changes, or unnatural contrasts introduced to the landscape, would impact the desired settings, which would interfere with recreationists’ goals, experiences, and realized beneficial outcomes.

Proactive Management

Recreation Sites

Recreation management of developed sites would enhance recreation experiences and opportunities by prohibiting surface-disturbing activities (except those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat) and applying an NSO restriction in fishing and hunting access areas, the Five Springs Falls Campground, the Cody Archery Range, and R&PP lease areas for the Cody Shooting Complex and the Lovell Rod and Gun Club shooting range.

Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs, ERMAs)

Under Alternative A, the BLM manages eight areas as SRMAs (Table 4-15). The remainder of the Planning Area is in the Cody or Worland ERMA. The Impacts Common to All Alternatives section describes the benefits of designating SRMAs. The Recreation Management Area Matrix (Appendix O) provides a summary of management actions under each alternative in areas with specific recreation management designations. This section focuses on recreation management areas and proactive management actions under Alternative A that limit or prohibit resource uses and activities and result in beneficial impacts to recreation by maintaining or enhancing recreation settings, opportunities, experiences, and realization of beneficial outcomes.

Applying NSO restrictions on all or part of the Absaroka Foothills, Bighorn River, The Rivers, and Historic Trails SRMAs and the Canyon Creek Area would help maintain the recreational setting and experience in these areas by limiting surface access to oil and gas and other leasable minerals. Additionally, mitigation through activity-level planning on mineral leases in the following areas would minimize potential impacts to the recreation setting: the Badlands, Bighorn River, Absaroka Mountain Foothills, and West Slope SRMAs, and the Red Canyon Creek and Horse Pasture areas.

Closing the Bighorn River SRMA to surface‐disturbing activities, such as geophysical exploration and salable mineral exploration, would maintain the recreation settings important for river related activities such as fishing, hunting, and boating.

Managing the Bighorn River, West Slope, and The Rivers SRMAs as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas would help prevent recreation displacement by preserving the desired RSCC, opportunities, experiences, and beneficial outcomes. All SRMAs are open to renewable energy development under Alternative A; however, limitations on ROW authorizations would apply to the development of renewable energy and may restrict development or require mitigation to minimize adverse impacts to recreation. Wind-energy development would result in adverse impacts to recreation by diminishing the recreation setting.

Although limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails would restrict opportunities for motorized recreational travel, recreationists seeking naturalness and more primitive forms of recreation would benefit in the following areas: the Bighorn River (CYFO only), Absaroka Mountain Foothills, and West Slope SRMAs, and Red Canyon Creek areas; the North and South Forks of the Shoshone and the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone rivers; and portions of the McCullough Peaks and Newton Lake Ridge areas. Motorized vehicle use is limited to existing roads and trails in other recreation areas, with off-road use tolerated in the Basin Gardens Play Area and Rattlesnake Ridge area to maximize recreation opportunities for activities such as motocross and hill climbing. Allowing unrestricted, motorized access to the Rattlesnake Ridge area poses a health and safety risk by exposing recreationists to high levels of H₂S gas in the area.

SRMAs are generally managed as VRM Classes IV, III, and II under Alternative A, retaining the existing character of the landscape to preserve the recreation setting, but allowing management activities and facilities development to respond to recreational needs. Managing areas such as the Red Canyon Creek area, areas in the West Slope, Absaroka Mountain Foothills, and Badlands SRMAs as VRM Class II would retain the scenic characteristics of this area, benefitting recreationists seeking a natural setting.

Alternative B

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative B, a total of 73,919 acres of short-term and 10,882 acres of long-term surface disturbance is projected (Appendix T), most of which would result in adverse impacts to recreation. A portion of this disturbance would result from new facilities development and roads that may benefit recreation, but most would result in short- and long-term adverse impacts by displacing recreation and impairing the recreation setting for those seeking undisturbed landscapes. Alternative B would result in the least adverse impact to recreation from surface disturbance compared to the other alternatives. The intensity of impacts to recreation would depend on the location of surface disturbance in relation to the desired RSCC in the area being disturbed (see ’Impacts Common to All Alternatives’). Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage the largest acreage in SRMAs (Table 4-15) to maintain the desired RSCC, which would minimize the impacts of surface-disturbing activities where they would most adversely affect recreational experiences.

Resource Uses

Oil and gas development in areas of moderate potential (where most development is anticipated) is expected to add 509 new federal wells resulting in 1,527 acres of short-term surface disturbance during the planning cycle (Appendix T). Adverse impacts from oil and gas development under Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because Alternative B includes more restrictions on development. Under Alternative B, 2,918,444 acres of BLM-administered surface are available for locatable mineral entry (see Chapter 2) and the BLM projects 5,000 acres of long-term surface disturbance from mining activities. Adverse impacts from locatable mineral development would be similar to Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because Alternative B includes more mineral withdrawals (and less area open to mineral entry). Overall, management of minerals development under Alternative B would result in the least impacts to recreation compared to the other alternatives.

