conservation corridorconservationcorridor.org/cpb/jones_et_al_2004.pdf · heart of the west...

H of the

Westeart

Conservation Plan

Heart of the West Conservation Plan

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Heart of the West Coalition staff, volunteers, funders andreviewers – past, present, and future – for daring to imagine the Heart of the Westregion whole again and working to make this vision a reality.

Wolf Howie Garber and

Wunderlust Images

Chief authors and developers of the

wildlands network and conservation plan

While many individuals offered assistance inwriting and editing the plan, the chiefdesigners of the wildlands network andauthors of the plan and focal species ac-counts are:Allison JonesJim CatlinTom LindJerry FrelichKirk RobinsonLiz FlahertyErik MolvarJeff KesslerKathy Daly

Organizations of the

Heart of the West Coalition

The following organizations spent count-less hours on all levels of development,analysis, writing and implementation ofthe Heart of the West vision:Biodiversity Conservation AllianceWestern Wildlife ConservancyWildlands ProjectWild Utah ProjectWyoming Outdoor Council

Other supporting organizations

Other regional conservation groups, whilenot a core member of the Heart of the WestCoalition, supported the development ofthe wildlands network and writing of theConservation Plan through stakeholdermeetings and workshops, input andfeedback on draft maps, and peer review:American WildlandsCenter for Native EcosystemsCraighead Environmental ResearchInstituteNational Wildlife FederationRound River Conservation StudiesThe Nature Conservancy of Colorado,Utah and WyomingThe Wilderness SocietyWyoming Wildlife FederationYellowstone to Yukon Initiative

Funders

We thank the following foundations for the support that has made the development ofthis vision possible:George and Delores Dore Eccles FoundationJEPS FoundationJones Family Charitable FoundationMaki FoundationPeradam FoundationSwitzer FoundationTurner FoundationWalbridge FoundationWilburforce Foundation

Peer Reviewers

A vast number of individuals were involved in various rounds of peer review, fromreview of individual focal species accounts and focal species models, to input on meth-odology and draft maps, to rigorous review of the final Conservation Plan:Tom Rinkes, Mark McKinstry, Bruce Baker, Stewart Breck, Sanjay Pyare, Dave Gaillard,Bob Oakleaf, Brian Miller, Erin Robertson, Bob Luce, Jeff Copeland, Kim Heinemeyer,Bill Adair, Erin O’Doherty, Dave Parsons, Bob Schmidt, Al Steuter, Glen Plumb, PeterGogan, Steve Dinsmore, Fritz Knoph, Mark Salvo, Don Duff, Mike Young, RonRemmick, Wayne Hubert, Sherry Ligouri, Jeff Smith, Rich Reynolds, Susan Patla, PaulDey, Rich Valdez, Denver Holt, Andrea Cerovski, Greg Hayward, Kevin Hurley, MeravBen-David, Pam Shnurr, Tom Beck, Chuck Shwartz, Nick Bezzerrides, Kevin Bestgen,Angie Young, Reed Noss, Barbara Dugelby, Richard Jeo, Sam Zeveloff, Ken Vance-Borland, Lance Craighead, Joel Tuhy, Chris Montague, Gary Beauvais, Holly Copeland,Joni Ward, John Carter, Jen Clanahan, Kelly Matheson, Meredith Taylor, Mac Blewer,Rick Tingey, Bart Kohler, Doug Plugh, Phil Polzer, Bill Martin, Bruce Marcot, DaveForeman, and Michael Soule’.

Layout and publishing team

Bill Hayden provided instrumental assistance as the chief designer of this plan, and wasin charge of the layout. Additional assistance was given by Allison Jones, Jim Catlin andJerry Frelich. Duplication of both CD and hard copy versions of this report are theresponsibility of the Wild Utah Project. To receive a CD or hardcopy of the conservationplan, please contact:

Wild Utah Project

68 South Main Street, Suite 400

Salt Lake City, UT 84101

(801) 328-2550

[email protected]

www.wildutahproject.org

1


Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background ................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction to the Heart of the West Region ............................................. 2

1.2 Regional Description .................................................................................. 4

1.2.1 The Physical Environment ........................................................................... 6

1.2.2 Vegetation Communities .......................................................................... 10

1.2.3 Wildlife ..................................................................................................... 13

1.3 Land Use History, Management and Patterns ........................................... 15

1.3.1 Overview and History ............................................................................... 15

1.3.3 History of Wildlife and Habitat Conservation in

the Heart of the West ................................................................................ 20

1.3.4 Land Use and Industry in the Heart of the West........................................ 21

1.4 Need for Large-scale Conservation Planning for

the Heart of the West ................................................................................ 27

1.5 Ecological Wounds .................................................................................... 30

1.6 Mission, Goals and Objectives of this Conservation Plan .......................... 33

1.6.1 Mission ..................................................................................................... 33

1.6.2 Goals ......................................................................................................... 33

1.6.3 Objectives ................................................................................................. 34

Chapter 2 - Methods for Creating the Wildlands Network ......................... 35

2.1 Study Area ................................................................................................ 35

2.2 Our Approach to Conservation Assessment and Reserve Design .............. 38

2.2.1 Three-track Approach ............................................................................... 38

2.2.2 Core/Linkage Model ................................................................................. 42

2.2.3 The Precautionary Principle ...................................................................... 43

2.3 The SITES Model ....................................................................................... 44

2.3.1 Variables in SITES Model ........................................................................... 44

2.3.2 Special Elements ....................................................................................... 49

2.3.3 Representation Analysis ............................................................................ 51

2.3.4 Focal Species ............................................................................................. 56

2.3.5 Determining Core Areas, Linkages and Compatible Use Areas in

Lowland Wildlands Network ..................................................................... 59

2.4 Advanced work on Lowlands Wildlands Network ..................................... 60

2.5 Irreplaceability and Vulnerability of Lowland Cores ................................. 62

2.6 Expert Assessment .................................................................................... 66

2.7 Assumptions and Limitations .................................................................... 66

2


Chapter 3 - Results of SITES Analysis .......................................................... 69

3.1 Results of Natural History Literature Reviews and

Focal Species Models ................................................................................ 69

3.2 Proposed Set of Cores, Linkages and Compatible Use

Areas for Lowlands Study Area .................................................................. 70

3.3 Irreplaceability vs. Vulnerability Assessment ............................................ 79

3.4 Linking Lowland Solution with Other Conservation

Planning Efforts ........................................................................................ 83

3.5 Goal Attainment ....................................................................................... 89

Chapter 4 - Introduction to the Heart of the West Wildlands Network...... 91

4.1 Wildlands Network Unit Classification and Management Guidelines ....... 93

4.1.1 Core Areas ................................................................................................ 93

4.1.2 Core Recovery Areas ................................................................................. 94

4.1.3 Linkages.................................................................................................... 95

4.1.4 Compatible Use Area ................................................................................ 96

4.2 A Closer Look at Key Core Areas - Heart of the West Lowlands .................. 97

4.3 Highlighting Key Linkages in the Lowlands Heart of the West

Wildlands Network ................................................................................. 128

4.3.1 The Powder Rim Linkage ........................................................................ 128

4.3.2 The Green River Corridor Linkage ........................................................... 129

Chapter 5 - Implementation of the Heart of the West Wildlands Network .. 135

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 135

5.2 General Implementation Approach: Affecting Management

Change for Wildland Network Units ....................................................... 138

5.2.1 Recommended Changes in Land Use or Management ............................ 139

5.2.2 Design Management Tools Based on Conservation Biology.................... 139

5.2.3 Conservation Action: Planning Amendment or Project Action ................141

5.2.4 Conservation Initiatives .......................................................................... 143

5.2.5 Monitoring of Focal Species and their Habitat ........................................ 143

5.2.6 Further Scientific Study and Conservation Plan Revision ........................ 143

5.2.7 Using the Implementation Flowchart - Sage Grouse Example ................. 144

5.3 Conservation Plan Prescriptions ............................................................. 146

5.3.1 Baseline Information............................................................................... 146

5.3.2 Measurable Ecological Goals ................................................................... 146

3


5.3.3 Monitoring ..............................................................................................147

5.3.4 Prescription Stipulations for Activities in Cores and Linkages ................. 148

5.3.5 Stipulations that Apply Throughout the Network ................................... 149

5.3.6 Private Lands Within the Wildlands Network ...........................................151

5.4 Protective Land Designations ................................................................. 152

5.5 An Implementation Example: BLM’s Vernal Field Office

Resource Management Plan.................................................................... 153

5.6 A Note on Implementation Strategies ..................................................... 160

5.7 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 162

Chapter 6 - Discussion and Conclusions ................................................... 163

6.1 The Benefits of a Wildlands Network to Local Communities ................... 164

6.2 The Future of the Heart of the West ........................................................ 165

6.3 Data Gaps, and Research/Inventory/Monitoring Needs.......................... 168

6.4 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................... 169

1

Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background

there is a grave need to take a proactiveapproach to biological conservation in theHeart of the West in order to preventfuture listings of threatened and endan-gered species and further losses of impor-tant native species and communities. Theanalysis described in this report seeks totake this proactive approach to regionalconservation by using a comprehensiveand scientifically rigorous process ofdelineating core areas for proposed protec-tive measures, linkages to connect thosecores together, and compatible use areasthat will ensure human uses in a mannercompatible with ecosystem needs.

This analysis and conservation plan isfocused on the scale of entire ecoregions tobetter capture and subsequently protectbiodiversity across a range of environmen-tal gradients. Ecoregions are large areassharing similar vegetation, climatic re-

Medicine Bow Peak, in the Medicine Bow National Forest, WY Erik Molvar

This plan features the culmination of threeyears of work by numerous organizationsseeking to produce a blueprint for effectiveland conservation across a region of theMiddle Rockies that we call “the Heart ofthe West.” We chose to follow the lead ofthe Wyoming Game and Fish’s sagebrushhabitat modeling effort, the WyomingWildlife Federation’s “Restoring WildPatterns” campaign, and the U.S ForestService’s linkage directive, and produce acomprehensive plan for habitat protectionin this often overlooked heart of theRockies. If implemented, this wildlandsnetwork could ensure the protection andrestoration of biodiversity and ecologicalintegrity throughout the Heart of the WestRegion of northeast Utah, southeast Idaho,western Wyoming and northwest Colorado.

With the rapid expansion of energy explo-ration and development in the region,



2

gimes, and ecological processes. Themodels used to delineate wildlands net-works use vast amounts of data inputs,ranging from information on past, current,and future land uses to specific locations ofconservation targets in the region. We usedthe best data available to us, but because ofincomplete information and data providedat various scales, combined with the reality

of ecological change over time, we ac-knowledge the limitations of our analysis.We therefore will employ the precaution-ary principle as we forge ahead into theimplementation stage of land protectionfor the Heart of the West. This will be aniterative process, in which we will periodi-cally update or revisit parts of this designas new information becomes available.

1.1 Introduction to the Heart of the West RegionOur world is increasingly crowded bypeople and their needs, both real (air, water)and imagined (SUVs, trophy homes). Thepast 30 years has seen a doubling of theglobal population from 3 to 6 billion people.Our planet’s life-support system continuesmaking oxygen, purifying our wastes, andcycling the nutrients we need to survive. Buthow long can the planet continue to supporthuman increases of this magnitude? Theworld’s other creatures and the native plantsthat support all life are pushed into smallerand smaller enclaves. It is from this vantagepoint that we consider the Heart of the West.

The western Great Plains and RockyMountain Front present a vast area for-merly grazed by bison that were a staple ofNative Americans for thousands of years.When Lewis and Clark crossed the West,the U.S. population was a scant 5 millionaccording to the 1800 Census. Currentestimates of the Native American popula-tion range from 1-10 million before Euro-peans arrived. Two hundred years later,with a U.S. population of 285 million, thewestern plains and the region we call theHeart of the West represent one of the leastpopulated parts of the country outsideAlaska. Despite the eradication of thebison and their replacement with cattleand the settlement of a few large cities, theHeart of the West region still presents one

of the most intact regions to be found inthe contiguous 48 states (Freilich et al.2001). We need this wild country to remainintact, not only for ecological services likeclean air and water, but also for a ground-ing in and honing of self-reliance, indepen-dence, and the myriad other qualities thatformed the basis of the western frontier.

The Heart of the West includes both theWyoming Basins Ecoregion and the Utah-Wyoming Mountains Ecoregion thatsurround the Wyoming Basins, as well assome adjoining connections with theadjacent Southern Rocky MountainsEcoregion and Utah High PlateausEcoregion (Figure 1.1). Totaling more than65 million acres, the Heart of the Westincludes almost the entire state of Wyo-ming with the exception oft its easternplains. It also includes pieces of Idaho,Montana, Colorado and Utah.

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem an-chors the northwest corner of the Heart ofthe West. It is a land of superlatives. Itcontains the greatest concentration ofthermal activity (i.e. geysers, hot springs)in the world. The region contains a mini-mum of 337 species of mammals, birds,and fish, and more than 12,000 species ofinsects. Not surprisingly, the GreaterYellowstone Ecosystem is a world heritage


3

Figure 1.1 The greater Heart of the West region

site (World Heritage 2003). Totaling over18 million acres (Greater Yellowstone2003), it includes the headwaters of 12major rivers, Yellowstone and Grand TetonNational Parks, parts of seven NationalForests (4 million acres of which are man-

aged as wilderness), three National Wild-life Refuges, plus BLM, State, private, andNative American Sovereign lands. In 1872Yellowstone National Park was set aside,in part because the US government de-cided the land was not, and would not

We need this

wild country to

remain intact,

not only for

ecological

services like

clean air and

water, but also

for a grounding

in and honing of

self-reliance,

independence,

and the myriad

other qualities

that formed the

basis of the

western frontier.


4

likely become, “useful.” This Americantreasure was protected due to its perceivedremoteness, inaccessibility, and harshclimate. Due to the fortunate preservationof Yellowstone as the nation’s first Na-tional Park, this area still contains nearlyits full complement of native species.

Surrounding the Greater Yellowstone tothe east and south are low-lying basins ofsagebrush punctuated with forestedmountain “islands.” Although oftendisrupted by human activities today, thelowlands were the winter destination of avast hoofed migration, following patternsexisting for millennia. They were joined bya cornucopia of predators, scavengers, anddecomposers that used to follow this

mobile feast. These lowlands were home-steaded by European settlers in the later1800s and early 1900s. The settlers discov-ered what the Native Americans hadknown for thousands of years - that theland and its climate are harsh. Rainfall issparse and winters are brutal. It’s a roughspot for people to live. Despite the bisonbeing gone and oil and gas drilling rigsdotting the landscape, the land still pre-sents much of the appearance it did hun-dreds of years ago. True, the large preda-tors have been nearly extirpated, leadingto significant shifts in the species present.But these lands still offer the empty spaceand freedom from pavement and perma-nent development that could promise afuture for ecosystem restoration.

1.2 Regional DescriptionOur Heart of the West study area encom-passes two complete ecoregions (the Utah-Wyoming Mountain and the WyomingBasins Ecoregions), and small parts of twoadjacent ecoregions - the Southern RockyMountain and Utah High PlateauEcoregions, (Figure 1.2). The US ForestService was among the first to realize theneed for planning across state lines, follow-ing more natural boundaries. The ForestService’s Robert Bailey (1995a, 1995b) wroteseveral important works delineating bound-aries for ecoregions of North America. Baileyrecognized the Greater Yellowstone Ecosys-tem as part of his Southern Rocky MountainSteppe Ecoregion and its surroundingsagebrush basins as the Columbia-SnakeRiver Plateaus/Wyoming Basin Ecoregion.In the 1990s, The Nature Conservancy (TNC)changed these names and somewhat alteredthe boundaries, including the Yellowstone inthe Utah-Wyoming Rockies Ecoregion andthe lowlands into the Wyoming BasinsEcoregion. TNC’s Utah-Wyoming Rockies

Ecoregion also includes the Wasatch andUinta Mountains of Utah and the BighornMountains of Wyoming which we alsoinclude in the Heart of the West.

Large, natural landscapes such asecoregions may be the most appropriatescale for conservation and land manage-ment activities (Noss and Cooperrider1994). The myriad ecosystems containedwithin ecoregions have close ecologicalrelationships, including correspondingnatural processes such as nutrient flowsand natural disturbances. Recognizingthese relationships across the landscapehas become an essential component ofconservation efforts and natural resourcemanagement activities. This is in sharpcontrast to resource management andprotection activities of the past that werelargely carried out within politicallydefined landscape units, such as nationalparks, national forests, or states.


5

Figure 1.2 The various ecoregions that comprise the greater Heart of the West region

Although TNC and other conservationorganizations have found it useful to makeplans for specific ecoregions, our plan for theHeart of the West encompasses two entireecoregions and crosses two additionalecoregional boundaries. Our boundaryaccounts for large animals (particularly

ungulates and carnivores) that moved freelyacross these ecoregional boundaries beforeEuropean settlement. The area that wedescribe below was until very recently awilderness of immense biological richness…and to some degree it remains so today.


6

1.2.1 The Physical Environment Forming the southern boundary, the Heartof the West lowlands includes the UintaBasin and Book Cliffs of Utah and theRoan Cliffs in Colorado. The Basins areseparated into the distinct watersheds ofthe Green, the Bighorn, the Sweetwater,the North Platte, the Yampa, the LittleSnake, and several smaller rivers (Figure1.3). Although the largest rivers aredammed and regulated (e.g., the Green,the Platte, and the Bighorn), several others(e.g. the Yampa and the Sweetwater)maintain a natural flow regime and arebiologically precious because of it.

One particularly outstanding feature of theWyoming Basins is the existence of long,linear ridges of sand dunes (some running100 miles or more) such as the Killpeckerdune field that stretches approximatelyfrom the town of Farson to the Ferris Moun-

Killpecker sand dunes, WY Scott Smith - www.ScottSMithPhoto.com

Cold desert basins form the heart of theregion and include more than 35 millionacres of sagebrush (Artemesia sp.) steppe.This includes most of western Wyomingincluding the Bighorn Basin, the WindRiver Basin, the Green River Basin, and theGreat Divide Basin, and extends into theupper North Platte watershed along theSweetwater, North Platte, and Laramierivers. To the south, the Piceance Basin,Uinta Basin, and Bear Lake and its associ-ated drainage basin form the southernboundary of the Heart of the West low-lands. This basin region includes the onlypart of Montana in our study area, at thenorth end of the Bighorn Basin and thePryor Mountains. To the west, the Heart ofthe West lowlands include Bear Lake andits associated drainage basin in extremesoutheastern Idaho and northeastern Utah.


7

Figure 1.3 Major rivers and their tributaries in the greater Heart of the West region

tains. The dunes may either be activelymoving as winds deposit and rearrange thesand, or they may be stabilized by thegrowth of plants. Ponds frequently occurbetween the dunes. Plant life on the dunesmay be quite specific to these harsh locationsand may include blowout grass (Redfieldiaflexuosa), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis

hymenoides), sandhill muhly (Muhlenbergiapungens), and the federally endangeredblowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii)(Knight 1994, Fertig 2001).