Acquisitions and land tenure adjustments under Alternative B would benefit recreation similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent. Pursuing acquisitions for public access in the Bighorn and Greybull rivers and recreation management areas would result in beneficial impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative B identifies more areas for acquisition for public access. Working collaboratively with landowners to pursue acquisitions under Alternative B also may increase the potential for adjustments that would increase recreational access and opportunities. The identification of land tenure adjustment zones would increase benefits associated with acquisitions and disposals by identifying areas where adjustments would improve recreation opportunities and may expedite transactions to realize the benefits. Under Alternative B, pursuing a withdrawal in the Beck Lake Scenic Area would benefit recreation by maintaining the recreation setting and public access in the area.

Alternative B manages a total of 2,717,617 acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation and 225,750 acres as ROW exclusion areas, resulting in similar impacts to those under Alternative A, but to a greater extent due to the consolidation of ROWs that would preserve the RSCC more than Alternative A. Reducing and consolidating potential renewable energy development under Alternative B, especially wind-energy facilities, would result in the least potential for recreation displacement and visual impacts to recreation settings compared to the other alternatives.

Alternative B places the most restrictions on motorized vehicle use and limits most of the Planning Area to designated roads and trails. Restricting motorized vehicle use under this alternative would benefit recreation opportunities for solitude, natural settings, and primitive forms of travel more than under Alternative A. Alternative B, however, opens a larger area to off-road use than Alternative A, providing more recreation opportunities in this regard. Prohibiting OHV use for big game retrieval, dispersed campsite access, and other “necessary tasks” would benefit recreationists seeking solitude and primitive forms of recreation, but would adversely affect recreationists seeking more accessibility for certain activities (e.g., big game retrieval or dispersed campsites). Restricting over-snow vehicle use to areas with a minimum average of 12 inches of snow or groomed trails would limit recreation opportunities for snowmobilers and public access for other recreational uses, such as hunting.

Under Alternative B, the BLM would close crucial winter range for elk and bighorn sheep and greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas to livestock grazing. This action may indirectly benefit hunters and wildlife viewers by reducing livestock forage competition with game species and may reduce adverse impacts of livestock grazing management to greater sage-grouse (see Section 4.4.9 Special Status Species - Wildlife for more information about the interaction between livestock grazing and greater sage-grouse).

Special Designations

Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage special designations for the desired RSCC, opportunities, experiences, and realized beneficial outcomes for recreationists in the Planning Area. Alternative B designates 17 ACECs, 11 of which have recreation values that include scenery, nature viewing, spelunking, hunting, and camping. The benefits of these designations would be similar to Alternative A, but to a greater extent because Alternative B includes more special designations that cover a greater area. Designating all LWCs as Wild Lands and managing them to protect these characteristics where they overlap the Absaroka Mountain Foothills (11,189 acres), West Slope (18,812 acres), Bighorn River (3,216 acres), McCullough Peaks (50,129 acres), and The Rivers (6,542 acres) SRMAs and the Tatman Mountains RMZ (24,017 acres) may result in beneficial impacts to recreation experiences in areas managed for back country desired RSCCs.

Designating the Hyattville Logging Road and the Hazelton Road as Back Country Byways and managing these areas for responsible recreation would increase opportunities for recreation in the Planning Area; however, designation may increase the use of these routes enough to diminish solitude and recreation setting and experiences. Avoiding surface-disturbing activities in view within 5 miles and applying an NSO restriction within 3 miles of the Nez Perce (Neeme-poo) NHT and Other Historic Trails would preserve the recreation setting of these areas to a greater extent than management under Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, the West Slope SRMA contains six WSR suitable segments and The Rivers SRMA contains one. Desired outcomes in the West Slope SRMA include experiencing the landscape and developing a greater awareness of outdoor aesthetics in back country and middle country natural settings. Desired outcomes in The Rivers SRMA include developing a closer relationship with the natural world in areas with a rural natural setting, and enjoying risk-taking adventure and increasing local tourism revenue. In addition to the actions restricting minerals development under Alternative A, Alternative B closes WSR suitable segments to mineral leasing and geophysical exploration. This would provide additional benefits by protecting the desired RSCC in these areas. However, prohibiting surface-disturbing activities in all WSR suitable segments may adversely affect recreational experiences, especially in The Rivers SRMA, where facilities may need to be upgraded or expanded to accommodate more visitors.

Benefits from management actions in WSR suitable segments would be similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent. Under Alternative B, all WSR eligible segments are recommended as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS, closing these areas to activities (e.g., surface-disturbing activities, ROW authorizations) that would degrade their free-flowing characteristics and ORVs. Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities in WSR suitable segments would preclude recreation facilities development that may enhance the recreational experience in some areas. Under Alternative B, 14 of the 20 WSR suitable waterways would be closed to motorized vehicle use, preserving the natural setting and enhancing the experience for nonmotorized, primitive recreation in these areas.

Allowing maintenance on pre-FLPMA (grandfathered) range improvement projects may affect recreationists seeking a natural setting and solitude in WSAs. Closing all WSAs to motorized vehicle use under Alternative B, though eliminating motorized recreation opportunities, would provide the greatest opportunities for solitude and unconfined, primitive recreation. Acquiring inholdings and/or lands or interest in lands in WSAs would also enhance the recreation setting for solitude and unconfined, primitive recreation in these areas and increase access. The BLM designates all LWCs as Wild Lands manages them to protect their wilderness characteristics. Because many LWCs are adjacent to WSAs, this management action would buffer the WSAs from activities that threaten the wilderness setting sought by recreationists in these areas.

Resources

Beneficial impacts from soils, water quality, and watershed management under Alternative B would be similar to those under Alternative A, although to a greater extent. Cooperating with local governments to develop watershed improvement practices that would reduce sediment in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs and address impaired waterbodies on the state of Wyoming 303d list would preserve water quality for recreational uses of these resources. Prohibiting the discharge of produced water would eliminate the associated impacts described under Alternative A. Stabilizing or relocating heavily eroded or washed out roads would also benefit water quality for recreational uses and motorized recreation opportunities.

Under Alternative B, the BLM allows commercial recreational use of Spirit Mountain cave and manages cave and karst resources under a separate cave and karst ERMA that would emphasize resource protection, address user conflicts, public health and safety, and maintain the desired RSCC. Requiring a minimum group size in caves may decrease safety risks for recreationists, but would also limit recreation opportunities in caves. Recreation opportunities also would be restricted during critical times for bats and when the safety of users is at risk. Management actions under this alternative would provide less structured recreation prescriptions for caves than under Alternative A.

Fire and fuels management actions under Alternative B would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because Alternative B includes less fuels treatments. Short-term impacts to recreation from disturbance associated with prescribed fire and treatments would be less than under Alternative A. Because Alternative B includes less fuels treatments, the risk of fuels buildup and larger catastrophic fires may be greater under this alternative. Fuels buildup and larger catastrophic fires may cause more long-term adverse impacts to recreation compared to Alternative A.

Impacts to recreation from forest management would be similar to Alternative A, although to a lesser extent. The BLM uses a full range of methods in a manner that protects and benefits watershed, wildlife, and riparian/wetland habitat values, but only harvests timber on approximately 20,000 acres during the planning cycle where natural processes are unable to accomplish forest health goals. Improved forest health would benefit the recreation settings and supplemental values, which in turn would influence overall recreation opportunities. As the forest declines in health, there may be adverse impacts to wildlife (e.g., big game) populations, resulting in adverse impacts to recreational experiences. Closing timber access and haul roads would result in the same impacts as Alternative A.

Impacts from vegetation treatments would be similar to Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because the BLM treats less acreage under Alternative B. In treated areas, managing toward 75 percent of Historical Climax Plant Community in grassland and shrubland communities and DPC in riparian/wetland areas may result in additional indirect benefits to recreationists by improving wildlife habitat to a greater extent than Alternative A.

Management actions under Alternative B that would benefit fish and wildlife would enhance recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, bird watching, and general wildlife viewing more than the other alternatives. However, these management actions also would restrict public access and limit opportunities for motorized recreational travel more than under the other alternatives.

Impacts to recreation from management of cultural resources would be similar to those noted under the Impacts Common to All Alternatives, although to a greater extent. For example, to minimize issues such as looting, limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in the Bighorn Slope, Bridger, Owl Creek, and Absaroka Foothills areas would adversely affect opportunities for motorized recreation.

VRM Class allocations for the Planning Area under Alternative B would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent. Pursuing conservation easements on lands adjacent to areas managed as VRM Classes I and II and requiring a contrast rating worksheet for proposed actions in areas managed as VRM Classes I, II, and III would result in additional benefits to recreation experiences by maintaining the recreation setting in these areas. Closing VRM Class I areas to motorized vehicle use would eliminate motorized recreation opportunities over a large area (154,343 acres) and cause adverse impacts to motorized recreational use.

Proactive Management

Recreation Sites

Recreation management of developed sites would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent. More acreage would receive high priority recreation management under Alternative B than any other alternative, which may result in greater realized beneficial outcomes from specifically targeting the desired RSCC to enhance activities and experiences. In addition, management of popular recreation sites in the Bighorn Basin ERMA (e.g., Castle Gardens, Duck Swamp, and Nowater OHV Trail System) would result in beneficial outcomes, without the additional prescriptions from management as an SRMA, as ERMAs would receive the recreation management needed to address conflicts, health and safety, and resource protection.

Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs, ERMAs)

This section focuses on recreation management areas and proactive management actions under Alternative B that limit or prohibit resource uses and activities and result in beneficial impacts to recreation by maintaining or enhancing recreation settings, experiences, and opportunities. The Recreation Management Area Matrix (Appendix O) summarizes management actions under each alternative in areas with specific recreation management designations.

Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage 12 areas as SRMAs, including expansions of the Badlands and West Slope SRMAs (Table 4-15). The remainder of the Planning Area is in the Bighorn Basin ERMA. The Impacts Common to All Alternatives section describes the benefits of managing SRMAs. Within the 12 SRMAs, the BLM will manage nine RMZs for distinct recreational products strategically targeted to meet market demand and to manage for realized beneficial outcomes. RMZs may result in more benefits than solely SRMA designations by meeting specific niche demands, activities, opportunities, experiences, and benefits.