The mountains of the Heart of the Westare anchored by the 26.8 million acres ofthe high elevation Greater Yellowstone


8

Ecosystem which includes theAbsarokas, Wind Rivers, and WyomingRanges. (figure1.1) Moving away fromthe Yellowstone area to the east, theHeart of the West encompasses theBighorn Mountains. Moving west andsouth the Heart of the West includes theCommissary and Salt River ranges ofsouthwest Wyoming and southeastIdaho, the Wasatch Range and Uintas ofnorthern Utah, and a portion of thesouthern Rockies, including the Medi-cine Bow and Laramie ranges whichreach north towards the Bighorns tocomplete the circle of ranges whichdefine the Heart of the West. Althoughthe majority of these Heart of the Westmountain ranges have peaks lower than9,000 ft., a single point, Gannett Peak, inthe Wind River Range, marks the highpoint of the ecoregion at 13,804 ft.

Smaller mountain ranges occur throughoutthe large basins of the Heart of the Westlowlands. These dozen or so mountainranges (e.g., the Ferris, Bridger, Owl Creek,Pryor Mountains, and the RattlesnakeHills) are in many respects mountain“islands” in a “sea” of sagebrush. Asdescribed below, some of these isolatedmountains have led to many animal racesevolving unique traits compared to othersubspecies or disjunct populations onlarger and contiguous ranges nearby.

The Heart of the West is primarily a highelevation system. More than ninety percentof the ecoregion lies between 5,900 and7,800 ft. (1,800-2,400 m). For this reason,and the northern latitude of the area (40-45o), the climate is harsh. In the low-lyingbasins within the Heart of the West, annualprecipitation is only 6-10” a year, thoughrainfall amounts may reach 16” at the baseof the mountains (Western Regional Cli-

mate Center 2003). Temperatures in thebasins range from bitter cold in winter tohot in the summer, with temperaturesbelow freezing possible every month of theyear. The fact that most of the precipitationin the basins falls as snow is beneficial tothe desert plant communities found there;snowmelt is more readily absorbed byplants than sudden rainfall (Knight 1994).Lastly, it’s hard to ignore the wind insouthern and central Wyoming as a driv-ing factor in shaping vegetation communi-ties in some sites. Indeed, it is as importantas soils and precipitation.

The climatic conditions of the mountainsthat surround the low-lying basins areeven harsher than those of the lowlands.The climate in these mountains is gener-ally characterized as cold continental, withmost precipitation falling as snow duringthe winter months (Noss et al. 2002).Winters in the Heart of the West moun-tains are generally long and summersshort. Snow cover at 7,000 feet in theYellowstone region typically lasts for about213 days per year, and lasts another 29days for every 1000 feet of elevation gain(Despain 1990). In general, the westernpart of the Utah-Wyoming mountains inIdaho and adjacent parts of Montana andWyoming receives the greatest annualprecipitation, in part because it is influ-enced to some extent by Pacific storms(Noss et al. 2002). For example, the south-ern part of the Yellowstone region receivesmore than 80 inches of precipitationannually (Despain 1990).

Alternatively, the eastern and northernedge of the Utah-Wyoming mountainsdownslope from high mountains like theWind Rivers, Absarokas, Gravelly’s andBeartooth Mountains, are the driest part ofthe mountain ranges. For instance, the


9

Bridger Desert, just east of the BeartoothFront on the Montana-Wyoming border,receives as little as 6 inches of precipitationa year (Merrill and Jacobson 1997). This isgenerally the result of a rainshadow effect.Also, areas further south and east in theUtah-Wyoming mountains receive propor-tionally more precipitation in the summer,particularly by thunderstorms (Whitlockand Bartlein 1993). Areas receiving thispattern of rainfall include the Wind Rivers,Wyoming, Salt, Wasatch and Uinta ranges.

The soils of the region are quite varied,and reflect the result of interacting forcesduring thousands of years and the varyinginfluences of climate, topography, geologicsubstrate, vegetation and time. The soilsare often shallow and not well developed,largely a result of recent glaciation in themountains, an abundance of erodibleslopes, and a comparatively dry, coolenvironment that slows soil development(Knight 1994). Some areas of the WyomingBasins Ecoregion, such as places that

Adobetown, WY Erik Molvar


10

contain the Mowry, Steele, Belle Fourche,Pierre and Thermopolis formations thatare high in shale content, have soils rich inclay (Freilich et al. 2001). These areasexpand and contract as they wet and dry,preventing much establishment of vegeta-tion. Other areas derived from mudstonesand siltstones are highly erodible, formingthe characteristic buttes and cliffs we know

as badlands (i.e. Hell’s Half-acre west ofCasper, Freilich et al. 2001). In general,organic matter of soils increases nearhistoric deposits of lava and ash (i.e. theAbsaroka mountains and YellowstonePlateau), and when elevation is gainedfrom basin bottoms to mid-level mountainranges, where plant production andweathering are highest (Knight 1994).

1.2.2 Vegetation CommunitiesVegetation is extraordinarily diversewithin the Heart of the West (Figure 1.4)because the region spans across numerouslife zones from the highest alpine zones ofbare rock, cirque lakes, and glaciers, to thelowest, driest areas at 4,500 feet dominatedby sagebrush and greasewood (Sarcobatusbaileyi). Two thirds of the rare plantsendemic to Wyoming are found within theHeart of the West (WNDD 2003) in partdue to this impressive diversity of lifezones in the region.

Most of the Wyoming Basins Ecoregion issagebrush steppe - a shrubland mosaicdominated by Wyoming big sagebrush(Artemesia tridentata) and various species ofbunchgrass, such as western wheatgrass(Elymus smithii), blue grama (Boutelouagracilis), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis)and needle-and-thread grass (Stipa comata).In places of shallow soil and on wind-swept ridges, Wyoming big sagebrushmay be replaced by black sagebrush(Artemesia nova) or communities of cushionplants. In more moist locations silversagebrush (Artemesia cana) may thrive(Knight 1994). Areas of higher salinity,alkaline soils and less precipitation tend tobe dominated by greasewood, shadscale

saltbush (Atriplex confertifolia), four wingsaltbush (Atriplex canescens) or winterfat(Ceratoides lanata), interspersed with a fewbunchgrasses such as bluebunch wheat-grass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) and prairiejunegrass (Koeleria macrantha). These plantcommunities are typically found whereprecipitation is less than 10’’ annually andwhere the soils contain high concentra-tions of salts (Freilich et al. 2001). In someplaces, the soil surface is white fromaccumulated salts. If alkaline areas occurin moist spots or seeps, playas may formwith differing amounts of vegetationregulated by soil characteristics (Knight1994). Threatened and endangered plantsfound in the lower elevations within theHeart of the West include desertyellowhead (Yermo xanthocephalus) andblowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii).

Moving up into the mountains of the Heartof the West that surround the basins,1

Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperusscopulorum) is typically the tree species thatdelineates the lower boundary betweenshrub zones and coniferous zones, and iscommon in transition zones such as thefringes of the Bighorn Mountains, in thesouthern Uintas, and in most of southeast

1Present vegetation in the various life zones in the Heart of the West, while predictable to some degree, are not staticforest stands. Depending on moisture, temperature, and type of disturbance and how recent it was, the dominantspecies in these communities can shift (i.e., mid seral lodepole pine can become dominated by other species such asdouglas fir, and seral sub-alpine fir can be dominated by other species).


11

Bare Ground Tundra

Evergreen Forest

Deciduous Forest

Herbaceous Rangeland

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Grass Rangeland

Shrub and Brush Rangeland

Urban/Unknown

Water

Figure 1.4 Vegetation types in greater Heart of the West region

Idaho (Noss et al. 2002). Ponderosa pine(Pinus ponderosa) is relatively scarce in theregion and tends to be found in areaswhere summer precipitation is highest,such as on the eastern and southern slopesof the Uintas (Knight 1994). Douglas fir

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) somewhat takes theplace of ponderosa where the latter speciesis absent. Douglas fir then transitions tolodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) at higherelevations. Lodgepole pine is the mostnumerous tree species on lower and flatter


12

areas in the Utah-Wyoming mountains.Lodgepole pine trees by the millions arethe dominant landcover over most ofYellowstone and Grand Teton NationalParks. Leaving the lodgepole tracts,middle elevation slopes are covered withsubalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) andEngleman spruce (Picea englelmanii).Moving higher still, the vegetation transi-tions through limber pine (Pinus flexilis)

extensive continuous occurrence of alpinetundra in the lower 48 states (Noss et al.2002). Extensive tracts of alpine tundra arealso common in the Wind Rivers,Absarokas, Uintas, and Bighorns (Despain1973).

In the Utah-Wyoming mountains, areasfurther to the south and east (i.e. theWind Rivers, Wyoming, Salt, Wasatchand Uinta ranges) receive relatively moresummer precipitation than the moun-tains in the north and west (Despain1990, Whitlock and Bartlein 1993). Thismay be one of the driving factors in theobserved increased abundance of aspen(Populus tremuloides) and willows (Salixsp.) in the southern and southeast por-tions of the Utah-Wyoming Mountains,and the near absence of large concentra-tions of these species in the northeastpart of the Utah-Wyoming mountainchain (Noss et al. 2002). Rare and en-demic plants found in the higher eleva-tions within the Heart of the West in-clude Shultz’s milkvetch (Astragalusshultziorum) and Absaroka beardtongue(Penstemon absarokensis).

Running throughout both the mountainsand basins as arteries of life-blood, areriparian corridors. Vegetated by aspenand several cottonwood species (Populussp.), willow and alder (Alnus sp.) thick-ets, ninebark (Physocarpus sp.), red osierdogwood (Cornus sericea), wild rose (Rosawoodsii), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana)and occasionally box elder (Acernegundo), these corridors provide abun-dant food, physical shelter, and life-giving water to dozens of species ofwildlife such as neotropical migrantbirds (Freilich et al. 2001).

and, in northern portion of the area,whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) communi-ties, and eventually into tundra-like mat-forming plant communities with a uniqueflora and extreme resistance to harshconditions. More than half of the BeartoothMountains consist of tundra, the most

Lodgepole Pine NPS


13

1.2.3 WildlifeKnopf 1996). This list of rare and sensitivebird species barely begins to describe thebiological treasure found in this vast area.

In the Utah-Wyoming mountains, thepresent fauna includes some of the mostcharismatic mammal species found in thecontinental U.S. Federally listed grizzlybears (Ursus horribilis), Canada lynx (Lynxcanadensis) and gray wolves (Canis lupis),as well as bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis)make this area home. Wolverine (Gulogulo), fisher (Martes pennanti) and otherforest carnivores, now declining elsewhere,can still be found here. Vast numbers of elk(Cervus elaphus) roam the area as well.Thanks to reintroduction, the most signifi-cant remaining herd of bison (Bison bison)in North America can be found in theHeart of the West (Clark and Stromberg1987). The southern-most chain of theUtah-Wyoming mountains (Salt, Commis-sary, Wasatch and Uinta ranges) and thenorthwest corner of the Southern RockyMountains have suffered greater specieslosses than the Greater Yellowstone Eco-system (Noss et al. 2002). Populations ofsome species, particularly predators, werelocally extirpated in the nineteenth andtwentieth centuries. Still, some of these

The stream courses and rivers includehabitat for several rare and federally listedfish species including Bonneville(Oncorhynchus clarki utah) and ColoradoRiver cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkipleuriticus), Colorado pikeminnow(Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gilacypha), bonytail (Gila elegans), and razor-back sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) (Baxterand Stone 1985). Sinuous riparian corri-dors and small patches of off-corridorwetlands are home to a small number ofamphibian species such as the boreal toad(Bufo boreas), many of which are disappear-ing (Blaustein and Wake 1995).

More than 350 species of birds are reportedin the Heart of the West, including such rarebreeding species as the harlequin duck(Histrionicus histrionicus), bald eagle(Haliaetus leucocephalus), trumpeter swan(Cygnus buccinator), and boreal owl (Aegoliusfunereus). The Heart of the West is home tonumerous grassland birds, such asMcCown’s longspur (Calcarius mccowni),grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramussavannarum), and mountain plover(Charadrius montanus). The grassland birdguild has been identified as the nation's mostendangered group of birds (Samson and

Grizzly Bear NPS Trumpeter Swan NPS


14

areas, such as the Uinta and Bighornmountains, may be large enough to some-day support self-sustaining populations oflarge predators such as lynx, wolverine,gray wolf and grizzly bear.

As described above, small isolated moun-tain ranges dot the basins in the Heart ofthe West. These isolated “island” mountainranges support distinct populations ofmammals that have differentiated fromtheir conspecifics on larger, more contigu-ous mountain ranges. For example, theexistence of unique subspecies in theBighorn mountains such as the BighornMountain snowshoe hare (Lepus americanusseclusus) and pika (Ochotona princepsobscura) suggest that populations of otherboreo-alpine mammals, such as Americanmarten (Martes americana), red squirrel(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), and red-backedvole (Clethrionomys gapperi), may havesimilarly diversified across this region(Beauvais 2000). Other species such asblack bears (Ursus americanus) and borealowls use these “islands” as stepping stonesbetween larger blocks of suitable habitat inthe Heart of the West.

In the basins at the feet of the Utah-Wyo-ming mountain chains, one can find otherexamples of unique and important fauna. Alittle known biological wonder housedwithin the Red Desert of southern Wyomingis North America’s largest desert elk herd.2

In the days before European settlement, thesagebrush shrublands were home to millionsof white-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomysleucurus), whose burrows and diggingactivities provided soil aeration, and foodand shelter for other animals (Whicker &

Detling 1988). The prairie dog lands werehome to an entire community of animalsassociated with prairie dog habitat. Fre-quently found in connection with prairie dogcolonies were ferruginous hawks (Buteoregalis), mountain plover, swift fox (Vulpesvelox), burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia),and black footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes),one of the nation’s most endangered species.Today, black-footed ferrets hover near theedge of extinction and the other prairie dog-dependent species are declining as prairiedog numbers decline due to sylvatic plague,deliberate poisoning, shooting, and wide-spread habitat degradation (Davitt et al.1996, Clark and Stromberg 1987).

Today we think of grizzly bears, wolverines,elk, and wolves as forest animals. But Lewisand Clark did not. These species have beenprohibited from persisting at lower eleva-tions because humans claimed their sage-brush/grassland homes and eliminatedthem (Freilich et al. 2001). In truth, if bisonwere re-established, and wolves, grizzlies,and prairie dogs flourished on the plains andprairies, Americans could again see the landas the early Native Americans or earlysettlers saw it. The Heart of the West projectis a planning effort that attempts to depictthe ecology of this area as it once was, and asit once again might be.

2This desert elk herd – one of only a very few in the world - is the result of reintroductions of Rocky mountain elk in theearlier part of the 20th century to the Jack Morrow Hills region of the Red Desert. Today numbering between 1,000 and2,000 individuals, there is currently debate among scientists and conservationists regarding whether this herd isgenetically distinct from montane elk in southwest Wyoming, and whether the elk remain fidelic to the desert becausethey are restricted by roads and other developments.


15

1.3 Land Use History, Management and Patterns

1.3.1 Overview and HistoryThe Days of the Mountain-Men and the Trapper

A few French fur traders first penetratedthe Heart of the West country in the 1790s,but it was famed mountain man and Lewisand Clark expedition veteran John Colterwho first brought back tales of Yellowstoneand its abundant wildlife after spendingthe winter of 1807-1808 there. RobertStuart, a young Scotsman, in 1812 led aparty of Astorian fur trappers from themouth of the Columbia River all the wayover South Pass. He was the first knownwhite man to cross the Great Divide,although his discovery was largely ignoreduntil trapper Jedediah Smith, travelingwestward in search of rich hunting grounds,stumbled through South Pass in 1823. Due toSmith’s reports and subsequent reports fromGeneral William Ashley in 1825 and thesuccess of two female missionaries, NarcissaWhitman and Eliza Spalding, who were thefirst white women to cross the Divide in1836, the stream of pioneers flowing west-ward over South Pass to the Oregon Terri-tory, California and Utah exponentiallyincreased, starting the largest mass migrationwestward in North American history. By1900, over 450,000 pioneers crossed throughSouth Pass along the Oregon, California andMormon Pioneer Trails. Some would stay inSouth Pass and throughout parts of Wyo-ming, but most would doggedly continueonto the west coast or Utah.

The fur-trade flourished from the 1820swell into mid 1830s, until the internationalfur trade largely collapsed in 1839. By the1870s most of the beaver (and much of theother fur-bearing wildlife) in the WindRiver Range, Green River and other partsof Wyoming were fairly well trapped out.The last wild bison was shot in the RedDesert by 1890. Inevitably, the heavy

trapping and hunting conducted by themountain men and pioneers, coupled withthe bison extirpation policies of the FederalGovernment (to keep the American Indi-ans in check) led to a huge toll on theregion’s wildlife.

Between 1867 and 1869, the Union PacificRailroad received Government grantstotaling $27 million to build a railwayacross the states of Utah, Wyoming, andNebraska, thus linking the West and Eastcoasts. In the summer of 1868, up to 6000men were employed in railroad construc-tion and “railway towns” were brought tothe Heart of the West where none hadexisted before- including Cheyenne,Laramie, Rawlins and Green River. In1886, the railroad would come out ofNebraska to tie in Lusk, Douglas andfinally, Casper. By the time the territorybecame a state in 1890, the railroads hadbrought increased commerce, communica-tion and an important outlet to the outsideworld. Bringing settlers and businessmento the territory, in turn, the railroadsprovided invaluable shipping for coal, oiland other products.

Beaver Chewed Cottonwood Stump NPS


16

Maturation of settlement and transition to the presentbeing Native American territory into someform of federally protected status. Al-though ranching did eventually becomequite popular on the lower lands, theregion’s elevation and brutal climateenforced a low population densitythroughout the twentieth century.

Today, as with the cattle and sheep ranch-ing “boom” of the twentieth century, theHeart of the West exhibits a general pat-tern of lowland settlement and develop-ment, and upland protection. Indeed, thispattern is common throughout the West.Recent studies (notably Gap Analysis)show that protected lands are dispropor-tionately at high elevation where the landwas not originally viewed as “useful,”whereas lowlands and river corridors aretoday most impacted by human activities(Scott et al. 2001).

The Pinnacles, in the Great Divide Basin, WY Erik Molvar

Several historical facts explain why thelandscapes across the Heart of the West arelightly populated and relatively intacttoday. At the turn of the twentieth century,more Native Americans lived here thanEuropean settlers, and in many ways, thiswas the farthest edge of the frontier. Thearea was considered so remote, so difficultto reach, and had such severe climate thatno one in Washington D.C. saw mucheconomic potential for it. Gradually, hardycattle ranchers settled the valleys and riveredges. The high country was intenselylogged in some places, but early protectionwas granted to both Yellowstone (thenation’s first National Park, 1872) andShoshone National Forest (the nation’sfirst National Forest, 1891), which form thenorthwest anchor of the Heart of the Westtoday. When all was said and done, muchof the Heart of the West went directly from


17

The Heart of the West reflects the conse-quence of that dichotomy. Willow thicketsand cottonwood river bottoms are nowwidely replaced by hay fields. Since theend of World War II, oil and gas explora-tion and development and the accompany-ing roads have permeated the Heart of theWest basins, from the Bighorn to the Uinta.Long-time ranchers continue to raise cattledespite harsh conditions and low com-modity prices. Successful conservationstrategies used by TNC and other landtrusts encourage ranchers to continueranching through conservation easementsand their related tax benefits.