The BLM manages the Tour de Badlands RMZ in the Badlands SRMA, the Trapper Creek, Paint Rock, Brokenback/Logging Road, and South Bighorns RMZs in the West Slope SRMA, and the Red Canyon Creek and The Rivers SRMAs for motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities such as hiking, wildlife viewing, and fishing. The BLM emphasizes primitive, nonmotorized recreation opportunities in the Wild Badlands and Tatman Mountain RMZs in the Badlands SRMA, and the Canyon Creek, McCullough Peaks, Horse Pasture, Beck Lake, and Newton Lake Ridge SRMAs. Limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in most of these areas would result in beneficial impacts to recreation experiences by reducing the potential for user conflicts. Closing the Beck Lake and Newton Lake Ridge SRMAs to motorized vehicle use would adversely affect opportunities for motorized recreation, but would benefit less intensive recreation opportunities such as mountain biking, hiking, and wildlife viewing. Unrestricted, off-road motorized recreation is consolidated in the Basin Gardens Play Area RMZ to maintain an undisturbed recreation setting and benefit recreation opportunities for primitive uses and solitude in other areas of the Planning Area. The Rattlesnake Ridge area is closed due to health and safety hazards associated with H2S emissions from oil and gas development. This would interfere with motorized recreation and displace these users to other areas, potentially creating new conflicts.

Alternative B includes the most proactive management actions to retain the scenic landscape characteristics of areas with recreational value to maintain the desired RSCC. These actions include applying an NSO restriction in all SRMAs, closing all SRMAs to surface-disturbing activities, and managing all SRMAs as ROW avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas.

In addition to placing the most restrictions on incompatible uses to preserve the recreation setting in SRMAs, the BLM also expands recreation facilities and amenities in SRMAs and RMZs the most under Alternative B to enhance the experience of primary recreation users. For example, adding designated trailheads and hiking trails in areas managed for nonmotorized uses (e.g., Canyon Creek SRMA), and vehicle touring loops in areas managed for motorized recreation opportunities as well (e.g., the Trapper Creek, Paint Rock, and Brokenback/Logging Road RMZs), would beneficially impact the recreational experiences in these areas while minimizing the potential for user conflict.

The BLM manages VRM Classes in SRMAs and RMZs consistent with their targeted benefits under Alternative B. All SRMAs and RMZs with substantial scenic values that are important to the recreational experience are managed as VRM Class II to retain the existing character of the landscape, while the Basin Gardens Play Area, where the recreational experience requires opportunities for off-road motorized recreation that partially alter the existing landscape, is managed as VRM Class III.

Although managing recreation more proactively under Alternative B to strategically targeted demands would enhance recreation opportunities and experiences in most areas, restricting recreation opportunities (especially dispersed motorized recreation) in some areas may result in localized adverse impacts to recreationists.

Alternative C

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative C, a total of 245,783 acres of short-term and 41,545 acres of long-term surface disturbance is projected (Appendix T), most of which would result in adverse impacts to recreation. A portion of this disturbance would result from new facilities development and roads that may benefit recreation, but most would result in short- and long-term adverse impacts by impairing the recreation setting, which would displace those seeking undisturbed landscapes to more suitable areas. Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impact to recreation from surface disturbance compared to the other alternatives. The intensity of impacts to recreation would depend on the location of surface disturbance in relation to the desired RSCC in the area being disturbed (see ’Impacts Common to All Alternatives’). Although the custodial management actions in ERMAs would result in limited benefits to recreational experiences, Alternative C manages the least acreage as SRMAs and pursues the least marketing and maintenance of the desired RSCC. Therefore, surface disturbance may affect benefits to recreationists the most under this alternative.

Resource Uses

Oil and gas development in areas of moderate potential (where most development is anticipated) is expected to add 1,257 new federal wells resulting in 3,771 acres of short-term surface disturbance during the planning cycle (Appendix T). Adverse impacts to recreation from oil and gas development under Alternative C would be similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative C includes more projected development. Under Alternative C, 3,165,898 acres of BLM-administered surface are available for locatable mineral entry (see Chapter 2) and 10,000 acres of long-term surface disturbance are projected from mining activities. Adverse impacts from locatable mineral development would be similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative C opens more area to locatable mineral entry and pursues withdrawals in the least amount of area. Overall, minerals development under Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impacts to recreation compared to the other alternatives.

Acquisitions and land tenure adjustments under Alternative C would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a lesser extent. Alternative C identifies less area for acquisition and more area for disposal than Alternative A. In addition, under Alternative C, the BLM would use acquisition in recreation areas primarily to address use and user conflicts and not to meet management objectives and desired recreation settings and opportunities in these areas. Under Alternative C, the BLM would not actively pursue acquisitions for public access to enhance recreational opportunities in the Bighorn River. This would place recreational access to the river as a low priority, which would affect both recreational opportunities and experiences, and the benefits of recreation to local tourism. The identification of land tenure adjustment zones would result in beneficial impacts similar to Alternative B.

Under Alternative C, the BLM would not pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws in the Beck Lake Scenic Area, which may cause adverse impacts to recreation by allowing mining activities that potentially displace recreationists or diminish their experiences in this area.

Under Alternative C, the BLM would manage a total of 1,174,335 acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas and 7,762 acres as ROW exclusion areas, resulting in similar impacts to those under Alternative A, but to a greater extent due to more area managed as avoidance/mitigation or exclusion. Alternative C opens a total of 1,425,335 acres to renewable energy development. Alternative C may consolidate renewable energy development, such as wind-energy facilities, more than Alternative A, but not as much as Alternative B, resulting in correlated impacts from displacing recreationists and from visual impacts that may impair recreationists’ experiences.

Alternative C places similar restrictions on motorized vehicle use as Alternative A, but more area is limited to designated roads and trails and open to off-road use. Limiting motorized recreation to designated roads and trails in more area would result in a lower potential for user conflict between motorized and primitive recreationists. However, allowing motorized vehicle use across the largest area and closing the least area under this alternative would cause greater adverse impacts to recreation opportunities for solitude, natural settings, and primitive forms of travel than the other alternatives. The greater accessibility for motorized vehicle use under Alternative C may adversely affect adjacent private lands by increasing the potential for recreationists to trespass. New route development from off-road use also would cause the greatest potential for altering the recreation setting for users seeking undisturbed landscapes. As under Alternative A, allowing cross-country motorized use in the 15-mile and Rattlesnake Ridge areas would provide opportunities for recreationists interested in riding off-road, but may result in adverse impacts to the cultural and recreational opportunities along some Other Historic Trails (see Chapter 3 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management for additional information). Allowing OHV use for big game retrieval, dispersed campsite access, and other “necessary tasks” would result in impacts similar to Alternative A.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative C would result in impacts similar to Alternative A. However, the BLM does not manage livestock grazing to protect and enhance other resource values, which may result in greater potential adverse impacts to recreational experiences where grazing practices conflict with recreational values, such as opportunities for solitude or back country settings.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative C would affect the opportunities, experiences, and settings available to recreationists less than the other alternatives. Alternative C designates no additional ACECs to those designated under all alternatives. Therefore, only the Spanish Point Karst and Brown/Howe Dinosaur Area ACECs would result in beneficial impacts by providing recreation opportunities for rock climbing, caving, and hiking and maintaining the scenic qualities of the area. No additional back country byways would be designated under this alternative to benefit recreation. Surface disturbance and NSO restrictions around the Nez Perce (Neeme-poo) NHT and Other Historic Trails would result in similar beneficial impacts to those described under Alternative A. However, more utility corridors may affect the recreational setting of the trails under this Alternative.

Under Alternative C, the BLM would not apply any special management actions to WSR eligible waterway segments. Allowing other uses in these areas (e.g., oil and gas leasing, geophysical exploration) would result in the greatest potential adverse impact to recreational opportunities, settings, and experiences in these areas compared to the other alternatives. Back country and more primitive forms of recreational opportunities available in these waterway segments, such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and sightseeing, would be adversely impacted, which would result in non-realization of beneficial outcomes. Such impacts may also result in adverse impacts to local tourism and its associated benefits.

Impacts from WSAs would be similar to those under Alternative A. However, the BLM limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in the Honeycombs and Cedar Mountain WSAs under Alternative C, which may result in fewer opportunities for motorized recreationists but would enhance the experience for those seeking solitude and primitive recreation. The converse would be true in the remainder of the WSAs, where Alternative C allows motorized vehicle use to a greater extent than Alternative A. Potential impacts to recreationists from the lack of management prescriptions in LWCs would be similar to those under Alternative A.

Resources

Beneficial impacts from soils, water quality, and watershed management under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because Alternative C includes fewer restrictions. Addressing impaired waterbodies on the state of Wyoming 303d list may enhance water quality for both recreational resources and recreational uses of these resources, but a lack of watershed improvement practices would result in the greatest potential for sedimentation in waterbodies that have recreational values. Allowing the discharge of produced water would result in impacts similar to Alternative A. Stabilizing heavily eroded or washed out roads would benefit water quality for recreational uses.

Impacts to recreational users of cave and karst resources under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative B. Under Alternative C, the BLM encourages commercial caving tours of Spirit Mountain cave, which would enhance opportunities for tourists but may diminish experiences or reduce opportunities for local recreationists. Encouraging tourism may also affect cave and karst resources by exceeding the Limits of Acceptable Change and Carry Capacity. These impacts can degrade physical characteristics, which may result in adverse impacts to recreational experiences and benefits.

Fire and fuels management under Alternative C would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative C includes more prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments. Short-term localized impacts to recreation from prescribed fire and fuels treatments would be greatest under Alternative C. Due to increased fuels treatments under Alternative C, the risk of fuels buildup and larger catastrophic fires may decrease under this alternative. Decreased fuels buildup and larger catastrophic fires may result in greater long-term benefits to recreation compared to the other alternatives.