Today, at less than 500,000 people (and withmore pronghorn than people), Wyoming hasthe lowest population in the 50 states.However, there are indications that this maynot be the case for long. Five million Ameri-cans visit the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystemeach year to see and experience wild nature,especially bears, wolves, and large ungu-lates. Gateway communities reap substantialeconomic benefits from these tourists.Vacation homebuilders and telecommutersare rapidly developing the scenic regionsnear these communities, capitalizing on theeternal appeal of unspoiled nature. Today,we see a trend in settlement, where propertyvalues in scenic areas are steadily increasing.Wealthy capitalists from cities buy hugespreads that may continue to be ranched butwithout the need to turn a profit. Post-wardevelopment of the interstate highwaysystem and affordable automobiles have alsoaffected the region, helping Americans betteraccess the popular Yellowstone Park anddevelop a strong affinity for nature thatincludes glorification of the “cowboy lifestyle.” Today, tourism based on the outdoorsis one of the biggest industries in much ofthe Heart of the West.

In general, the largest population centersin the region (Salt Lake City, Denver,Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Billings andBozeman) lie on the fringes of the Heart ofthe West. (figure 1.1) Still, populationlevels are increasing rapidly in some partsof the region. For example, the twentycounties comprising the GreaterYellowstone Ecosystem grew at an averagerate of 14% from 1990 to 1999 (Merrill andJacobson 1997). Teton County, Idaho on thewest slope of the Teton Mountains hasrecently experienced the greatest growth inthe Heart of the West with a staggering66% growth rate between 1990 and 1999(Noss et al. 2002). These population expan-sions, whether driven by eco-tourism inthe heart of the region or by the cities onthe fringe, ultimately lead to more devel-opment, agriculture, roads, motorizedrecreation, and subdivisions in the Heartof the West.

Douglas Fir Cones NPS


18

BLM

Federal Other

Forest Service

Military

National Park Service

Native American Reservations

Private

State

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Figure 1.5 Land ownership of greater Heart of the West region

1.3.2 Land Ownership: Patterns and ProtectionThe vast majority of the lands in theHeart of the West are public lands, includingthree National Parks, parts of ten NationalForests, many wilderness areas, multipleNational Wildlife Refuges, plus a largeamount of BLM, State and Native AmericanSovereign lands (Table 1.1). Private land

holdings in the region, while less thanpublic, are not insignificant (Figure 1.5).Certain areas of public and private lands aremanaged for maintenance of biologicaldiversity or natural values. These areprincipally lands identified by GAPAnalysis programs as GAP Land Status


19

Categories 1 and 2 (Table 1.2). Theseareas include National Parks and Wild-life Refuges, Wilderness and WildernessStudy Areas, state parks, Research Natu-ral Areas, and BLM Areas of CriticalEnvironmental Concern.

Status 1 areas are typically areas desig-nated by Congress that afford a high levelof biodiversity protection, and that aremanaged to mimic natural processes as

closely as possible. Status 2 lands havepermanent protection from conversion ofnatural land cover to a non-natural state.Currently 4,046,474 hectares of the Heartof the West, or 13.7% of the region, areincluded in GAP 1 and GAP 2 Status lands,with the majority of these in the mountain-ous part of the Heart of the West.

Forest

ServiceBLM NPS USFWS State Tribal Private

Total

Hectares

% of Total

Land Area

6,856,343 9,233,361 1,070,829 71,006 1,572,479 1,284,329 8,437,956

23.20% 31.20% 3.60% 2.40% 5.30% 4.30% 28.50%

Table 1.1 - The number of hectares, by land ownership type, in the Heart of the

West region, and the percent of total area of those designations

Table 1.2 GAP management status level descriptions.

An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a

mandated management plan in operation to maintain a natural state within

which disturbance events (of natural type, frequency, and intensity) are allowed

to proceed without interference or are mimicked through management.

An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover

and a mandated management plan in operation to maintain a primarily

natural state, but which may receive use or management practices that

degrade the quality of existing natural communities.

An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover

for the majority of the area, but subject to extractive uses of either a broad,

low-intensity type or localized intense type. It also confers protection to

federally listed endangered and threatened species throughout the area.

Lack of irrevocable easement or mandate to prevent conversion of natural

habitat types to anthropogenic habitat types and allow for intensive use

throughout the tract, or existence of such restrictions is unknown.

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4


20

1.3.3. History of Wildlife and Habitat Conservation in the Heart of the West.Throughout the nineteenth century, immi-grants entered the country in a steady flowand changed the lay of the land and thecourse of history as no migration hereto-fore had done. In the spirit of "ManifestDestiny," settlers came into places such asthe Green River Basin and found it to be agrassy cornucopia free for the taking. As

common in occupations that have histori-cally occurred around the world, thisinflux had a considerable impact on localwildlife. The land-hungry people encoun-tered an estimated 60 million bison, 40million pronghorn and countless otherspecies. The pioneers were accompaniedby thousands of livestock which increasedto millions of animals that not only grazedthe rangelands year around, butoutcompeted the native wildlife. In lessthan fifty years, populations of fish andwildlife had been significantly reduced byminers, market hunters, hide-hunters,settlers, and ranchers (McClung 1969).Bison were reduced from enormous herdsto a couple of dozen at their low point inthe late nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies (Blair 1987). Bighorn sheep weresubjected to intensive market huntingpressure while simultaneously hit bydiseases from domestic sheep and cattle;many herds disappeared. Pronghorn, muledeer, and elk were shot without limits andthey lost much of their native range tolivestock grazing, homesteads and otherhuman enterprise. Trumpeter swan skinswere an important trade commodity in thelate 1800s, and the number of swanssurviving dropped to fewer than 100 in theearly 1900s. Like many imperiled species, thefew remaining survivors held out in therough ramparts of the Rocky Mountains.

By 1900, most of the large predators andmany of the big game animals had virtu-ally disappeared. Except for animals inYellowstone National Park and a fewscattered local herds, elk were consideredto be nearly extinct, there were no wolves,bighorn sheep were rare, and even deerwere considered uncommon. Publicconcern was developing during thisperiod, but for some species such asPronghorn NPS


21

grizzly bear and wolf it was too late, andfor others it appeared that time was run-ning out (USDI 1987).

A semblance of a conservation movementhad begun. Well before the advent of thetwentieth century, concerned leaders hadtaken the proposal forward to designateYellowstone as America’s first NationalPark. Protection of the land and wildlifewas slow to follow, but the seed was sown.With the end of free-ranging wildlife insight, hunters and sportsmen issued awarning call in an effort to prevent whathad already occurred throughout Europeand even America’s East Coast. Conserva-tion organizations such as League ofAmerican Sportsmen began to lobby theirpoliticians to protect the region’s wildlifeand its habitat. These groups evolved intothe National Wildlife Federation, Wildlife

Management Institute and the IsaacWalton League with affiliates in many ofthe western states where the idea of wild-life conservation was conceived.

In the late nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies sportsmen organized and en-gaged politicians to develop and enforcestate and federal game laws, and thekilling slowed. The Lacey Act of 1900"drastically reduced the power of themarkets by prohibiting interstate shipmentof game taken or possessed in violation ofthe laws of the state, from which or towhich it was shipped" (Foss 1971). Oncethe unlimited killing was under controlwith game laws, it was clear that habitatconservation was necessary to restore theonce prolific populations of wildlife totheir native range.

1.3.4. Land Use and Industry in the Heart of the WestBlessed with an abundance of wildlife,open space and minerals, the Heart of theWest region has had a long and extensivehistory of resource extraction, from theearliest days of the mountain-men trap-ping beavers and hunting bison to recenttimes when oil and gas companies and thefederal government work together tooptimize oil, gas and coal development inmany parts of the Wyoming BasinsEcoregion. As we construct a wildlandsnetwork and implementation strategy forthe Heart of the West, we consider the fivemain land uses that once shaped, and inmany ways still shape, the economy of theHeart of the West:

LoggingMany of the forests in the mountains of theHeart of the West were logged in the latenineteenth century for railroad ties. During

railroad construction hundreds of “tie-hacks” were hired, selectively logging tobring the railroads much-needed timberfor ties. Later, when railroads wouldexpand north, towards Casper and Lander,“tie-hacks” would selectively log theforests around Dubois and other locales.

Although some environmental damagewas incurred by tie-hack practices, thisfairly environmentally benign loggingwas nearly beneficial when compared tothe clearcutting practices which occurredin the Heart of the West in the 1960s and1970s. Due to the region’s severe wintersand short growing season, timber hasnever been an essential element toregion’s economy, although some townssuch as Evanston, Sheridan and Duboiswere largely dependent on the timbercompanies, such as Louisiana Pacific,


22

that took advantage of some of the oldgrowth stands of the Heart of the Westlarger forests.

Logging activity continues today in theHeart of the West, though not as intensely,and primarily on US Forest Service lands.The Wyoming Range and western flank ofthe Wind River Range are under themanagement of the Bridger-Teton NationalForest (BTNF). The BTNF now has areduced annual allowable sale quantity of4.4 million board feet, reduced signifi-cantly from the original volume of theBTNF Forest Plan of 12 million board feet.Most large timber sales are now cut bymulti-national corporations, however, afew multi-product sales are still sold tolocal operators for house logs, post/polecontracts, and firewood. The predominantmerchantable species are aspen, lodgepolepine, and spruce. With regeneration ratesso low in the semi-arid basins, there ismuch less timber available for harvest, socutting rates have been substantiallyreduced during the past few decades.

Agriculture (cultivation/farming)Large scale agriculture is generally notpracticed in the mountains of the Heartof the West, but is concentrated in thebasins. Although the growing season isshort in the Wyoming Basins, areas nearreliable water sources have been used forgrowing crops since the nineteenthcentury. Currently, the Uinta front inextreme Southwest Wyoming and north-ern Utah is a relatively important areafor farming, and the main sugar beetcenter in the region is along the BighornRiver in the Bighorn Basin. Many of theriparian areas in the basins are todayused as hay meadows for livestock, withor without supplemental irrigation.

Coal, Oil and gas developmentThe mining boom that was to pervademuch of the Heart of the West lowlands inthe 1800s and 1900s (mostly in Wyomingbut also limited amounts in northwestColorado) was kicked off after the discov-ery of significant coal seams at Hannah,Rawlins and Rock Springs. Today, theheart of the Wyoming Basins (Green RiverBasin, Great Divide Basin, Red Desert,Uinta Basin, etc.) remain a major site forcoal, gas, methane and trona (soda ash)production, all of which have experienceddramatic production increases through thetwentieth, and into the twenty-first, century.

Although coal production initially startedslowly, with the first mines starting inCarbon and Rock Springs in 1868 and atAlmy, near Evanston in 1869, coal wouldbecome of one of Wyoming’s economicmainstays. By 1918, over nine million tonsof coal were produced by mines through-out the State. By World War II, coal wasliterally flowing from over 100 Wyomingmines to all corners of the United States.By the 1960s, strip-mining throughoutmuch of the state became the status quofor coal companies, increasing productionexponentially, but leading to losses in thework force. Now, in 2003, Wyoming is thenumber one producer of coal in America.In 2002, 368 million tons of coal wereproduced in Wyoming from federal lands,shipped to 37 states for electricity, generat-ing over 222 million dollars in federalroyalties. Since 1986- until the present day-coal production has increased 150%.

In 1832, Mountain men at the Green Riverrendezvous spoke to explorer Bonnevilleabout a “great tar spring” near South Passand pioneers and travelers throughout the1800s described oil seeps. In 1883,


23

This aerial photograph shows the vast network of roads and well pads that make up a portion of the

Jonah II natural gas field, located in Wyoming’s Upper Green River basin, 35 miles south of the

town of Pinedale. The Jonah II field graphically illustrates the significant impacts currently

occurring to America’s public lands from new oil and gas development. For example, despite use

of the latest technology (all of the drilling you see in this picture is post 1995), the federal lands in

this picture have essentially been converted from important habitat for antelope, mule deer, sage

grouse, and other wildlife species to an industrial landscape of roads, drill pads, powerlines,

compressor stations, and other infrastructure.

With a lease area covering an area of over 59,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

lands, the Jonah II gas field has quickly grown over the last several years from a few dozen wells to

over 300 wells. This boom continues today, as the BLM’s 1998 Environmental Impact Statement

allows for a total of up to 490 wells to be developed in the lease area over the next decade.

Furthermore, while the BLM’s original permit allowed for 80 acre well spacing, the primary

operators in the gas field, Amoco and McMurry Oil, successfully petitioned the BLM in April 2000

for an amendment to allow 40 acre spacing in the eastern half of the gas field. In late 2002,

industry applied for permits to allow 20 acre well spacing (i.e. double the density of wells pictured)

and the BLM has begun an EIS process to address this change.

In any case, with ten drilling rigs currently operating in the Jonah II field and year-round activity

allowed, the oil and gas “footprint” presented in this picture is rapidly spreading beyond the

23,000 acres of the permit area that has already been developed.

Approximately 90% of the BLM’s Pinedale Resource Area is currently under lease and including the

Jonah field, there are six major natural gas fields in operation.

Jonah II Gas Dield, Upper Green River Basin, WY Peter Aengst

Box 1.1


24

Wyoming’s first oil well was drilled out-side of Lander in what would become theDallas Field. Subsequently, the Salt Creekoil field would be developed in the sameyear near Casper. The Pennsylvania Oiland Gas Company was the first energycompany to show interest in this “blackgold” and while drilling increased, thestate’s first refinery was built in 1895 nearCasper. With the passage of the Oil andGas Leasing Act of 1920, industry wasensured oil leasing on federal landsthroughout Wyoming. During World WarI, and the subsequent rise of the automo-bile and the need for more tar-based roads,the need for oil within the Heart of theWest and throughout the U.S. increasedexponentially.

In the mid 1920s, oil production declinedfor a decade, largely due to overproduc-tion and the impacts of the Great Depres-sion. But by the late 1930s and 40s, theneed for crude oil rose dramatically. By the1960s, Wyoming was producing nearly45% of the Rocky Mountain region’s oil. Bythe late 1960s, Wyoming Governor StanHathaway would go stumping for indus-try in New York and California, “courtingindustrialists with Wyoming moose andelk steak dinners.” (Wall Street Journal1969). In the 1970s, oil production contin-ued to rise, resulting in a boom that sweptthe Heart of the West, followed in turn bya bust in the mid 80s- an event that wouldleave the region reeling. There were at-tempts to diversify the region’s economy,for example with tax-breaks for companiesexperimenting with “clean coal technol-ogy,” but this in turn led to lost revenues.Declaring that “Wyoming is open forbusiness,” the state elected an energycommission comprised almost entirely ofindustry representatives, and pushed hardfor tax breaks for the industry.

The increases in energy production in thelowlands of the Heart of the West are beingdriven in part by the Bush administration’sEnergy Plan. This plan is trumping pastdecisions by the BLM to protect certainsensitive areas of public land in the regionfrom energy development. For example,according to the 1997 BLM Green RiverResource Management Plan (RMP), thereis an "Oil Shale Withdrawal" extendingover the entire Seeskadee National WildlifeRefuge, and beyond Farson and GreenRiver nearly to Rock Springs to protect thewildlife values of this area. However, themajority of the BLM land surrounding theWildlife Refuge has recently been leasedfor oil and gas development. Moreover,although 84,000 acres along the WindRiver Front was considered by the BLM forwithdrawal from mineral entry in the 1997Green River BLM RMP, the final decisionwas made that the land would "be man-aged to allow for the ongoing develop-ment of minerals while providing forrecreation uses and other resource values”(BLM Green River RMP, 1997).

Indeed, the outlook in the region in termsof upcoming energy development isdaunting. The Heart of the West lowlandregion contains the nation’s largest gasreserve (314 trillion cubic feet), and thereare currently about 8,500 producing oiland gas wells in the region today. It isdifficult to say how many new oil and gaswells will be added to this already largenumber, but current proposals on the tabletell us the number could be as high as20,000 new gas wells in the WyomingBasins Ecoregion in the next fifteen years.


25

Hunting

Hunting big game is very popular todayin the Heart of the West. Hunting ofungulate species is managed by huntingseasons set by the Wyoming, Idaho,Montana, Colorado and Utah statewildlife agencies, which receive themajority of their funding from licensefees. According to a synthesis (Coupal etal. in preparation) of of economic datafrom the Wyoming Game and Fish De-partment (Lee et al. 1989, ResponsiveManagement 1998, Wyoming Game andFish Department 2001), hunting of the sixmajor big game species generated over$142 million of hunter expenditures inWyoming in 1999 alone. Fishing, smallgame, game bird, and waterfowl huntingalso generates significant monies. In1998, anglers contributed $492 million toWyoming, according to the WyomingGame and Fish Department. In general,hunting and fishing are major compo-nents of the economic and culturallandscape of this region, and they aredependent to at least some degree onwild country. There are drawbacks tothese pursuits, namely stocking of exoticfish and game birds, and the concomitantuse of off-road vehicles (ORVs).

Livestock grazing

The first groups of cattle in the Heart of theWest were brought in around 1830. In the1840s and 1850s, tens of thousands of cattlewere driven along the emigrant trails bypioneers and in the late 1860s, the firstseason-long grazing/open grazing wasestablished by settlers. By the 1870s, thenumber of livestock brought into the Heartof the West by settlers and stockmen in-creased to take advantage of the open rangethroughout the region; cattle grazing wasseen as the Wyoming territory’s most prom-ising economic activity. In 1885, over 1.5million cattle were registered within Wyo-ming and the business was booming, withcattle being brought in from Oregon, Mon-tana, and especially Texas, in which largetrail herds moved up the Texas and othertrails into the Heart of the West (Hunt 1941).At its peak, the livestock industry claimedthere were about 8 million cattle and 6million sheep present on the rangelandsacross the West. The WyomingStockgrowers’ Association, the first organiza-tion of its kind ever formed, represented acapitalization of over one hundred milliondollars when Wyoming was still a wilder-ness. According to livestock capitalizationthen, Cheyenne was the richest city in theworld on a per capita basis. (Bartlett, 1918).But the livestock boom in the Heart of theWest, and indeed, across the West, couldnot be sustained. The environmentalresults were immediate- the range wasquickly becoming overstocked with result-ing overgrazing and the large-scale kill offof predators (Wyoming had the highestbounties for predators than any surround-ing states), rivers and streams were becom-ing quickly diverted for pastures, and thefencing off of large tracks of public landillegally contributed to the large-scale die-offs of ungulates, not to mention the risinganger of hunters and citizens. Huge lossesCow George Werthner


26

were experienced by cattle and sheepranchers alike in a series of bad winterssuch as 1886-87, when the majority of thelivestock on open range starved to death,stranded in snowdrifts. These high densi-ties of livestock on the public domain tooka toll on the forage available for nativewildlife and the cattle themselves. Oneaccount describes the beginning of thecattle “bust” in the Heart of the West:

"The great flocks of game and the extensiveherds of range cattle show marked decreaseeach year. At one time we ranged 14,000 headof white-faced steers in the uppermost end ofthe Green River Valley. Today I would estimatethem at 6,000. And in terms of the Big Pineyherds over to the west added to the Green RiverValley, we used to run 40,000-50,000 cattle inthe balmy days when cattle were supreme. Now(1930) they are all dwindled down to perhapsless than half that amount."

(Sublette County Artist Guild, 1963)

Due to the severe overgrazing that oc-curred as a result of the year-round graz-ing throughout the West, and the influx ofstock from out-of-state, the Taylor GrazingAct was passed in 1934. That was the endof an era of uncontrolled livestock use ofthe public domain. This watershed legisla-tion marked the end of free land and thestart of permanent federal management ofthe public domain (Donahue 1999). Thenumber of livestock on the western rangefluctuated throughout the twentiethcentury, but eventually decreased toapproach a more realistic carrying capac-ity. The actual number of livestock that isreally sustainable on these rangelands istoday still being debated.

Of course, with livestock grazing comesfencing. A recent fence inventory projectinitiated in 1992 documented at least 1695

fences spreading a tangled wire web overthousands of miles in the southwesternquarter of Wyoming (WWF 2000). Of the1695 fences, 139 fences are within crucialwinter range for native ungulates, 289fences are within a migration route, and535 or 31% of the fences need modifica-tions to meet state and federal "wildlife-friendly" fence standards (DeGroot, 1992).Pronghorn migrating between JacksonHole and the Green River must cross atleast 35 fences (Sawyer, 2000).

Recreation and Tourism

The Heart of the West’s wild open spacesand wildlife have been some the region’sgreatest assets. Yellowstone and TetonNational Parks, from their inception, havedrawn healthy crowds of wildlife enthusi-asts and recreationists. In as early as 1955 itwas estimated that tourism and wildlifewatching contributed $150 million toWyoming’s economy (Bell 1955). Thatsame year, all Wyoming crops combined-alfalfa, barley an wheat- only producedabout $20 million. By contrast, in 1955, totalagricultural production in the state, includ-ing cattle and sheep, was about $100 million.

Today, tourism contributes approximatelytwo billion dollars annually to Wyoming’scoffers and is the number two money-maker in the state today, after minerals. In1997 $1,351,806,000 in direct expenditureswere attributed to nearly 4 million travel-ers in Wyoming (Morey and Associates1997). In 1997, tourism - including hunting,fishing and outdoor recreation - created50,000 total full-time and part-time jobs inWyoming, $848 million in total personalincome and $53,270,000 in state and localtax revenues.


27

1.4 Need for Large-scale Conservation Planning for the Heart of the WestIt is because of this richness of life, therelatively sparse human population, andsuperlative natural values that we haveinitiated our planning effort for the Heartof the West. Not only is the wildlife diver-sity and abundance considerable in thisarea, but here we might see a conservationwonderland to benefit all people andwildlife if only appropriate care could betaken towards protecting these values.Through our planning effort, we willillustrate the potential of this land. Byshowcasing specific wildlife species inneed of protection and pointing out threatsto them, we will identify priority areas forconservation. We will create a vision forthis land as it might be in a future wherewildlife matters.

Perhaps the chief reason there is a criticalneed to undertake large-scale conservationplanning for this region is that, up to now,conservation has been done in an ad hoc andopportunistic manner, where areas havebeen protected not for the biodiversity theycontain, but rather for natural beauty or lackof resource value (Soule and Noss 1998,Soule and Terborgh 1999). Because of this adhoc approach to conservation, many ecosys-tem types are not currently represented inprotected areas in the region, especiallylowland systems. In addition, this method ofselecting areas for conservation similarlydoes not take the needs of native species intoaccount, such as protection of large units,linked together, to provide for continuedviability for process-limited, dispersal-limited, and resource-limited species.

Recently, a number of biologists, conserva-tion activists and Wildlands Project affiliatesbegan to focus on this critical piece of the“puzzle” that links other reserve designprojects between the northern Rockies and

the southern Rockies. The urgency to com-plete comprehensive conservation planningfor this region is underscored by “fast-track”oil and gas development ushered in by theBush administration (TWS 2003), and anumber of regional Forest Plans that arecoming up for renewal.

There are currently other landscape-scaleconservation initiatives underway in thegreater Heart of the West Region. OurWildlands Network Design and Conserva-tion Plan for the Heart of the West is meantto complement ongoing regional efforts byThe Nature Conservancy and other Wild-lands Project affiliates (i.e., the Yellowstoneto Yukon Initiative and the SouthernRockies Ecosystem Project) who havemapped critical areas of habitat withimportant conservation value along theRocky Mountains. The Nature Conser-vancy has recently completed two separateEcoregional Planning projects for the Heartof the West region. The more recentlycompleted project, which covers the higherelevation regions along the Wyoming-Utahmountains, is a sophisticated computermodeling effort (using the SITES model)that uses the typical 3-track reserve designapproach (representation, special elementmapping, and focal species analysis) todelineate “portfolio sites” or core areas(Noss et al. 2002). A previously completedecoregional planning effort for the lower-lying Wyoming Basins involved a rougherestimate of key portfolio sites, based onspecial elements and representation(Freilich et al. 2001), but not on focalspecies analysis, and without detailedcomputer modeling or a vulnerabilityassessment, as Noss et al. (2002a) utilized.

The Geographic Information System (GIS)analysis presented in this report is in-


28

tended to build on the progress alreadymade by The Nature Conservancy’secoregional plan for the Wyoming Basins.We accomplished this by building incritical spatial needs of focal species andcurrent and future threats to the regionand by using the SITES model to delineatebest core areas. In this document, wefeature the results of our intensive analysisfor the (primarily) lowland areas in theHeart of the West which match up with theanalyses of the highlands for The NatureConservancy’s Utah-Wyoming MountainsEcoregional Plan (Figure 2.1, next chapter).We believe that the two completed analy-ses, side-by-side, will together constitute acomprehensive roadmap for protection forthe entire Heart of the West region.

The Heart of the West Wildlands NetworkDesign will also complement ongoingwildlands network development in adja-

cent regions by other Wildlands Projectaffiliates. To the north of the Heart of theWest, the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative isalso working on the design of a wildlandsnetwork for that project area. To our south,the Southern Rockies Ecosystem ProjectWildlands Network is very near comple-tion. The Heart of the West network willessentially serve to link those two Wild-lands Project efforts together3 (Figure 1.6).Our Wildlands Network Design and Conser-vation Plan should prove useful to landmanagers faced with on-the ground manage-ment choices, planners who are wrestlingwith local growth and development, locallandowners concerned with wildlife andother conservation issues, biologists chargedwith inventorying the natural heritage of thisregion, and conservationists working topreserve biodiversity and wild landscapes inthe Heart of the West.

3Currently, a high priority of the Wildlands Project is reconnecting, restoring, and rewilding the “Spine of theContinent MegaLinkage.” The Heart of the West Wildlands Network Design is a key part of this continentalvision, linking into a continuum of wildlands networks (Yellowstone to Yukon, Southern Rockies EcosystemProject) which in turn links into others, and eventually will be connected into one “megalinkage” along the Rockymountains, from Mexico through Canada.

Calypso bulbosa NPS


29

Figure 1.6 The greater Heart of the West region, the Southern Rockies Wildlands Study area, and

the Yellowstone to Yukon study area. All three projects are Wildlands Project affiliates.

The mission of

this effort to

craft and

implement a

comprehensive

wildlands

network design

for the Heart of

the West is to

help heal the

many wounds

plaguing this

region.


30

Aldo Leopold wrote:“One of the penalties of an ecological educationis that one lives alone in a world of wounds…An ecologist must either harden his shell andmake believe that the consequences of scienceare none of his business, or he must be thedoctor who sees the marks of death in a com-munity that believes itself well and does notwant to be told otherwise.”

(Leopold 1972)

The mission of this effort to craft andimplement a comprehensive wildlandsnetwork design for the Heart of the West isto help heal the many wounds plaguingthis region. Whereas the core of theYellowstone region is arguably one of thebest protected natural areas in NorthAmerica, that protection does not extendto the low-lying basins south and east ofthe Park that are vital to wildlife. Nor doesthis protection extend through the Utah-Wyoming Mountains, where places suchas the High Uintas wilderness are grazedby tens of thousands of domestic sheep.

Viewed from the air, some of the obviousimpacts of human activities in the Heart ofthe West are roads and the resultinghabitat fragmentation. Logging still hasconsiderable impacts in the region as well,especially in National Forests. And ofcourse, one of the chief surface land usestoday is livestock grazing; outside of theNational Parks, most of the basins arecurrently grazed by cattle. Activitiesrelated to energy extraction are also seri-ous threats to wildlife in the Heart of theWest. Although it has so far escapedecological ruin, massive industrial effortsnow underway to extract large amounts ofcoal, natural gas and coalbed methane willhave significant impacts on the region. Inaddition, hard rock mining, water diver-sions, residential subdivisions and roadingattendant to all these activities is dissectingthis large expanse into smaller, discon-nected patches, as is the case in much ofthe United States.

1.5 Ecological Wounds

Arctostaphylos usa-urvi - Kinikkinik NPS

Claytonia sp. - Spring Beauty NPS


31

The Six Major Wounds in the Heart of the West4 are:Loss and Decline of Species

Many species of native animals—especiallycarnivores and keystone rodents—have beenextirpated or greatly reduced in numbers.This can have considerable ramifications; forexample the depletion of beaver has signifi-cant consequences for stream flow, nutrientretention, streambank morphology, andriparian vegetation.

Loss and Degradation of Ecosystems

Watersheds, stream channels, and riparianforests have been quite damaged. Beginningin the 1870s with cutting for mine timbers,railroad ties, and firewood and continuing tothe present day with industrial loggingoperations, many headwater forests havebeen degraded. Since the 1880s, due tograzing by domestic livestock, grasslands,woodlands, forests, and desert scrublandhave been deeply wounded.

Loss and Decline of Natural Processes

(Disturbance)

More than a century of fire suppressionhas eliminated a natural disturbanceregime vital to the integrity and functionof forest, woodland, and grassland ecosys-tems. With the extermination or decline oflarge carnivores, vital top-down regulationof prey species has lessened. Throughdegradation of watersheds and flood-control engineering, natural flooding andother hydrological processes have beenlost. Another major process that has beensignificantly reduced in this area is re-gional and continental-scale transfer ofenergy and nutrients. 150 years ago therewere huge populations of Rocky Mountainlocusts and bison that would move carbonand nutrients between the Great Plainsand the Heart of the West - now they’regone. Salmon performed the same service

between the Heart of the West and thenorth Pacific (even though salmon likelyinfrequently entered the area along theSnake River, their energy and nutrientpulses still probably affected our studyarea as large animals moved marinecarbon across the Continental Divide).

Fragmentation of Habitat

The region has been fragmented by roads,dams, and other works of civilization,potentially isolating wide-ranging species innonviable habitat islands.

Invasion by Exotic Species and Diseases

Aggressive and disruptive exotic species,both plants and animals, have invaded orbeen purposefully introduced, threateningecosystem integrity and the survival ofindividual species.

4 These wounds are adapted from Wildlands Project’s general wounds (Foreman et al. 2003).

Limber Pine NPS


32

Pollution

Forest insect spraying, mines, feedlots,smelters, power plants, automobiles, andurban areas have spread biocides, heavymetals, toxic wastes, and chemicals in theair, land, and water, affecting species,ecosystems, and climate. Historically andtoday, there are considerable amounts ofdeliberate poisoning of carnivores andprairie dogs, with concomitant effects ofthese poisons on other organisms.

5 We wish to stress that the mission of the Heart of the West effort is NOT to completely do away with the 20 variousstressors mentioned above. Rather the mission and goals of this effort lead us to determine how many of these uses(i.e. grazing, ORV use, energy development, etc. can occur in a fashion that is sustainable and complementary with theHeart of the West wildlands network and this conservation plan.

Aspen NPS

Each of these wounds has more than one cause, and several of the causes contribute tomore than one wound. The overall impact of these wounds is greater than their sumand they are highly interactive. Among the specific causes of these wounds are (in noparticular order):• Overhunting, overfishing, and trapping

(including poaching).• Predator and “pest” extermination

(shooting, poisoning, trapping).• Livestock grazing.• Logging and fuelwood collection.• Mining (mineral extraction)• Energy exploitation (oil and gas explora-

tion and development)• Off-road vehicle abuse.• Urban, suburban, and “ranchette”

sprawl.• Agriculture (cultivation or farming)

• Expansion of non-native species.• Road building (usually related to one or

more of the other stressors listed here).• Fire suppression.• Dam construction.• Irrigation diversions.• Groundwater depletion.• Channelization of streams and rivers.• Fencing.• Biocides.• Global warming.• Human overpopulation and overcon-

sumption (the fundamental cause).

As stated previously, many of the wounds plaguing the Heart of the West, such ashabitat fragmentation, are caused by more than one stressor. For example, habitatfragmentation is currently being caused by many of the above land uses in the region,including logging, energy drilling/development, urban/suburban development andsprawl, road building, dam building, and fencing. In addition, a single species of wild-life is not likely to be negatively impacted by all of these stressors. For instance, againusing the example of habitat fragmentation, a species of amphibian will be negativelyimpacted by dams, a forest carnivore by logging, and a lowland ungulate species byfencing. Thus, the mission of the Heart of the West Wildlands Network Design effortaims to heal all the wounds suffered by the region,5 regardless of the stressor or theindividual systems, communities and species that are perhaps suffering most.


33

1.6 Mission, Goals and Objectives of this Conservation Plan

1.6.1 MissionOur hope in this effort is to heal the wounds of the Heart of the West by protecting andrestoring biodiversity and ecological integrity throughout the Heart of the West Regionof northeast Utah, southeast Idaho, western Wyoming and northwest Colorado bydesigning and implementing a wildlands network made up of core protected areas andlinkages. Our mission is to restore and promote the health and productivity of the landin the Heart of the West, and sustain the communities (plant, animal, and human) depen-dent on those lands. The indicators of the health of the land include functioning ecologicalprocesses, and maintenance of biodiversity.

Each of our established six goals is tied tohalting and healing a major wound, asidentified above:

Goal 1:

Viable populations of all native plants andanimals (including some that have beenextirpated) within the Heart of the Westare protected and restored.

1.6.2 Goals

Goal 2:

Sufficient amounts of all habitat typesprotected from further degradation and loss.

Goal 3:

All ecological and evolutionary processesare protected and restored.

Goal 4:

Land is protected from further fragmenta-tion. Functional connectivity for wide-ranging species native to the region isprotected and restored.

Goal 5:

The spread of exotic species is prevented.Reduced distribution and abundance ofexotics, with the ultimate goal of elimination.

Goal 6:

Further introduction of ecologically de-structive pollutants into the region isprevented or reduced.

Conservation planning is not value free (Franz 2001, Lackey 2001). With this in mind,our Heart of the West panning team crafted this project’s mission, goals and objectivesto reflect our values, and the values and desires of others who live in this place andmanage its many resources.

Porcupine NPS


34

1.6.3 Objectives.

6Specific implementation steps and restoration recommendations are detailed in the Implementation Section (chapter 5).

...for Goal 1:

• Focal species populations and specialelement species and communitiesmaintained via the identification andprotection of core areas and importantlandscape linkages.

• Certain native species whose presence iskey to properly functioning systemsand communities are reintroduced orotherwise recovered.

...for Goal 2:

• All major vegetation types in the regionare represented within the WildlandNetwork.

• Key aquatic habitats that supportaquatic focal species are identified,protected and restored.

..for Goal 3:

• Core areas are large enough to accom-modate natural disturbance regimesand a full complex of interacting speciesand communities.

• Practices which should be restrictedfrom core areas because they tend tohinder ecological processes (i.e. preda-tor control, livestock grazing, dambuilding, fire suppression…) are care-fully defined.

...for Goal 4:

• Natural linkages between core areasthat will serve the greatest number anddiversity of native species are identifiedand protected.

• Practices which should be restrictedfrom linkages because they tend toreduce connectivity and species move-ment (i.e. road building, logging) arecarefully defined.

...for Goal 5:

• A program to control and preventspread of exotics within designated coreareas, and minimize or prevent newintroductions in these areas is imple-mented.

…for Goal 6:

• Closure and remediation of pollutingmines/drilling sites within core areas,and discouragement of additionalmining and oil and gas developmentwithin these areas.

• Restoration of river ecosystems andother water bodies that have beenpolluted by mining/drilling activities.

The above Goals and Objectives can beachieved by designing and implementinga wildlands network with strategicallyplaced cores and linkages of adequate sizeand width, and by implementing themanagement and restoration objectivesoutlined in this Conservation Plan.6 If wecan achieve these goals, we can restoreintegrity to ecological systems and safe-guard the rich biodiversity of the Heart ofthe West region.

35

Chapter 2Methods for Creating the Wildlands Network

Wild Cow Creek, Medicine Bow Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Below, we describe the study area that wasused to perform GIS analysis for the Heart ofthe West Wildlands Network, outline ourspecific approach to reserve design andconservation planning, describe the SITEScomputer model and how we applied it in


this conservation planning exercise, andoutline the steps taken to produce a “final”wildlands network for the Heart of the West.In addition, we discuss the role of expertreview in this process, as well as assump-tions and limitations of our analysis.

2.1 Study AreaWhile the “greater” Heart of the West en-compasses both the Wyoming BasinsEcoregion and the mountains that surroundthe basins (Figure 1.1, previous chapter), wechose to limit our study area for the GISanalysis to the land area not already in-cluded in The Nature Conservancy’s recentecoregional plan for the Utah-WyomingMountains (Noss et al. 2002), which encom-passes most of the mountainous regionswithin the greater Heart of the West (Figure2.1). Our work complements The NatureConservancy’s (TNC) Ecoregional Plan for

the Wyoming Basins Ecoregion, which didnot utilize focal species analyses, connectiv-ity modeling, threats or the SITES model.

We used a GIS to clip the lower-lying basinsand other parts of the Greater Heart of theWest region (i.e., a small portion of thesouthern Rocky mountains) not included byNoss et al., and focused our GIS analysis onthis area (Figure 2.2). In the remainder of thisreport, we refer to our study area uponwhich GIS analysis was performed as the“lowland study area,” and the resulting

Chapter 2 - Methods for Creating the Wildlands Network

36

Figure 2.1 The Nature Conservancy’s Utah Wyoming Mountain study area – the mountainous

region of the greater Heart of the West region

wildlands network as the “lowland Wild-lands Network.” One of the goals of thisstrategy is to link our completed lowlandWildlands Network with TNC’s ecoregionalplan for the Utah-Wyoming Mountains. Weanticipated that our completed lowlandWildlands Network Design would be

congruent with this ecoregional plan, sincedevelopment of our Wildlands Networkfollowed methods nearly identical to that ofNoss et al. (2002). The results of Noss et al.’secoregional plan are included as a fullexhibit in Appendix A.1

1 The full appendix, because of its length, is only available on the CD version of this report. Noss et al.’s report can beobtained from the authors or The Nature Conservancy.