Impacts to recreation from forest management would be similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent. The BLM uses a full range of timber harvesting methods to maximize forest products. Timber harvesting on approximately 40,000 acres during the planning cycle would have the greatest potential to displace recreation or adversely affect the recreation setting in the long term. However, using a full range of silviculture techniques to manage insect and disease may help prevent the spread of infestations and preserve the recreation setting. Allowing timber access and haul roads to remain open for new recreational purposes would result in increased accessibility and new recreation opportunities, but also may impact the recreation setting in remote areas by altering scenic characteristics or the recreation experience for those seeking solitude.

Impacts from vegetation treatments under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative A, although to a greater extent because the BLM treats more acreage under Alternative C. Not managing habitat such as crucial winter range to meet DPC objectives most beneficial for the identified species may result in fewer indirect benefits to recreationists through improving vegetative health for wildlife habitat.

Management actions under Alternative C that would benefit fish and wildlife would enhance recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, bird watching, and general wildlife viewing; however, benefits impacts would be the least under Alternative C compared to the other alternatives. These management actions would permit public access and create opportunities for motorized recreational travel the most compared to the other alternatives. Semi-primitive settings would be affected by this management, and recreationists desiring those settings would not achieve a realization of beneficial outcomes and may seek those benefits in other areas.

Impacts from cultural resources management under Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B.

VRM Class allocations for the Planning Area under Alternative C would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent. Exempting all mineral actions and activities in designated ROW corridors from contrast rating worksheets would make these developments more visible from surrounding areas, increasing adverse impacts to the setting for recreationists seeking natural landscapes. Under Alternative C, the BLM does not limit motorized vehicle use by VRM Class, increasing opportunities for motorized recreation in scenic areas, but also increasing the potential for new trail and route development to alter the recreation setting for more primitive forms of recreation.

Proactive Management

Recreation Sites

Alternative C would involve the least proactive management to maintain or enhance the desired RSCC, enhance recreationists’ opportunities and experiences, and to realize beneficial outcomes. Allowing surface-disturbing activities (e.g., geophysical exploration and salable minerals development) in fishing and hunting access areas; the Five Springs Falls Campground; the Cody Archery Range; and R lease areas for the Cody Shooting Complex and the Lovell Rod and Gun Club shooting range may displace recreation and adversely affect the recreation setting. This would be most notable in the Five Springs Falls Campground and other areas where recreationists may seek a generally undisturbed setting.

Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs, ERMAs)

Under Alternative C, the BLM manages only the Rattlesnake Ridge SRMA, and manages the remainder of the Planning Area under the Bighorn Basin ERMA or as separate ERMAs (Table 4-15). Management actions in ERMAs are less proactive to enhance recreation opportunities or experiences, and are primarily custodial in nature. By designating only one SRMA, Alternative C would result in the fewest proactive measures to manage for desired RSCC, opportunities, activities, experiences, and desired beneficial outcomes.

Alternative C also places the fewest restrictions on resource uses and surface-disturbing activities to maintain the recreation settings in areas managed as SRMAs under Alternative B (Appendix O). In most areas with recreational use, scenic values are important to recreationists’ experiences. Allowing activities such as mineral development and ROW authorizations (i.e., wind-energy development) in these areas would result in the highest potential for degradation of generally undisturbed areas that benefit recreationists’ experiences in popular areas such as the Absaroka Foothills, Badlands, West Slope, Red Canyon Creek, and the Bighorn River.

Allowing more development and motorized vehicle use (permitted on existing roads and trails in all recreation areas except the Trapper Creek area in the Spanish Point Karst ACEC under Alternative C) would diminish the desired settings and those setting-dependent resources and opportunities for solitude in several places. Areas such as the Tour de Badlands (as delineated in Alternative B) produce recreation opportunities for motorized travel and sight‐seeing, and for solitude in natural landscapes, which would be threatened by unrestricted motorized vehicle use in remote areas. Other areas where expanded motorized vehicle use would threaten opportunities for solitude include the Absaroka Foothills, West Slope of the Bighorns, Canyon Creek, and McCullough Peaks areas. Because the BLM expects OHV use to increase throughout the Planning Area, opportunities for primitive forms of recreation and solitude would decrease unless the BLM limited or closed motorized vehicle use in certain areas.

Under Alternative C, the BLM manages most recreation areas as VRM Classes III and IV, allowing for the greatest alteration of the natural landscape in these areas. For example, this alternative manages the Red Canyon Creek area as VRM Class IV, which would result in the fewest measures to protect the scenic qualities that contribute to the recreation setting of this area.

Designating and expanding the Rattlesnake Ridge SRMA for the allowance of off-road motorized vehicle use, despite potential health and safety risks, would enhance opportunities for motorized recreation and meet the niche demand for activities such as all-terrain vehicle and motorbike use.

Alternative D

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative D, a total of 140,508 acres of short-term and 28,079 acres of long-term surface disturbance is projected (Appendix T), most of which would result in adverse impacts to recreation. Impacts would be similar in type and extent to those under Alternative A. The intensity of impacts to recreation would depend on the location of surface disturbance in relation to the desired RSCC in the area being disturbed (see ’Impacts Common to All Alternatives’). Alternative D manages less acreage in SRMAs than Alternative A, but specifically identifies desired outcomes and RSCCs in SRMAs—and applies certain restrictions to better maintain them, which may limit adverse impacts from surface disturbance to recreation management more than Alternative A.