37

Figure 2.2 Our clipping coverage for GIS analyses – the lowlands Heart of the West study area


38

2.2 Our Approach to Conservation Assessment and Reserve Design

The framework for conservation planningfor the Heart of the West lowland studyarea applies the core/linkage model. Todetermine the location and size of coreareas and linkages, we integrate threebasic planning approaches2 that scientistshave adopted over the last several decadesto identify areas for protection (Noss andCooperrider 1994, Noss et al. 1999a):• representation of all regional habitats,

or vegetative community types, withina network of core areas,

• identification and protection of specialelements, such as rare species occur-rences, “biodiversity hotspots,” intactriparian zones, etc.,

• identification and protection of keyhabitat of (focal) species that servecritical ecosystem roles and/or whosepresence is indicative of healthy, func-tioning systems.

Together, these three elements comprise acomprehensive approach to conservationplanning. Representation of all regionalhabitats within the wildlands networkdesign is an example of a “coarse filter”approach to biological conservation(Groves et al. 2000). The idea behind acoarse filter approach to conservation isthat if you “catch” large representativepieces of habitat in your “filter” of con-served lands, you will also “catch” manyof those individual species that rely onthese same habitats. One assumption ofthis strategy is that populations of speciesthat rely on these habitats will remainhealthy if adequate amounts of the habitattypes are protected within the region. One

advantage of using a coarse filter approachis that habitat (or vegetation type) spatialdata is easy to obtain and map, as opposedto demographic data on the myriad ofspecies that rely on those habitat types.Though few empirical studies have explic-itly demonstrated that representationanalysis leads to increased species viabil-ity, The Nature Conservancy estimates that85% to 90% of all species in a region can beprotected through a coarse filter approach(Noss et al. 2002). Another reason to utilizea land cover representation approach isthat, currently, there is not representationof all the Heart of the West lowland veg-etation types in existing GAP 1 and 2status lands (Table 2.1).

Identification and conservation of specialelements in a region is an example of a“fine filter” approach to conservationplanning. In our case, rare species occur-rences are mapped and used to helpdelineate core areas. The fine filter ap-proach complements the coarse filterapproach; species that “fall through thecracks” of the coarse filter - such as narrowendemics - can be protected through thefine filter of special element mapping.

Representation of a species or a habitattype in a wildlands network will by itselfnot necessarily ensure that species willpersist in a region. This acknowledgmentleads to the third element in our conser-vation planning approach: focal speciesmapping. Focal species are organismsthat can be used in planning and manag-ing reserves because their requirements

2.2.1 Three-track Approach

2 The core/linkage model and 3-track approach is also invoked by Noss et al. (2002) in the Ecoregional Plan for theUtah-Wyoming Mountains in the upland portion of the Heart of the West. We followed Noss et al.’s methods as closelyas possible in our approach.


39

for survival represent factors importantto maintaining the natural state of theentire region (Miller et al. 1999). Theyplay an important role in wildlandsnetwork design because ultimately,questions about ecological patterns andprocesses cannot be answered withoutreference to the species that live in thatlandscape (Lambeck 1997). Representa-tion analysis and high densities of spe-cial elements point to areas which shouldbe considered in a reserve, but focalspecies analysis identifies additionalhigh-value habitats and addresses thequestions, “how much area is needed?,”“what is the quality of habitat?” and “inwhat configuration should we designcore areas?” (Miller et al. 1999).

Our focal species approach is tailored tothe specific landscape-level issues at playin the Heart of the West, as well as theecosystems it incorporates, and to ourgoals for the Heart of the West WildlandsNetwork. Although there are manydifferent “types” of focal species typi-cally used in reserve design approaches

to landscape conservation (e.g. “flag-ship” and “umbrella” species, etc.), weuse only three broad types of focalspecies in our planning process: habitatquality indicators, keystone species, andfoundation species.3 Although some ofour focal species may act as a flagshipspecies in our implementation campaignfor the Wildlands Network, none werechosen solely for this reason.

Indicator species are a very helpful tool touse in the design of a wildlands network.There is evidence that certain species canserve as indicators of areas of highbiodiversity (Humphries et al. 1995, Caroand O’Doherty 1999, Chase et al. 2000), andthat certain guilds (e.g. woodpeckers) areuseful in predicting diversity of largergroups (e.g. forest birds, Mikusinski et al.2001). Indicator species are tightly linked toproperly functioning habitats (Welsh andDroege 2001), which may in turn be criticallyimportant for a host of other species depen-dent on that same habitat. If we capture thehabitats of key indicator species in a wild-lands network, these same species can offer a

3 Foundation species, like keystone species, enrich ecosystem function in a unique and significant manner, but whichoccur in much higher numbers (i.e. prairie dogs, salmon, and bison).

Playa Salt

Desert

Mixed

Grass

Prairie

Lowland

Riparian

Mesic

Upland

Shrub

Deciduous

Oak

Pinion

Juniper

Total Hectares

in Lowland

Study Area

Hectares of Each

Type in GAP 1/2

% of Each Type

in GAP 1/2

9,900 1,437,563 700,798 189,450 173,966 469,782 1,469,746

61.5 12,314 12,213 6,065 5,493 15,443 186,363

Table 2.1 - An example of some of the land cover types that are currently under-

represented in protected areas in the lowland study area.

0.60% 0.90% 1.70% 3.20% 3.20% 3.30% 12.6%


40

future barometer of success of the imple-mented network. Since most indicatorspecies are sensitive to human disturbanceand ecological change (Burdick et al. 1989,Stolte and Mangis 1992), the presence orabsence of these species within (protected)cores and linkages in the Heart of the WestNetwork can be used to assess conservationgoals such as maintenance of ecosystemintegrity and ecological health (Welsh andDroege 2001).

Keystone and foundation species are alsogood focal species around which to build awildlands network. Keystone species exertcritical effects on a system through variousinteractions and processes. These include,but are not limited to, dispersal, competi-tion, mutualism, pollination, and by“engineering” or otherwise modifyinghabitats (Menge et al. 1994, Power et al.1996, Jeo et al. 2000). Because of the impor-tant role keystone species play, by defini-tion, in their respective communities, they- and their habitats - are perhaps the mostcrucial element to include in the design ofa wildlands network. Foundation species,like keystone species, enrich ecosystemfunction in a unique and significant man-ner, but occur in much higher numbers(e.g. prairie dogs, salmon, and bison). Theloss of keystone or foundation species in asystem can trigger cascades of direct andindirect changes, usually on more than onetrophic level (Soule and Noss 1998).

Often, apex predators can play a keystonespecies role where these top-level carni-vores make substantial contributions toecosystem function. Top predators havebeen shown to play a key role in systemswhere they exist by maintaining ecosystemstructure, diversity, and resilience through“top-down” effects through varioustrophic levels (Estes et al. 1978, 1998;

Terborgh 1988; Henke and Bryant 1999).The disappearance of apex predators in aregion can cause acute changes in thatsystem, many of which can lead to loss ofspecies in the area (Mills et al. 1993, Bergeret al. 2001). Most frequently this involvesrelease of herbivores from predationpressure, which in turn exerts unnaturalpressure on plant communities, oftenresulting in biotic simplification (Terborghet al. 1999). But reduced diversity can alsoresult from the “Paine effect,” or reduceddiversity of competitive herbivores afterthe loss of the apex predator (Paine 1966),or “meso-predator release” which canresult in noticeable declines of smallerprey species (Soulé et al. 1988, Palomareset al. 1995). Meso-predator release involvesa striking increase in smaller predators(called meso-predators), chiefly becausethe top predators would normally preyupon and inhibit the foraging of thesesmaller predators. This increased abun-dance can negatively affect smaller preyanimals such as birds (Cote andSutherland 1997, Terborgh et al. 1999).

Focal species are used in three ways in thedevelopment of our Heart of the WestWildlands Network and this ConservationPlan: 1) to directly inform GIS (Geo-graphic Information System) developmentof the lowland Wildlands Network,through habitat suitability maps that areoverlaid with other map layers to helpdelineate cores and linkages, 2) to use aretrospective approach (Mehlman 1997) todetermine whether the proposed lowlandWildlands Network includes the generalrange of the focal species and whetherlinkages have widths that are functionalfor that species, and 3) as a monitoringmechanism (indicator species only) for thecompleted - and implemented - WildlandsNetwork, by testing whether the Network


41

and its associated management recommen-dations for cores, linkages, focal speciesand their habitats are tending to maintain,preserve, and/or increase populations ofthese important ecological indicatorspecies. Some of the focal species will fallunder more than one of these three catego-ries of Wildlands Network Design/Con-servation Plan development. Additionally,we make management recommendationsfor all of our focal species.4

We chose this three-track approach –representation analysis, special elementmapping, and focal species analysis –because there are weaknesses inherent ineach of the three methods, and relying ononly one or two of these approaches maynot provide sufficient protection for a largeregion. For example, representation analy-sis (when done in a coarse manner) usuallytreats all vegetation types as equal, wherethe goal is to protect some arbitraryamount of each type of habitat within awildlands network. Special element map-

ping does not take spatial needs of thespecies being mapped into account. Andfocal species analysis usually assumes thatthe species being modeled can act as anadequate surrogate for many other,smaller-bodied species that use similarhabitat. However, empirical research hasshown that this is not always the case (e.g.Kerr 1997, Bonn et al. 2002, Lindenmayeret al. 2002). Furthermore, we have nottested whether our suite of focal species isthe most complementary set of speciespossible. By combining the three tracks ofconservation planning strategies, we aimto capitalize on the strengths of each andrely on some measure of redundancyamong the three approaches to ensure thatlarge enough cores of the most ecologicallysignificant areas are protected within theHeart of the West. In addition, by pur-posely including redundancy in thisconservation planning exercise, we are alsoinvoking the precautionary principle inour work. We address this principle laterin this chapter.

4 These management recommendations are included in the Focal Species Accounts (Appendix B).

American Marten NPS


42

Though the size of core areas is typicallydetermined by the dimensions of existingroadless areas and needs of key focalspecies, as a rule core areas should be largebecause:• wide-ranging species require large areas

to meet all their life-history require-ments,

• ecological disturbances (such as fire)can best be restored in large areas,

• the dynamic, nondeterministic characterof natural communities requires protec-tion and restoration of large areas inorder to promote the long-term viabilityand adaptability of populations andcommunities (Simberloff et al. 1999).

Linkages are helpful in overcoming theeffects of habitat fragmentation in a region.They serve to link core areas so wildlifecan move between them (Mech and Hallett2001), while also allowing evolutionaryand ecological processes (e.g. fire, succes-sion, predation, etc.) to continue operatingwithin an otherwise fragmented system.By ensuring that plants and animals haveunsevered connections to other populationcenters, linkages can prevent or mitigatedeleterious population-level effects result-ing from isolation - such as inbreeding,low genetic diversity, and extirpation(Noss 1983, Harris 1984, Dobson et al.1999), and may actually increase thepopulation sizes, viability, and movementof habitat-restricted species (Noss andCooperrider 1994, Haddad 1999, Haddadand Baum 1999).

Compatible use areas are areas outsidecores and linkages, are often located onpublic lands, and are ideally lightly roadedand adjacent to core areas. We recommend

2.2.2 Core/Linkage ModelMost conservation plans propose somesort of zoning system to achieve theirconservation goals. We use an extension ofthe biosphere reserve concept (UNESCO1974),5 referred to as the core/linkagemodel, as refined by Noss (Noss andCooperrider 1994, Noss et al. 1997, Souléand Noss 1998), publicized by the Wild-lands Project (Noss 1992, Trombulak 1996),and used in conservation planning projectsby many researchers and conservationplanners (Hunter et al. 1999, Jeo et al. 2000,Foreman et al. 2000, Long et al. 2002,Foreman et al. 2003). We adopted thismodel, which features protected wilder-ness cores and natural landscape linkages.

Core areas are defined as wilderness, orwilderness-like areas, managed so as tomaintain ecological processes andbiodiversity within them. Cores serve asthe “backbone” of a wildlands networkand are designated to protect those land-scape features that are either under-represented elsewhere, critical for focalspecies viability, or are nearly irreplaceablein terms of their rare and important biota.Core areas can be comprised of eitherprivate or public land, and selectivelyallow for human uses that are compatiblewith maintenance of ecosystem health andecological processes (e.g. hunting, fishing,hiking, research, etc.). While core areasideally are not subject to invasive manage-ment techniques (e.g. reseeding, prescribedburning, plantings, biological pest control,etc.), in the short term, limited activemanagement of cores may be desirable inorder to restore natural processes upset bypast human alterations to the landscape.

5 The biosphere approach uses core areas surrounded by one or more types and use-intensities of buffer zones. Onefunction of these buffers might secondarily be to provide linkage among cores.


43

that compatible use areas only be subjectedto low-intensity uses such as recreation,hunting, light livestock grazing, selectivelogging, and limited oil and gas develop-ment. In general, human use in these areasis practiced in deference to the needs of thenatural ecosystems and communities.

2.2.3 The Precautionary PrincipleThis exercise in conservation planning isconducted under the auspices of thePrecautionary Principle. This principlesuggests that it is more favorable to err onthe side of protecting too much habitatthan too little. We invoke this principleagaint a backdrop of uncertainty andincomplete data. The Precautionary Prin-ciple leads us to act in a manner thataccounts for uncertainty by trying to avoidresults that preclude future options. Basi-cally, the less we know, the more cautiouswe need to be. As scientists who acknowl-edge the inherently stochastic nature of the

communities and systems we are studying,we underscore that conservation plannersand managers need to make every effort toerr on the side of caution, and incorporatewide margins of safety to guard againstloss of healthy ecosystems or ecologicalprocesses.

Compatible use areas can serve to 1)ameliorate edge effects on core areas, 2)provide a suitable habitat matrix foranimals to move between core areas, and3) provide supplemental habitat for popu-lations of native species inhabiting coreareas (Foreman et al. 2000).

Flat Top Erik Molvar


44

2.3 The SITES ModelIn developing this Wildlands Network, wesought to identify core areas within theHeart of the West lowland study area thathave the most to lose if not protected.These sites are often irreplaceable. Theenormity of the task of delineating coreareas and linkages that included ournumerous targets (such as special elementsand focal species habitat) precluded amanual approach. In addition, we strove tomake our analysis as objective as possible.Therefore, we decided to use the SITESmodel to delineate cores, linkages andcompatible use areas. The SITES modelwas developed for The Nature Conser-vancy by GIS land-use planning experts,and has been used by the Conservancy todevelop ecoregional plans for nine differ-ent ecoregions (Andelman et al. 1999). TheSITES model is now commonly used byboth TNC and The Wildlands Project(TWP), and four different TWP-sponsoredwildlands network designs were devel-oped (or are under development) usingSITES (Long et al. 2002, Foreman et al.2003, Miller et al. 2003, this plan).

SITES allows the user to assemble an initialset of conservation targets that best repre-sent a selected set of elements at chosentarget levels. The SITES model attempts tominimize reserve design “cost” whilemaximizing attainment of conservationgoals in a compact set of core areas. Thisset of objectives constitutes the “objectivecost function,” in which:Cost = Area + Penalty + Boundary Length

where Cost is the objective (i.e. for coreareas to be minimized), Area is the numberof hectares in all cores, Penalty is a costimposed for failing to meet conservationtarget goals, and Boundary Length is a costdetermined by the total boundary lengthof all core areas (thus causing core areas tobe compact and maximizing core to exte-rior ratios).

2.3.1. Variables in SITES ModelWhen using the SITES model, the userneeds to make decisions regarding the sizeand number of planning units, the penaltythat will be applied to the model for failingto meet conservation target goals, and thevalue of the boundary length modifier.SITES is a relatively new tool that has beenutilized by a rather limited number ofusers. Thus the knowledge and use of thisprogram is still evolving, and as of yetthere is no standard approach to using thistool (Wilmer, in prep). In part, the deci-sions that must be made (i.e. on planningunit size and boundary length) depend onthe size of the study area, goals, and inputs

to the model. To add rigor to our selectionprocess for some of these variables, weapplied a sensitivity analysis on two ofthese variables and corroborated theresults with reference data and expertknowledge (Box 2.1). This gave us confi-dence in the values we chose for theseSITES variables in our model.

The entire lowland study area was dividedinto 15,642 hexagonal planning units of1,250 hectares (ha) each. We chose thisshape over other shapes or entities (e.g.square cells or watershed boundaries)because it provides a relatively smooth


45

Box 2.1

In order to decide the ultimate size of our planning units and the value of the boundary

length modifier (blm) that would be employed in the SITES model, we conducted

experimental SITES runs using two different cell sizes (2,500 hectare hexes and 1,250 ha

hexes), and three levels of boundary length modifiier (0.0001, 0.00015, 0.0002) to see

how the outcomes varied in terms of size and placement of cores, "neatness" around the

edges, connectivity between cores, and total number of hectares in the Best Solution. We

chose these experimental values primarily based on the planning unit sizes and blm

values that many of our colleagues used when running SITES. We ran each test run 100

times with 1,000,000 iterations. The results were as follows:

�

With�the smaller (1250 ha) hexes, there is a total of 15, 640 planning units in the study

area, and

• when the boundary length modifier (blm) is set at .0001, the Best Solution puts

7,419,400 hectares out of a total 18,654,300 in the study area (39.8% of the total study

area) into solution (map on page 12)


8,882.200 hectares (47.6% of the total study area) into solution (map on page 13)

�

SITES: 1250 Hectare Planning Units, BLM .0001 SITES: 1250 Hectare Planning Units, BLM .0002


46

SITES: 2500 Hectare Planning Units, BLM .0001 SITES: 2500 Hectare Planning Units, BLM .0002

With�the larger (2500 ha) hexes, there is a total of 7,940 planning units in the study area,

and


9,545,700 hectares (51.2% of the total study area) into solution (map on page 13)


12,497,700 hectares (67.0% of the total study area) into solution (map on page 12)

One of our findings in this sensitivity analysis was that the same, general areas were

picked by every solution to form the basis of cores.� Based on this sensitivity analysis,

discussions with other experienced users of SITES, and our peer review process, we

decided to use the smaller (1250 ha) planning units with the .0001 blm for our SITES run.�


47

output (as compared with square cells),approximates a circle - which has a lowedge-to-area ratio, and the unit size re-mains constant (planning units that varywidely in size can present problems for theSITES algorithm). Moreover, if we hadused something like watershed bound-aries, larger watershed planning unitswould have been seen by SITES as havinga greater cost than smaller ones.

We chose the 1,250 ha. size based on oursensitivity analysis (Box 2.1), and because itwas comparable to cell sizes used in SITESanalyses in adjacent ecoregions by TheNature Conservancy (TNC 2001) and theWildlands Project (Miller et al. 2003), and sowould allow us to achieve some consistencyfrom area to area. In addition, the 1,250 ha.

planning unit size has an easily measureddiameter of 4 km, and provides good resolu-tion for the lowland study area but is stillconsiderably larger than the coarsest inputdata set. We attempted to keep the numberof planning units under 25,000, as SITESoutputs can be less reliable where the plan-ning unit number exceeds 25,000 hexagons(Menke, unpublished data).Another variable unique to SITES is thepenalty cost. The SITES algorithm will “tryharder” to meet the assigned targets forspecific elements if those elements havehigher penalty values than the penaltyvalues of other targets. In our model, allelements were assigned the same penaltyvalue of 1.0, so that each planning unit isequivalent in terms of cost and the SITESmodel is unconstrained in selecting where

OR Buttes upper Red Desert Erik Molvar


48

to achieve its goals. Choosing the penaltyvalue of 1.0 means that all elements had anequal chance of being represented in thefinal solution at approximately the levelsfor which we targeted them.

SITES allows users to control the amount ofclumping of planning units in the solution.This is accomplished by increasing or de-creasing the total length of the solutionboundary. This is achieved by setting a

particular value for the boundary lengthmodifier. A boundary length modifier of 0results in no influence over clumping, andincreasing the value results in more clump-ing of planning units within cores. Based inpart on our sensitivity analysis (Box 2.1), andin part on the boundary length modifierused by other SITES users with whom weconsulted (Foreman et al. 2003, Miller et al.,2003), we chose a boundary length modifierof 0.0001.

NHP (GAP 1 & 2)Species

Occurences

RoadlessAreas

ConservationPopulations of

Cutthroat Trout

Land CoverTypes

Sage Grouse &Wolf Predicted

Habitat

SITES Model

Special EcologicalElements Representation

Focal Species

Figure 2.3 A schematic showing how SITES works


49

model with numerous combinations ofinput levels, varying each input to assessthe outcome based on the following projectgoals: special elements, under-protectedvegetation types, and high-quality habitatsfor several focal species within the Heartof the West lowland study area.

Our 15,642 planning units were used as theindividual units that SITES used to “build”best core areas, linkages and compatibleuse areas, as SITES sought to include asmany of our targets as possible in a mini-mum-area set of cores. We ran the SITES

6 All GIS data used to generate the SITES model are briefly described in Table 2.2. (page 58)7 The Natural heritage Program operates at the state level and catalogues all rare species in the state. Natural HeritageProgram S1 designation indicates extreme rarity or other factor(s) making the species especially vulnerable to extinc-tion or extirpation (typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres) in the state where thelist is kept. S2 indicates rarity or other factor(s) making the species very vulnerable to extinction or extirpation (6 to 20occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) in the state where list is kept.8 A G1 ranking by the Natural Heritage Program means that the species is critically imperiled globally, and a G2ranking means that the species is imperiled globally.9 Using The Nature Conservancy guidelines (Comer 2001, TNC 2001), we corrected for unequal survey efforts for NHPspecies by capping targets at 25 occurrences.

2.3.2. Special ElementsWe assembled Natural Heritage Program(NHP) Element occurrence data6 for thelowland study area from the state HeritagePrograms in Wyoming, Montana, Colo-rado, Utah and Idaho (Figure 2.4). Weincluded 161 plant and 42 animal speciesin our final list of target species (AppendixC lists all NHP plant and animal speciesand the target levels we chose). The animaltargets included 13 mammals, 7 reptiles, 3amphibians, 13 birds, and 6 species of fish.This list was derived from The NatureConservancy’s target list for the WyomingBasins Ecoregion, plus all S1 and S27

species within the Book Cliffs in Utah andthe portion of the Southern Rockies thatfalls within the lowland study area. Usingthe SITES model, we attempted to target100% of G1 and G2 occurrences8, and 25%-75% of all species occurrences of lowerrank to be included in cores and linkages.9

We selected these target levels based onwhat Noss et al. (2002) had targeted in theUtah-Wyoming mountains (i.e. 100% of G1and G2 species), as well as the number ofoccurrences in the entire study area, andtarget goals set for the same species in The

Nature Conservancy’s Ecoregional Plan forthe Wyoming Basins. Appendix C lists theindividual SITES goals for each plant andvertebrate target.

Another special element used in the SITESanalysis was stream reaches containing“conservation populations” of cutthroattrout (Figure 2.5). We chose this as aspecial element because of the importanceof cutthroats to stream ecosystems, the factthat they are rare, are indicator species,and also because this element was notlikely to have been covered by the terres-trial focal species analyses and land coverrepresentation analysis. Using the SITESmodel, we targeted 100% of all occurrencesof cutthroat trout stream segments.

Due to the important conservation value ofroadless areas (Hitt and Frisell 1999, Nosset al. 1999b, Wilcove et al. 2000, Strittholtand DellaSala 2001), we wanted to insurethat all roadless areas were included in thefinal Network. These roadless areas in-clude all existing or citizen-proposedprotected areas (Figure 2.6), and all lands


50

Figure 2.4 Natural Heritage Program Element Occurences in the Heart of the West study area

with GAP 1 or GAP 2 status. These areaswere not fed into SITES in the same man-ner as the other special elements. Rather,we used the feature in SITES that enabledus to guarantee that all roadless areas wereincluded in the final SITES solution ofcores and linkages. This ensured that wecaptured 100% of this particular target.

We made ten repeat runs in SITES to meetour various goals for these target elements.The number of times planning units wereselected for core areas was used to deter-mine irreplaceability of planning units andtheir inclusion in our final set of cores andlinkages.


51

Figure 2.5 Conservation poplulation segments for cutthroat trout in the lowlands Heart of the West

study are

2.3.3 Representation Analysis.representation goal for all communitytypes as recommended by The NatureConservancy (Appendix C lists the indi-vidual targets for each land cover type).This was the same target used by Noss etal. (2002) for the Utah-Wyoming Moun-tains Ecoregional Plan, although theirrepresentation analysis combined bothbiotic and physical components. All of thecommunity types within the Heart of theWest lowland study area are featured inFigure 2.7.

The actual level of representation neces-sary to ensure, when adequately protected,persistence of any given land cover typedepends on many different variablesincluding the overall area occupied byeach community type, and the degree ofconnectivity of the land cover type. Nossand Cooperrider (1994) observed that,“science cannot tell us precisely how manytimes or in what size reserveseach...ecosystem type must be representedto be viable.” We propose, therefore, thatrepresentation values be used to identifyelements that may be relatively under-represented within the proposed network,and not to speculate what level wouldprovide adequate representation withinthe network. Thus, we utilized a 25%


52

Figure 2.6 Roadless areas in the lowlands Heart of the West study area


53

Biological/ Landscape (B/L) Elevation (Digital

Elevation Model)

Wolf habitat

model

7.5 minute DEM

with 30 m.

spacing

US Geological Survey

Biological/ Landscape (B/L) Aspect Wolf habitat

model

7.5 minute DEM

with 30 m.

spacing

Derived from elevation

(US Geological Survey)

Table 2.2 Spatial data used in the Heart of the West Wildlands Network Design

Biological/ Landscape (B/L) Wolf prey (elk,

deer) habitat use

data (polygons)

Wolf habitat

model

Multiple (usually

1:100,000)

Various state fish and

game agencies

Biological/ Landscape (B/L) Slope Wolf and sage

grouse habitat

models

7.5 minute DEM

with 30 m.

spacing

Derived from elevation

(US Geological Survey)

Biological/ Landscape (B/L) Sage grouse

habitat (current,

historic, etc.)

Sage grouse

habitat model

1:2,000,000 Washington Department

of Fish and Wildlife

Biological/ Landscape (B/L) Streams/

Hydrology

Sage grouse

habitat model

1:100,000 National Hydrology

Dataset

Biological/ Landscape (B/L) Land cover

(vegetation

types)

Sage grouse

habitat model,

and SITES

Representation

Analysis

100 m. grid GAP Analysis Program

Biological/ Landscape (B/L) Cutthroat trout

conservation

population

segments

Special Elements

analysis (SITES)

Derived from

1:100,000 data

Young et al. 1996

(adapted by Biodiversity

Conservation Alliance)

Biological/ Landscape (B/L) NHP Element

Occurrences

Special Elements

analysis (SITES)

Various Various State Natural

Heritage Programs

Type of data GIS data layer Analysis used in Scale Resolution Source


54

Anthropogenic/

Human impact layers (H)

Road density

(TIGER data)

Wolf habitat

model

Usually 1:100,000

but used 1:24,000

where available

U.S. Census Bureau and

state data clearinghouses

Anthropogenic/


Oil and Gas wells Sage grouse

habitat model,

and

Irreplaceability

Analysis

Usually 1:24,000;

some datasets to

nearest Section

Various state oil and gas

divisions

Table 2.2 Spatial data used in the Heart of the West Wildlands Network Design

continued

Anthropogenic/


Roadless Areas

(polygons)

Special Elements

analysis (SITES)

Various (most

coverages

digitized from

1:24,000 maps)

GAP Data, citizen roadless

inventories, BLM and USFS

Roadless Data

Anthropogenic/


Future oil and

gas threats

Irreplaceability

Analysis

Various Various oil and gas project

data from BLM, energy

companies and partners

Type of data GIS data layer Analysis used in Scale Resolution Source

Snowy Range Erik Molvar


55Figure 2.7 Vegetation tyes in the lowlands Heart of the West study area


56

Our suite of focal species was selected toachieve a balance of both habitat qualityindicators and keystone species represent-

2.3.4. Focal Species

Focal Species or Guild1 Landcover

Association

Type of Focal

Species

Justification

Table 2.3 Focal species used in the greater Heart of the West Wildlands Network Design effort

native cutthroat trout

(Yellowstone, Colorado River,

Bonneville, Greenback

subspecies)

aquatic habitat quality

indicator

Recovery and protection of native

cutthroats would help achieve goals such as

stream restoration and watershed

connectivity.

lowland chubs/suckers (Utah,

roundtail, and leatherside

chubs; bluehead and

flannelmouth suckers)


indicator

These species exist in smaller tributaries, and

in greater numbers and in more parts of the

study area than other focal fish guilds, and

are good indicators of natural flow regimes .

endangered Colorado River

fish


indicator

Recovery and protection of these fish would

help achieve goals such as stream

restoration and watershed connectivity.

beaver riparian/aquatic keystone species These are a critical keystone species in

riparian zones. Recovery and protection of

beaver would achieve goals such as riparian

restoration and connectivity.

river otter riparian/aquatic habitat quality

indicator

This species has been shown to accumulate

contaminants, and they prefer in-stream

structure found in relatively undisturbed

systems.

white-tailed prairie dog grasslands foundation

species

Habitat used, and modified, by this species

serves a myriad of others, and prairie dogs

also serve as ecosystem regulators.

bison grasslands foundation

species

Bison have an important, and

disproportionate effect on grassland

ecosystems, and their recovery will signal

recovery of degraded grasslands.

ing all the principal community typeswithin the greater Heart of the West re-gion10 (Table 2.3).

10 We adopted most of the same focal species used by Noss et al. in their SITES model for The Nature Conservancy’sUtah-Wyoming Mountains ecoregional plan, along with those that chiefly represent the lower elevation habitats withinour lowland study area.


57

sage grouse sagebrush

(sage/bunchgrass)

habitat quality

indicator

One of the best representative species for

sagebrush ecosystems, and good

conservation target to indicate grazing

impacts

goshawk coniferous forests habitat quality

indicator

Protection of highly suitable (open forest)

goshawk habitat could help achieve goals

such as restoration of a more natural fire

regime.

boreal owl coniferous forests habitat quality

indicator

Good indicator of mature, and old growth,

forests

lynx coniferous forests habitat quality

indicator

This species is especially vulnerable to human

threats/presence, and uses different habitat

types within forests

American marten coniferous forests habitat quality

indicator

This species is especially vulnerable to

clearcuts. Recovery and protection of pine

marten would help achieve goals such as

forest connectivity.

wolverine coniferous forests habitat quality

indicator

This species is very wide ranging within

forests, and uses rock outcrops/rocky cirques

for den locations (unlike lynx).

bighorn sheep rocky outcrops,

canyons and cliffs

habitat quality

indicator

Study area was the heart of historic bighorn

sheep range, and they are sensitive to

disturbance

gray wolf Habitat generalist

found in more than

one habitat type

keystone species Wolves are an apex predator, and are one of the

key large carnivores in the study area that we

expect to use the Heart of the West linkages

grizzly bear Habitat generalist

found in more than

one habitat type

keystone species,

and habitat

quality indicator

Grizzlies are an apex predator, and only

ecosystems of high quality and security can

support grizzlies.

Focal Species or Guild1 Landcover

Association

Type of Focal

Species

Justification

Table 2.3 Focal species used in the greater Heart of the West Wildlands Network

Design effort - continued

1 Instead of using single focal species to represent the aquatic habitats, we chose to use guilds of fish (i.e. cutthroat trout,lowlands chubs and suckers, etc.) to represent this target.


58

This suite was initially selected by ourscience team, with refinement of the focalspecies list following the completion ofnatural history literature reviews for eachspecies (Appendix B), and an expert peerreview process. Our team considered otherwide-ranging mammals (i.e. black bear,mountain lion, elk, deer, bobcat, etc.) aspotential focal species, but we assumed thefinal Wildlands Network Design wouldadequately capture the necessary habitatfor those species and so did not choosethem as focal species. In general, thesespecies are relatively numerous and adapt-able, and thus their populations are gener-ally considered secure.

We used habitat characteristics importantto focal species, along with landscape levelthreats that are considerable to thosespecies, to construct static habitat suitabil-ity models for selected focal species (wolfand sage grouse) in the study area. Habitatdata used in these models included vegeta-tion type, slope, aspect, elevation, impor-tant prey habitat, and proximity tostreams. Threats included road densityand oil and gas development. The methods

used in constructing these static models,and the results achieved, are featured inBox 2.2 (sage grouse) and Box 2.3 (wolf).

The results of the sage grouse and wolfhabitat suitability models were used asinputs for the SITES analysis. These twofocal species were selected as inputs intoSITES because, more than any of our otherfocal species, these two represent thehabitats that are most prevalent in thestudy area. We targeted 100% of all top-scoring sage grouse habitat, and 25% of allareas that scored in the second highestsage grouse habitat category to be in-cluded in cores and linkages. We targeted75% of all top-scoring wolf habitat, and25% of all areas that scored in the secondhighest wolf category to be included incores and linkages. In general, the verytop-scoring habitat for these species is themost desirable to include in the wildlandsnetwork - that’s why those thresholdswere set high. We set these particulartargets (100% and 75%) for sage grouseand wolf habitat based on trial runs, expertopinion and focal species target goals usedin other SITES models (i.e. Miller 2003).

Chain Lakes Biodiversity Conservation Alliance


59

The SITES model gradually closes in on abest set of cores that meet the target goals(summarized in table 2.4) while minimizingtotal area. It does this by running many(thousands to millions) iterations of themodel. The planning units that are consis-tently picked again and again indicate theirimportance towards meeting target goalsand thus these units are included in the finalproposed core areas. We used the Best Runsfeature of SITES to delineate cores andlinkages because the Best Runs is as close toan optimal solution as SITES can get (interms of “cost”). We ran the final model 100times, each with a million iterations.

Target SITES target level

G1, G2 NHP element occurrences 100%

G3-G5 NHP element occurrences taxa-specific (25%-75%)

Cutthroat trout population segments 100%

Roadless areas 100% (locked in)

Veg community types (land cover) 25% of each type

Top scoring ("best") wolf habitat 75%

2nd highest scoring wolf habitat 25%

Top scoring ("best") sage grouse habitat 100%

2nd highest scoring sage grouse habitat 25%

SITES also reported how often each planningunit was included in the initial set of coresduring the trial runs. This informationhelped us delineate linkages after the coreswere chosen. Even if these potential “con-necting units” sometimes were not includedin the final solution model, if they wereselected once that meant they likely includedone or more of our targets. This justifiedusing these planning units as building blocksto construct linkages between cores, alongwith natural ungulate migration linkages,stream linkages, and lightly roaded, publicland. When stream or river linkages wereused as the basis for linkages, they wereused as the backbone of the linkage, with atleast a 0.5 km buffer on either side of thestream or river.

Table 2.4 The target elements used in the lowland SITES analysis, and the levels for which

they were targeted.

2.3.5 Determining Core Areas, Linkages and Compatible Use Areas in LowlandWildlands Network.


60

The term “compatible use area” hasslightly different meanings for differentscientists working on conservation plan-ning efforts. In this wildlands network

2.4 Advanced Work on Lowlands Wildlands Network.Once the SITES model produced a first draftWildlands Network Design for the lowlandstudy area with delineated cores and link-ages, we made final adjustments on this firstdraft with both a retrospective lens, and alsowith the help of regional scientists and landmanagers with on-the-ground experience inthe Heart of the West.

To account for needs of focal specieswhose habitat suitability models were notdirectly entered into the SITES model orwhose known ranges were not included asa special element (all our focal speciesbesides sage grouse, wolves and cutthroattrout), we used GIS to overlay GAP habitatmodels for focal species11 with the draftWildlands Network Design. We calculatedthe total percentage of each focal species’range that was captured by the Network.When less than 50% of a species’ rangewas captured, slight modifications to coresand linkages were made to increase habitatfor it within the Wildlands NetworkDesign. We took a more finely scaledapproach with our analysis of proposedlinkages within the Network. Through anexpert peer review process, we consideredwhether the linkages were likely to beused by volant, terrestrial, and aquaticfocal species. Adjustments to linkageswere then made based on expert opinion.We also referred to our Focal Species

design effort, we refer to all areas outsideof cores and corridors as Compatible UseAreas (except for municipal areas), andlabel them as such on our maps.

Accounts (Appendix B) to determinewhether the cores and linkages wereaccommodating the needs of all focalspecies, based on size of cores, habitattypes within cores and linkages, range anddistribution of focal species, generalpopulation characteristics and demograph-ics of focal species, placement of andconnectivity between cores, etc.

We also conducted a retrospective analysisto ensure that adequate representation ofaquatic systems was captured in our initialset of cores and linkages. Whereas cut-throat trout conservation populationsegments were the only aquatic specialelement, we did include high ranking sagegrouse habitat as a target in the SITESanalysis and both perennial and ephemeralstreams were in turn key inputs into oursage grouse habitat suitability model. Weoverlaid the draft set of cores and linkageswith all perennial rivers and streams tocheck the overall representation of thesewater bodies in the draft set of cores, witha goal of 60% representation of perennialstreams and rivers in our draft wildlandsnetwork.

We similarly carried out a retrospectiveanalysis to make sure we achieved ad-equate representation of Nature Conser-vancy portfolio sites in our initial set of

11 GAP habitat models are created by each of the GAP Analysis programs in each of the states in the Heart of the Weststudy area. Historic habitat, in addition to predicted and possible habitat, was included for those focal species that areextirpated from the study area (bison and grizzly bear). We did not include our focal fish guilds in this retrospectiveanalysis; rather we evaluated the solution for representation of perennial streams and rivers (see below). Similarly, wedid not overlay those focal species whose principal habitats are primarily found in the Utah-Wyoming Ecoregion (i.e.lynx and wolverine, etc.).