Resource Uses

Oil and gas development in areas of moderate potential (where the most development is anticipated) is expected to add 1,032 new federal wells resulting in 3,096 acres of short-term surface disturbance during the planning cycle (Appendix T). Adverse impacts from oil and gas development under Alternative D would be similar to Alternative A, although to a lesser extent. Adverse impacts from locatable mineral development would be similar to Alternative A, although may affect a larger area because Alternative D makes more acreage available for locatable mineral entry.

Acquisition and land tenure adjustments under Alternative D would result in impacts similar to Alternative C, although to a greater extent. Alternative D identifies less land for disposal and more land for acquisition than alternatives A and C. The identification of land tenure adjustment zones would result in benefits similar to Alternative B. Under Alternative D, the BLM pursues acquisitions for public access to enhance recreational opportunities in the Bighorn River more actively than under Alternative C, but less so than under alternatives A and B. Pursuing a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws in the Beck Lake Scenic Area would result in the same benefits as Alternative A.

Renewable energy development and ROW development would result in impacts similar to, but to a greater extent than alternatives A and C (and a lesser extent than Alternative B). Under Alternative D, the total area managed as ROW exclusion or avoidance/mitigation is larger than under alternatives A and C, which is likely to result in a greater consolidation of ROWs with proportional benefits to the RSCC and recreational opportunities and experiences.

Travel and transportation management under Alternative D would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A; however, Alternative D places more restrictions on motorized vehicle use, which would result in greater benefits to recreation opportunities for solitude, natural settings, and primitive forms of travel. Alternative D manages the second most acreage as open to cross-country motorized travel, augmenting recreation opportunities in this regard more than alternatives A and B, but less than Alternative C. Restricting off-road motorized vehicle use in areas with limited travel designations to within 300 feet of roads and trails would result in impacts similar to Alternative B, although to a lesser extent.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative D would result in impacts similar to Alternative A.

Special Designations

The ACECs designated under Alternative D would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative D designates three additional ACECs with recreational values. Alternative D also restricts certain resource uses and activities (e.g., minerals development) in the Chapman Bench Management Area to protect sensitive wildlife habitat that may benefit recreational wildlife viewing opportunities, especially bird watching.

Back country byway designations under Alternative D would result in benefits similar to Alternative B, although to a lesser extent because the BLM would not designate the Hazelton Road but would consider designating new back country byways on a case-by-case basis in cooperation with stakeholders. The BLM applies measures to protect the scenic qualities of the Nez Perce (Neeme-poo) NHT and Other Historic Trails in a more discretionary manner under Alternative D than under the other alternatives. The BLM may protect the viewshed in a larger area around the trails than under alternatives A and C, but with the use of mitigation measures and BMPs, may allow more activities that may affect the scenic quality of the trails (e.g., a CSU restriction versus an NSO restriction).

The BLM does not apply any special management actions to WSR eligible segments under Alternative D, and impacts would be similar to Alternative C.

The potential beneficial impacts to recreationists from designating some LWCs as Wild Lands (52,485 acres) under Alternative D would be similar to those described under Alternative B, but to a lesser extent.

Resources

Beneficial impacts from soils, water quality, and watershed management under Alternative D would be similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent than alternatives A and C and a lesser extent than Alternative B. Developing watershed improvement practices; cooperating with adjacent landowners, managers, and the Wyoming DEQ to address waterbodies that do not meet state water quality standards; and giving priority to stabilizing or relocating heavily eroded or washed out roads would result in benefits similar to Alternative B.

Allowing for commercial tours of Spirit Mountain cave would result in impacts similar to Alternative C. Impacts to recreation opportunities in caves from requiring minimum group sizes and closing caves for critical bat periods and to protect user safety would be similar to Alternative B.

Based on the extent of treatment estimated from the acreage of projected surface disturbance from prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments (Appendix T), fire and fuels management under Alternative D would result in impacts similar to Alternative A.

Forest, woodlands, and forest products management under Alternative D would result in similar impacts as Alternative A, except that using the full range of silviculture techniques to manage endemic insect and disease would result in the same benefits as Alternative C.

Based on the acreage of projected surface disturbance (Appendix T), vegetation treatments would result in similar impacts as Alternative A. Managing grassland and shrubland communities toward achieving 65 percent of Historical Climax Plant Community would result in indirect benefits similar to Alternative B.

Management actions under Alternative D would benefit fish and wildlife, and therefore enhance recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, bird watching, and general wildlife viewing, more than alternatives A and C but less than Alternative B. Correspondingly, management actions to protect wildlife habitat would restrict public access and limit opportunities for motorized travel more than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B.

Impacts from management of cultural resources would be similar to those described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

VRM Class allocations under Alternative D would result in impacts to recreation similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative D allocates more acreage in VRM Classes I and II. Not limiting motorized vehicle use by VRM Class would result in similar impacts as Alternative C.