61

cores and linkages. We did not believe itwas appropriate to include TNC portfoliosites as a SITES input,12 but we felt it wasvery important to make sure there wasgood agreement between our SITES solu-tion and what TNC determines to beimportant areas for conservation. In orderto gauge representation of TNC portfoliosites in our draft set of cores, we overlaidthe draft set of cores and linkages withTNC sites that exist for our lowland studyarea with a goal of at least 60 % representa-tion of TNC portfolio sites in our solution.

An important component of our advancedwork on the draft Wildlands NetworkDesign was to consider the size and shapeof cores from the perspective of criticalecological and evolutionary processes. Weevaluated the cores and linkages for theirability to respond to large-scale naturaldisturbance cycles in the region, and theirrole as refugia or movement linkages forvarious organisms in case of long-termclimate change. The team addressed futureclimate change effects by making sure theWildlands Network Design as a wholespanned the full range of climatic gradi-ents within the lowland study area.

Next we overlaid various anthropogeniclayers, such as major roads, road density,land ownership, and existing oil and gaswells, as well as threats such as imminentoil and gas development with the draftNetwork. This allowed us to identifyinstances where certain linkages seemedparticularly unrealistic or misplaced,considering human modifications such asmajor roads. In these instances, we ad-justed the placement of linkages, takingcare to follow lightly-roaded public landand riparian linkages to the extent possible

when adjusting linkages. Cores wereconsidered, and adjusted if necessary, in asimilar manner. The anthropogenic overlayalso allowed us to identify where private-land conservation is most likely or alreadyin practice. Planning units within coreareas and linkages that were seriouslyaffected by human activities but wereintegral to keep, usually because they wereembedded deep within a core or wereessential for connectivity, were renamedCore Recovery Areas and Linkage Recov-ery Areas. Density of oil and gas wells wasthe prime determining factor in reclassify-ing areas as Recovery Areas. While roaddensity could have been an additionaldeterminant of Recovery Areas, we as-sumed that road density was correlatedwith well density. Recovery Areas werefurther broken down into long-term CoreRecovery Areas and short-term CoreRecovery Areas. Long-term Core RecoveryAreas are those planning units with morethan 25 oil and gas wells per planning unit- or more than one well per 50 acres - andShort-Term Recovery Areas are those withbetween 5 and 25 oil and gas wells perplanning unit. Lastly, we used the anthro-pogenic data to help us take a close look atlarge, key core areas, and rank them interms of both their vulnerability andirreplaceability (see next section).

Compatible Use areas were added to thelowlands wildlands network after the“final,” biologically-based set of cores andcorridors was delineated. All remaininglands outside of core areas and corridors,but outside of municipal areas, werelabeled Compatible Use.

12 TNC portfolio sites are also based on inputs of multiple kinds of spatial data, and we would risk compoundinguncertainty (and thus error) by using TNC outputs or solutions as our inputs into SITES.


62

A key concept in conservation planning isirreplaceability (Pressy and Cowling 2001).This concept provides a measure of therelative contribution different core areasmake to reaching overall conservationgoals, thus helping planners prioritizeprotection for various core areas in awildlands network. Irreplaceability can bedescribed in two ways: (1) the likelihoodthat a particular area is needed to achievean explicit conservation goal, or (2) theextent to which the options for achievingan explicit conservation goal are narrowedif an area is not conserved. A core area thatranks high in terms of irreplaceability isessential to meeting a particular goal; ifthat core area is turned over to oil and gasproduction, it’s likely that that conserva-tion goal will not be attained. An examplewould be a core area that contains the onlyknown occurrence of a species in the

region. Conversely, a core with a very lowirreplaceability value might have a num-ber of replacements. The irreplaceabilityvalues of core areas will vary dependingon the specific goals that are set. One corearea might be irreplaceable for meeting thegoal of protecting all viable occurrences ofa G1 species, but very replaceable formeeting the goal of conserving highquality habitat for a focal species, such assage grouse.

Because our analysis considers multiplevalues of core areas and attempts toachieve a broad set of conservation goals,we invoked a method for calculatingirreplaceability of cores that has beenrecently developed by other conservationplanners (Jeo 2002). We assigned irreplace-ability values to lowland cores based onthe following criteria:

1) Contribution to the goal of protectingset targets of Natural Heritage Programspecies in lowland study area,

2) Contribution to the goal of protecting100% of stream segments with Conser-vation Populations of cutthroat trout inlowland study area,

3) Contribution to the goal of protecting100% of all roadless areas in lowlandstudy area,

4) Contribution to the goal of representingat least 25% of each vegetative commu-nity type in the lowland study area,

5) Contribution to the goal of protecting75% of top scoring wolf habitat, and25% of second highest scoring wolfhabitat in lowland study area, and

6) Contribution to the goal of protecting100% of best-scoring class of sagegrouse habitat, and 25% of second best-scoring class of sage grouse habitat inlowland study area.

2.5 Irreplaceability and Vulnerability of Lowland Cores

Cedar Waxwings NPS


63

To allow for direct comparison of theability of core areas to meet multipletargets, we first normalized the quantity ofany particular target by dividing theamount by the standard deviation, andthen calculated a standard Z-score for eachcore area based on how well that core areadid in picking up targets. The Z-score wascalculated for all targets (1-6 above) withina core area. This procedure allowed us todirectly compare the number of targets ineach core using meaningful units, since themean Z-score for the entire study area is,by definition, approximately 0, and 1 unitrepresents one standard deviation from themean value. For example, a Z-score of 0.5for sage grouse habitat for a certain coremeans that particular core has 0.5 standarddeviations greater than the mean for sagegrouse habitat compared to all other coreareas. Using Z-score values allows valuesto be combined such that each targetreceives equal weight and with explicitconsideration of the relative rarity of anytarget. For example, in order to rank coresbased on NHP data, we combined all NHPtargets into a single index score. Thismethod was particularly helpful in deter-mining irreplaceability of small core areascompared to large core areas.

Another key consideration in conservationplanning is threat or vulnerability(Margules and Pressey 2000). Understand-ing the current and future threats to indi-vidual core areas helps determine whichcores are in urgent need of immediateprotection, and can help conservationistsprioritize core areas for attention whilealso developing specific strategies andconservation plans for cores. Somewhatthe reverse of methods used to calculate Z-scores for irreplaceability of cores, wecalculated Z-scores for the vulnerability ofeach core based on road density in that

core, current oil and gas well density in thecore, and degree of future oil and gasactivity threatening the core area.

Based on the Z-score analysis describedabove, along with expert opinion on thethreats faced by each core area, we assigneda vulnerability score of 0-100 to each corearea. Core areas where then plotted on agraph of irreplaceability (y axis) versusvulnerability (x-axis) and the graph dividedinto four quadrants (see Margules andPressey 2000, and Noss et al. 2002). Theupper right quadrant, which includes coreareas with high irreplaceability and highvulnerability, comprises the highest prioritycore areas for conservation.

We considered these threats (current andfuture oil and gas development, and roaddensity) in our calculation of vulnerabilityof core areas because our conservationpartners as well as expert reviewers agreedthat these are the chief threats in the Heartof the West lowlands and, therefore,negative anthropogenic influences on coreareas. The scientific literature, outlinedbelow, further justifies treating these twovariables as the “chief threats” in thelowland study area:

Impacts of oil and gas exploration and

development.

There are multiple layers of disturbance thatare widely known to accompany oil and gasdevelopment. Access roads permanentlyreduce and fragment habitat, and provideadditional long-term opportunities for off-road vehicle intrusions into sensitive habi-tats. The amount of road development perwell pad constructed is partly a factor of welldensity, but recent estimates include onemile of road per oil well (USDA-USFSBridger-Teton National Forest 2000), 0.4miles of road per conventional natural gas


64

well (USDI-BLM, Pinedale Field Office 2000),and 0.3 miles of road per coalbed methanewell (USDI-BLM, Buffalo Field Office 2002).Comer (1982) explains that after an oil or gasfield is developed, one can expect increasedrecreation, particularly by off road vehicles(ORVs). New powerlines, pipelines, andrailroad tracks are often constructed, furtherreducing and fragmenting habitat (Weller etal. 2002). Ground disturbances may intro-duce noxious weeds (Shuman and Whicker1986), eliminate mycorrhizal fungi (Knapp1996), and destroy biological soil crusts(Belnap 1995). Compressor stations and wellpumps release pollutants into the air, andwaste products contaminate habitat (Clarren1999; Clifford 2001). In addition, oil and gasmining can remove rock outcrops thatprovide important habitat for specializedspecies (Weller et al. 2002, citing BLM 1999).

Impacts of roads and high road densities

Roads and trails are the primary vectors bywhich human impacts are dispersed overthe landscape (e.g., Hobbs and Huenneke1992, DeFarrari and Naiman 1994,McIntyre and Lovoral 1994). Withoutground access, human impacts are re-stricted to those by air, long-range cross-country travel, or those associated morediffusely with pollution or global change.Without question, most human impactsharmful to ecosystems are contingent onaccess, even where these impacts occuraway from the roadbed.

Roads and “ways” have been identifieddirectly or indirectly with numerous factorsthat diminish or destroy wildlands andnatural values. By their nature, roads areincompatible with wilderness (Hendee et al.1990). Human activity and associated im-pacts on or near roads and trails disturb anddisplace a wide range of wildlife species,especially those that have been hunted or arenesting (Brattstrom and Bondello 1983,

Bowles 1995). Roads almost always lead toaccelerated erosion and associated dimin-ished water quality (Froehlich 1978,Burroughs and King 1989). Ease of accessalso leads to modified fire regimes by facili-tating fire control. Use, maintenance andupgrading of roads grant easier access toillegal plant collectors. Finally, roads facili-tate the dispersal of off-road impacts - suchas those associated with all-terrain vehiclesor livestock - over larger areas than wouldotherwise be the case.

Roadbeds and associated constructiondisturb or remove native vegetation andact as vectors for non-native exotic plants(Frenkel 1970). Furthermore, vehiclescreate seedbeds for weeds and promotetheir dispersal (Clifford 1959, Frenkel 1970,Wace 1977, Schmidt 1989, Tyser andWorley 1992, Lonsdale and Lane 1994).These two factors, compounded with theupgrading and increased use of roads inthe intermountain West, facilitate thespread of exotic weeds which oftenoutcompete the native flora. More than50% of the West is now dominated byexotic weeds, and greater than 300,000acres of habitat are irrevocably convertedto exotic annual grasslands each year(Belnap 1998). Once they are established,weeds negatively impact western aridecosystems in numerous ways, such as:changing community composition (Bock etal. 1986), reducing biodiversity (Randall1996), increasing fire frequency (Esque1999, Brooks et al. 1999), altering soilmicroclimate (Evans and Young 1984),expediting loss of topsoil (Lacy et al. 1989),reducing effectiveness of wildlife habitat(Davidson et al. 1996, Knick andRotenberry 1997), and ultimately, leadingto such profoundly altered ecosystems thatnutrient cycling is disturbed and variousdisturbance regimes are altered (Mack andD’Antonio 1998).


65

Wildlife mortality is one of the most directimpacts of roads, but it is the indirecteffects on wildlife that are far more insidi-ous. Ungulates such as mule deer(Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus),and mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis) aremost vulnerable to human disturbanceduring the winter while on winter ranges(Leslie and Douglas 1980, MacArthur et al.1982, Edge and Marcum 1985, King andWorkman 1985, Freddy et al. 1986, Cassireret al. 1992). Disturbances can lead toreduced fecundity (Yormalov et al. 1988),especially if they interfere with feeding(Hobbs 1989). Importantly, the intrusion ofhumans on wintering ungulates is largelycontingent on road access. Vertebratessubject to legal harvest are also substan-tially affected by human-caused mortality,which is also critically dependent onaccess. For example, the vulnerability ofelk to hunter harvest has been shown to bepositively related to road density (Basileand Lonner 1979, Lyons 1979, Cole et al.1992, Unsworth et al. 1993). These aresignificant considerations because theyaffect the quality and size of elk and deerpopulations as well as the quality of elkand deer hunts. This same point holds forall of the other legally hunted or trappedmammals, especially carnivores such asblack bears (Ursus americanus) and bobcats(Felis rufus). Where there is easy access tocritical winter ranges or key habitats ofhunted mammal populations, it is difficultto mitigate for human impacts short ofclosing roads or reducing hunts. Forexample, although most mammals canhabituate to the presence of humans, this isless likely to happen in hunted popula-tions, and, if it does occur, leads to in-creased vulnerability among the affectedanimals (Douglas 1971, Knight andGutzwiller 1995). It is also noteworthy thatillegally hunted animals are highly suscep-

tible to the indirect negative effects ofroads; in Utah, poaching incidents aregreater in areas adjacent to roads(Davidson et al. 1996).

High densities of roads have been shownto negatively impact certain species ofmammals. In particular, densities of morethan one mile of road/mile2 represent alevel of access that is associated with morepronounced effects on wildlife speciessuch as wolves (Canis lupus) and bears(Ursus spp.) that are sensitive to contactwith humans (Thiel 1985, Van Dyke et al.1986, Mech et al. 1988, Lovallo and Ander-son 1996, Mace et al. 1996). However,results that point to one mile of road/mile2

as a rule-of-thumb threshold to majoraccess-related effects on wildlife are pre-dominantly from forested environ-ments. The impact is likely even greater towildlife in more open habitats that typifythe Heart of the West lowlands.

Roads can also fragment habitat of dis-persal-limited species. Some of thesespecies, which tend to be small, display“acute road-avoidance effect” in whichanimals remain at some distance from theroad and never or very rarely attempt tocross. For example, white-footed mice(Peromyscus sp.), chipmunks (Tamias sp.)and several species of beetles have troublecrossing roads greater than a certainwidth. This serves to effectively isolate onegroup of animals from the rest, in somecases virtually cutting the population inhalf. Populations are thus fragmented intosubpopulations in which movement iseither drastically lower among subpopula-tions than it was in the unfragmentedpopulation, or is cut off completely. Muchevidence from the field of populationbiology indicates that this will result inincreased risk of demographic fluctuation,


66

extinction due to demographic fluctuationas well as environmental stochasticity,genetic inbreeding and random drifts ingene frequencies, and less chance forcolonization after extinction (Charlesworthand Charlesworth 1987, Soulé 1987).

In closing, roads lead to many direct andindirect impacts on native ecosystems and

wildlife in the West. It is perhaps theindirect impacts that are actually the mostdamaging. Roads enable motorized accessinto remote areas, and then enable motor-ized use off those roads into pristine areas.These sorts of activities are usually notplanned for by management agencies, norare they usually monitored.

2.6 Expert AssessmentQuantitative data on which to evaluateconservation priorities are always limited.Thus, we recognized that our SITES analy-sis would need to be supplemented byexpert opinion. Practitioners, local scien-tists and on-the-ground activists canprovide valuable and often undocumentedinformation on targets, important habitats,threats and feasibility of site protection. Inaddition to providing key information,involvement of experts can simultaneouslyhelp develop strong partnerships, providenecessary peer review, and generally helpgarner acceptance and credibility of thefinal wildlands network.

Therefore, we utilized many forms ofexpert assessment in the design of theHeart of the West Wildlands Network. Allfocal species accounts and focal specieshabitat models were peer reviewed byexperts on those species in the Heart of theWest region. These experts includedwildlife researchers in academia, and stateand federal agencies. Once our prelimi-

nary maps were produced, we convened aworkshop with regional conservationistsand environmental activists from Utah,Wyoming and Colorado in order to receiveinput on threats, placement of cores andlinkages, and additional information ontargets and important habitats. We alsoconvened separate workshops with TNCregional science employees, NaturalHeritage Program Employees, BLM em-ployees, and other regional scientists inorder to acquire expert advice, as well asbenefit from their expertise withecoregional planning and large scaleconservation assessment techniques.Lastly, all maps and text of the Conserva-tion Plan went through a rigorous round ofexpert peer review by regional, indepen-dent scientists with expertise in focalspecies analysis, large-scale conservationplanning and GIS modeling. These scien-tists were from academia, governmentagencies, and conservation science re-search groups.

2.7 Assumptions and LimitationsThe individuals and organizations involvedin developing the Heart of the West Wild-lands Network have been guided by severalassumptions. It is important to acknowledgethese assumptions and limitations in inter-preting the results of the analyses andimplementing the plan. The assumptions weare operating under are as follows:

1) This conservation assessment andreserve design exercise is primarily GIS-based. We understand the inherent risksand uncertainties involved with relyingheavily on mapped information, such asour own habitat models (in turn basedon GIS layers), NHP data, GAP data,etc. We do not have the means to


67

statements of (our) policy, and notnecessarily based on concrete scientificdata. But they were necessary to make,in order to run SITES.

5) When setting our goals for the represen-tation analysis, we had no set standardto follow. In this analysis, we strove toset representation goals similar to thoseused in Wildlands Project sponsoredwildlands network design efforts(Miller et al. 2003, Foreman et al. 2003)and TNC ecoregional planning effortsthat overlap our own (TNC 2001,Freilich et al. 2001). Again, thesereprsentation goals are essentiallystatements of (ours, TNC’s, and others)policy, not necessarily based on scien-tific data. But they were necessary tomake, in order to run SITES.

6) In the process of forming our coalition,creating the Wildlands Network andobtaining expert peer review, we haveattempted to account for and monitorall other compatible conservationinitiatives by other groups in the region.These independent initiatives play animportant role in implementing variousaspects of the Heart of the West Wild-lands Network Design and Conserva-tion Plan. While these initiatives maysupport the wildlands network in part

ground truth and field check all inputmaps, or boundaries of proposed coreareas and linkages. Thus, we accept thedata we were able to acquire, andacknowledge that all of the inputs (andthus outputs) could contain somemisrepresentations.

2) No historical, archeological, or culturaldata (i.e. historic sites, pioneer trails,archeological ruins or petroglyphs, etc.)were used to identify priority sites forconservation. We aimed to keep inputsprimarily biological in nature.

3) We do not attempt to ensure viability ofall native species within the WildlandsNetwork. Population Viability Analysisfor certain species and meta-popula-tions is a very laborious task, involvinggreat inputs of data. Population viabil-ity of species is best addressed withsophisticated computer modeling, andis beyond the scope of our analysis.

4) Goals and targets for focal species andHeritage-ranked species in the wild-lands network design process aresomewhat arbitrary, and could beimproved with a more in-depth popula-tion viability analysis, with a spatialanalysis component, for each species.Many of these goals are essentially

Ferris Mountains George Wuerthner


68

occurrences. However, it is not possible todistinguish holes that result from absenceof surveys from holes that reflect trueabsences of occurrences.