Proactive Management

Recreation Sites

Under Alternative D, the BLM would pursue a greater degree of proactive management to maintain or enhance the desired RSCC in recreation sites than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B. Alternative D applies the same NSO restrictions in recreation sites as Alternative B, but allows surface-disturbing activities, similarly to Alternative C, in recreational sites and trails on a case-by-case basis.

Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs, ERMAs)

This section focuses on recreation management areas and proactive management actions under Alternative D that limit or prohibit resource uses and activities and would result in benefits to recreation by maintaining or enhancing recreation settings, experiences, and opportunities. The Recreation Management Area Matrix (Appendix O) summarizes management actions under each alternative in areas with specific recreation management designations.

Under Alternative D, the BLM would manage 12 areas as SRMAs, but the Absaroka Foothills, Bighorn River, West Slope, and The Rivers SRMAs are substantially smaller than under Alternative A; the Badlands SRMA increases by approximately 7,000 acres. The Impacts Common to All Alternatives section describes the benefits of managing SRMAs. In addition to the Bighorn Basin ERMA, Alternative D identifies five separate ERMAs. The Impacts Common to All Alternatives section describes Impacts from managing ERMAs. Within the 12 SRMAs, the BLM manages five RMZs; see Alternative B for a description of the beneficial impacts of RMZs.

The BLM manages Tour de Badlands RMZ in the Badlands SRMA, the Canyons and Brokenback/Logging Road RMZs in the West Slope SRMA, and the Middle Fork of the Powder River, The Rivers, Beck Lake, and Newton Lake Ridge SRMAs for motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities such as hiking, wildlife viewing, and fishing. The BLM emphasizes primitive, nonmotorized recreation opportunities in the Wild Badlands and Tatman Mountain RMZs in the Badlands SRMA, and the Absaroka Foothills, Canyon Creek and Horse Pasture SRMAs. Limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in these areas, except for the Horse Pasture SRMA and the Wild Badlands RMZ, would result in beneficial impacts to recreation experiences by reducing the potential for user conflicts. Limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in the Horse Pasture SRMA would increase the potential for user conflicts and may adversely affect recreation experiences in the area. This impact would be minimal due to the low amount of roads within the area. Designating roads and trails will aid in maintaining the desired settings, activities, and experiences by enhancing the naturalness of the area. Limiting motorized vehicle use in the Beck Lake and Newton Lake Ridge SRMAs would result in impacts similar to Alternative B, although to a lesser extent. Managing the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA for motorized recreation opportunities would result in impacts similar to Alternative B, but increasing its size under Alternative D would benefit recreation to a greater extent by responding more appropriately to the increasing demand for motorized recreation opportunities. Managing the Rattlesnake Ridge area as a separate ERMA would maintain the current recreational opportunities resulting in benefits similar to Alternative C, although to a lesser extent because the area is not managed as open to cross-country motorized travel, nor will the area be marketed as an OVH area. Management prescriptions specific to this separate ERMA will address the safety concerns (primarily the H2S hazard) and conflicts due to the oil and gas activities and the motorized recreational activities. Actively addressing these issues will maintain and enhance the desired experiences and beneficial outcomes.

Alternative D includes the second most proactive management actions to retain the scenic landscape characteristics of areas with recreational value to maintain the desired RSCC. Within SRMAs, these actions include applying a CSU stipulation, allowing surface-disturbing activities only if the effects can be avoided or mitigated based on site-specific analysis, and managing most SRMAs as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas.

However, maintaining the desired RSCC in Alternative D will not be as effective as Alternative B. Managing the SRMAs without an NSO stipulation will allow surface-disturbing activities that may not effectively be mitigated, which will compromise the desired settings. Impacts to the settings within the SRMAs will adversely impact the goals and experiences desired by those visiting the area. These areas are managed for community, destination, and undeveloped strategies, which commits the BLM to effectively manage these areas to meet the identified expectations (settings, experiences, and benefits) of the community, and those who travel from outside the region to enjoy the SRMAs. Settings compromised by surface-disturbing activities will interfere with visitors’ goals and experiences, which will displace visitors to alternative areas. This goal interference and displacement will adversely impact local tourism and will not meet the objectives of the SRMAs.

The beneficial impacts from expanding SRMAs and separate ERMAs would be similar to those under Alternative B, although to a lesser extent because Alternative D manages less acreage of BLM-administered public lands as SRMAs.

VRM Class allocations under Alternative D would result in benefits to the recreation setting similar to Alternative B in the Absaroka Mountain Foothills, Bighorn River, Canyon Creek, and Newton Lake Ridge SRMAs and the Canyons and Brokenback/Logging Road RMZs. Managing the West Slope and The Rivers SRMAs as VRM Classes II and III would result in a greater beneficial impact by preserving the desired RSCC in these areas than under alternatives A and C, but less than under Alternative B. Allocating VRM classes consistent with other resource objectives in the Tour de Badlands and Tatman Mountain RMZs, the Horse Pasture and Beck Lake SRMAs, the South Bighorns and Red Canyon Creek ERMAs, and McCullough Peaks area may cause adverse impacts to the recreation setting. This would be especially true in areas where the desired RSCC depends more on a back country setting, such as the Tatman Mountain RMZ and the Red Canyon Creek and South Bighorns ERMAs.