2) The SITES algorithm does not guaranteean optimal solution (i.e., the mostefficient design possible) given a set ofgoals. Rather, the solution selected ineach run will be at least slightly differ-ent from those selected in other runs.Even the “best” (lowest-cost or mostefficient) of 10 or 100 runs is different,albeit in a minor way, from the best ofanother 10 or 100 runs.

3) Calculating the true biological irreplace-ability of an area is impossible. Hence, ouranalysis used objective estimates ofirreplaceability based on the extent towhich different planning units (andultimately clusters of planning units intocores) contributed to stated conservationgoals, as expressed by SITES sum runs.

Above all, the Heart of the West WildlandsNetwork is a work in progress. Conserva-tion planning is an iterative and adaptiveprocess. This Wildlands Network andassociated Conservation Plan is presentedas a working document for guiding conser-vation actions, not as the final word onhow to conserve the health of the land andits productivity in the Heart of the West.Future revisions will benefit from addi-tional research, data gathering, field study,and public involvement. Involvement byconservationists, outdoor recreationists,users of the land, local residents, privatelandowners, scientists, organizations,institutions, and agency managers willlead to iterative improvements. Newinformation, comments, and suggestionsare welcome.

or in whole, they are not necessarilyaffiliated with the Heart of the WestCoalition or its Conservation Plan.There are many compatible conserva-tion initiatives in the region not ad-dressed in this Conservation Plan;listing all the regional initiatives anddescribing how they can contribute toimplementation is beyond the scope ofthis document. Rather, we have createda document which contains maps andtools that can easily be incorporatedinto ongoing campaigns in the area.

7) We believe that regional, comprehensiveconservation strategies have to beimplemented over the long term (in therange of 100 years or more). This firstiteration of the Heart of the West Wild-lands Network is, however, relativelyshort-term (approximately 20 years).Later iterations will identify long-termrecovery goals.

8) Future studies will need to be con-ducted to analyze the social and eco-nomic impacts of implementing thisnetwork, and to better evaluate market-based economic incentives for theprotection of Nature in this region.

Every effort was made to use the bestavailable scientific data in the region.Many groups and individuals are workingto fill in the data gaps and the WildlandsNetwork Design will be periodicallyupdated as new information becomesavailable. However, a number of technicallimitations have been recognized:

1) Biological data used in the developmentof the Wildlands Network Design areincomplete and have uneven accuracy.For example, data on element occurrencesobtained from the various Natural Heri-tage Program show many “holes” with no

69

Sweetwater Rocks Erik Molvar

3.1 Results of Natural History Literature Reviews and Focal Species Models


We wrote detailed natural history litera-ture reviews, or species accounts, for all ofour focal species. Most of the informationin the species accounts is specific to theHeart of the West region, but basic ecologi-cal and life history information is also usedfrom other regions. All species accountsare included in Appendix B.

We found that the Heart of the West regioncontains ample, suitable habitat for bothwolves and sage grouse. The mappedresults of these habitat suitability modelsare featured in Boxes 2.2 (sage grouse) and

Chapter 3 - Results of SITES Analysis

2.3 (wolf). There is a considerable amountof good wolf habitat throughout thelowland study area. This finding may besurprising to some, as many people do notthink of shrublands as providing adequatehabitat for the gray wolf. This assumptionthat shrublands are not good wolf habitatprobably stems from the fact that the onlyplaces wolves were able to maintainpresence in the earlier parts of this centurywere remote, rugged and forested areas,due to persecution from humans.


70

3.2 Proposed Set of Cores, Linkages and Compatible Use Areas for LowlandsStudy Area

habitat, special elements, representationanalysis) at, above, or extremely close tothe pre-assigned target levels (Figure 3.1).This seemingly large solution (7,859,772hectares, or 42.1% of the lowland studyarea) can be attributed to the many differ-ent kinds of targets selected, which in-

The SITES model identified an initial“best” set of core areas in our Heart of theWest lowlands study area, which wascomprised of individual planning units,hexagonal in shape, that represented themost efficient and compact set of corescontaining the various inputs (focal species

Figure 3.1 Initial SITES output of draft solution for lowlands study area.


71

cluded wide ranging mammals such as thegray wolf; and also the existing naturalvariability in the lowland study area andthe need to adequately represent it in theSITES solution.

This initial SITES output set the stage forthe advanced work on the WildlandsNetwork (as described in Chapter 2 theadvanced work includes retrospectiveanalyses for inclusion of other focal specieshabitat and Nature Conservancy portfoliosites, assessment of aquatic representation,and delineation of linkages). The SITESmodel included in its initial solution otherkey variables that were not direct inputsinto SITES. The initial output representedat least 50% of all suitable habitats for allterrestrial focal species1 in the lowlandstudy area, except for bighorn sheep andwhite-tailed prairie dog. Our initial SITESoutput captured only 45% of suitablebighorn habitat in the study area (aspredicted by GAP analysis) and only 36%of the GAP habitat predicted for prairiedog. Our initial output met our originalgoal of 60% representation of all perennialstreams and rivers. The initial outputcaptured 57% of TNC portfolio sites in thelowland study area, somewhat short of our60% representation goal for this variable.

To increase the amount of these retrospec-tive targets in cores and linkages,2 and toincrease connectivity between draft coreareas, we added hexes (planning units) byhand to better meet our retrospectivetargets, and select key connectivity areasbetween cores.3 The added hexes on the

edges of cores helped capture additionalTNC portfolio sites and habitat for prairiedogs and bighorn sheep. This advancedwork, based in part on expert input, alsoidentified known locations of sage grouseleks, important mountain plover nestingareas, potential reintroduction sites forblack-footed ferret, and other ecologicallyimportant areas. The advanced work alsoidentified areas important for connectivitybetween cores, such as perennial water-courses and known important migrationlinkages for pronghorn, deer and elk. Thenew planning units we added to thesolution are color coded in Figure 3.2.

At this stage of manual delineation andadjustment, we also looked at whichtargets were driving the occurrence ofdisjunct, outlier hexes that were isolatedfrom other core areas (Figure 3.1). Inthose cases where one of the 161 plantand 42 animal Natural Heritage Program(NHP) species was not driving the selec-tion of the outlying hexagon (i.e. it wasselected to help meet target goals forrepresentation, or wolf or sage grousehabitat, etc.) the outlier was eliminated(Figure 3.2). In those cases where a singleNHP species occurrence was driving theselection of the outlier, we eliminated theisolated hexagon in most cases, providedwe could add a planning unit some-where else in the study area that con-tained that NHP species. In the caseswhere we could not find another satis-factory planning unit to replace anisolated hexagon (i.e. adjacent to anexisting core), we only eliminated it as

1 We considered beaver and river otter as terrestrial focal species in this retrospective analysis.2 We did not set the prairie dog habitat representation target at 50% like the other focal species. This was because theGAP-predicted suitable habitat for the prairie dog is very extensive, essentially covering the entire lowland study area.However, as seen in Table 3.5, we did increase representation of good habitat for this focal species, through ouradvanced work, in the final Wildlands Network.3 As described in Methods, much of the advanced work needed to be carried out by hand. Individual hexes were addedto cores and linkages, based both on retrospective analyses described in chapter 2, and expert review, feedback andworkshops.


72

long as we didn’t reduce the number ofelement target occurrences to more than25% less than the original NHP speciesrepresentation goal.

The retrospective analyses, and manualadjustments to the SITES output thatresulted from those analyses (described

above), led to the final set of core areas andlinkages for the lowland Wildlands Net-work Design (Figure 3.3). These cores andlinkages fulfill all SITES pre-selected goalsat or extremely close to their respectivetarget levels, with some targets beingrepresented well above their specifiedtargets (Table 3.1 and Appendix C).

3.2 Draft solution for lowlands after new planning units added by hand (blue cells), and with tiny

“outliers” removed (compare with figure 3.1).


73

3.3 Final lowland solution, or wildlands network. Core areas shown in green and linkages in yellow.

After the advanced work, the finalbiologically-based solution of core areasand linkages met the various retrospec-tive goals discussed above. Our pro-posed set of cores and linkages for thelowland study area captured over 67 %of all perennial streams in the study area,63% of all TNC portfolio sites that exist

within the lowland study area (Figure3.4), and existing suitable habitat forterrestrial focal species at the level of50% or greater4 (Table 3.2).

While cores were designed with generalknowledge of the size requirements forpopulations of focal species (attained from

4 As mentioned earlier, we did not strive to meet the 50% representation goal for prairie dog habitat


74

*a Individual target goals for each land cover type and each NHP species are in Appendix C.b Overshooting targets by large amounts will happen when species are overestimated due to sampling bias (i.e. listed and/orcandidate species such as bald eagle, mountain plover, boreal toad, etc. that are sampled for much more frequently than others,and so by comparison appear to be “more common” than others).c G3 to G5 species target goals ranged from 25% to 75% of occurrences, based on the number of occurrences in entire study area,and target goals set for the same species in The Nature Conservancy’s Ecoregional Plan for the Wyoming Basins.

Element Total in study

area (ha)

Amount

targeted

(ha, and %)

Amount

achieved in

network (ha)

Amount

achieved in

network (ha)

Percent of

target

achieved in

final network

Good wolf habitat 6,281,519 1,570,377

(25%)

2,348,820 37.4% 149.60%

Best wolf habitat 188,615 141,461

(75%)

145,948 77.4% 103%

Good sage grouse

habitat

7,604,780 1,901,195

(25%)

3,306,773 43.5% 174%

Best sage grouse

habitat

476,308 476,308

(100%)

442,426 93% 93%

Cutthroat trout

population segments

17,157

(linear ha)

17,157

(100%)

17,157 100% 100%

Roadless areas 199,864 199,864

(100%)

199,864 100% 100%

Land cover (Veg) types varies for each

typea

25% of each

type

See

Appendix C

varies for each

type

anywhere

between 107%

and 349% of

the target

NHP species, G1s and

G2s

varies for each

speciesa

100% of each

species

See

Appendix C

varies for each

species

anywhere

between 75%

and 1896% of

the targetb

NHP species, G3s

through G5s

varies for each

speciesa

25% to 75% of

each speciesc

See

Appendix C

varies for each

species

anywhere

between 70%

and 608% of

the targetb

Table 3.1. Target goals, actual numbers of targets included in lowlands Wildlands Network,

percent of total amount of target in study area, and percentage of goal achieved.


75

Focal Species Amount of suitable

habitat in lowland

study area

(ha)

Amount of suitable

habitat captured in

wildlands network

(ha)

Percent of suitable

habitat in network

River otter 1,030,703 662,007 64.2%

Table 3.2. Amount of suitable habitat for terrestrial focal species (not including

sage grouse and wolf) in the lowland study area, and in cores and linkages.

Bighorn sheep 4,718,692 2,668,449 56.6%

Beaver 3,401,126 2,106,050 61.9%

Bison 2,247,698 1,191,744 53%

Prairie dog 13,299,975 5,215,688 39.2%

Grizzly bear 3,640,541 2,174,557 59.7%

our focal species accounts, Appendix B),the individual core areas do not necessar-ily include the specific waters or landsneeded to maintain viable populations ofeach target in each core. Rather, the overallnetwork was designed under the workingassumption that, assuming cores arerelatively connected across the landscape,viable populations of all focal speciescould be maintained across the Heart ofthe West. Practitioners and scientistsutilizing our wildlands network may wantto validate this assumption.

Compatible use areas were added to thelowlands Wildlands Network after thefinal, biologically based set of cores andlinkages was delineated. (Figure3.5). Theseareas included the remainder of the low-lands study area, outside of municipalareas.

The final analysis step was to overlayanthropogenic GIS layers (current oil andgas wells, major roads, towns and cities,

etc.) with the Wildlands Network anddetermine whether some hexes should beremoved from the network in light of theseimpacts. Based on these overlays, andexpert opinion, very few hexes wereremoved from core areas or linkages.Rather, parts of cores and linkages thatappeared to be considerably affected bycurrent human activities were labeled asCore Recovery Areas. Long-term CoreRecovery Areas are those hexes with morethan 25 wells per planning unit - or morethan one well per 50 acres - and Short-termCore Recovery Areas are those with be-tween 5 and 25 oil and gas wells perplanning unit (Figure 3.6).

The final lowland Wildlands Networkincludes approximately 8,387,190 ha ofcores (including Core Recovery Areas) andlinkages, or 44.9 % of the total lowlandstudy area. Only 4.1 % of the proposedlowland Wildlands Network is already insome form of protective federal status (i.e.GAP 1 or 2 status lands, which are prima-


76

3.4 Overlap between our lowlands wildlands network (green) and TNC’s Wyoming Basins portfolio

sites (open blue polygons) and TNC’s Southern Rocky Mountain portfolio sites (open red olygons).

rily managed for maintenance of biologicaldiversity or natural values) (Figure 3.7). Aconcerted effort by conservationists, localcommunities, land managers and politi-cians will be required to increase theamount of area in cores and linkages thatare protected at the state and federal level.

Currently, 29% of the Wildlands Networkis comprised of privately held lands (Table3.3). Private lands offer different andinnovative options for land protection,such as “conservation ranches,” privatenature reserves, conservation easements,and sale to organizations who carry out all


77

3.5 Lowlands wildlands network with compatible use areas added (blue)

of the above activities, such as TNC andother land trusts. The Heart of the WestImplementation Team intends to workwith private landowners who own land incores and linkages, and work towardscontrolled road access, management forbiodiversity conservation purposes, andtoleration of large carnivores. Figure 3.8

illustrates the sections of cores and link-ages that are privately held.

Figure 3.9 depicts the names we have givento the larger lowland core areas (Figure 3.9).These distinctive, larger core areas arefeatured below in the results of our Irreplace-ability-Vulnerability analysis, and also in


78

3.6 Lowlands wildlands network with short and long-term core recovery areas added

Core

Linkage

Compatible Use

Short term recovery

Long term recovery

Chapter 4 were we feature the specificcomponents of the Heart of the West Wild-lands Network Design and describe aspectsof these larger cores in more detail.


79

3.7 Lowlands wildlands network with GAP 1 and 2 areas (purple) shown within cores and linkages

3.3 Irreplaceability vs. Vulnerability AssessmentThe irreplaceability and vulnerabilityassessments for the 28 larger lowland cores(Figure 3.9) were based on (GIS-based)site-specific knowledge of the individualcores, and expert opinion. Using theapproach of Margules and Pressey (2000)and Noss et al. (2002), we plotted all core

areas on a graph of irreplaceability (y-axis)versus vulnerability (x-axis) and dividedthe graph into four quadrants (Figure3.10). The upper right quadrant, whichencompasses clusters with high irreplace-ability and high vulnerability, is generallythe highest priority for conservation. This


80

Land Owner Total amount of

land type in study

area (km2)

Amount of land

ownership in

Wildlands

Network (km2)

% of Wildlands

Network in each

ownership

Bureau of Land Management 85,066,192 35,748,207 42.62%

Table 3.3. Amount of various land ownership categories in the lowland

study area, and in cores and linkages.

Forest Service 13,871,971 12,217,816 14.57%

National Park Service 267,297 267,297 0.32%

Tribal Lands 8,973,856 2,679,022 3.19%

Private 63,743,259 24,360,297 29.04%

State 12,582,600 6,559,577 7.82%

Fish and Wildlife Service 491,893 491,892 0.59%

Water 1,294,799 911,732 1.09%

Total 99.40%

top tier of core areas is followed by theupper left and lower right quadrants(moderate priority), and finally, by thelower left quadrant, encompassing coresthat are relatively replaceable and face lesssevere threats (Noss et al. 2002). Of course,the quadrant lines are arbitrary, so forexample, core areas in the lower leftquadrant that are “further up” on theirreplaceability axis (y-axis) would warranthigher priority than cores lower in irre-placeability.

Our Irreplaceability vs. vulnerabilityprioritization of the final set of lowlandcores resulted in seven core areas fallinginto the high irreplaceability/high vulner-ability quadrant, giving them the highestpriority for conservation action. The

analysis resulted in seven second quadrantpriority sites (high irreplaceability/lowervulnerability), seven third quadrantpriority sites (lower irreplaceability/highvulnerability), and seven fourth quadrantpriority sites (lower irreplaceability/lowervulnerability).

We urge that regional conservationists andactivists give very high priority to thoselowland core areas in the upper left quad-rant over the lower right quadrant (Fig3.10). Areas of high and irreplaceablebiological value deserve conservationaction even if not highly threatened today,and protection of these areas while theyare relatively ecologically intact is moreefficient than having to restore them in thefuture.


81

3.8 Private land holdings (blue) within lowlands core areas and linkages.

It is likely that the biggest threat to low-land core areas in the near future is oil andgas extraction efforts. Indeed, this factorweighed most heavily in the vulnerabilityanalysis described above. Figure 3.11depicts the degree of the future oil and gasthreat facing core areas, where red areasportray areas where over 500 wells are

expected per project area in the next 20years, pink areas represent 100-500 wellsper project area in the next 20 years, andbeige areas represent up to 100 new wellsper oil and gas project area during thatsame period.


82

3.9 Key core areas of the lowland wildlands network.

Comprehensive assessment of all threatsfacing all core areas in the lowland studyarea was beyond the scope of this analysis.Additional work, at the level of specificmanagement and conservation plans forindividual cores, is needed to update andrefine threats to targets within the differentcore areas.


83

Upper Bear RiverUpper Bear River

Medicine BowMedicine Bow

Piceance BasinPiceance Basin

Absaroka FrontAbsaroka Front

Pedro Mts.Pedro Mts.

Upper Wind RiverUpper Wind River

Bobcat DrawBobcat Draw

HoneycombsHoneycombs

Cedar Mt.Cedar Mt.Bighorn CanyonBighorn Canyon

McCullough PeakMcCullough Peak

Fuller PeakFuller Peak

Rattlesnake HillsRattlesnake Hills

Laramie RangeLaramie Range

Sweetwater RocksSweetwater Rocks

Shirley BasinShirley Basin

Ham's ForkHam's Fork

Flaming GorgeFlaming Gorge

Upper Green RiverUpper Green River

Book CliffsBook Cliffs

Adobe/VermillionAdobe/Vermillion

Upper Red DesertUpper Red Desert

Chain LakesChain LakesWind RiverWind River Rawah Mts.Rawah Mts.

DuscheneDuschene

Flat TopsFlat Tops

Little Book CliffsLittle Book Cliffs

Figure 3.10. Irreplaceability versus vulnerability graph. The X axis measures Z-scores for vulnerabil-

ity (as described in Chapter 2). As you move along the X-axis from left to right, cores are more

vulnerable to loss of protection and degradation. The Y axis measures Z-scores for irreplaceability.

As you move along the Y-axis, cores are more irreplaceable. Cores in the upper right hand quadrant

have the highest priority for protection, as they are both irreplaceable, and vulnerable.

3.4 Linking Lowland Solution With Other Conservation Planning EffortsOne of the original goals of this planningeffort was to link a wildlands network forthe lowland study area to the conservationassessment already completed by Noss etal. and The Nature Conservancy for theUtah-Wyoming mountains. Figure 3.12

depicts our lowland study area solutionalongside the SITES solution featured inTNC’s ecoregional plan for the Utah-Wyoming Mountains (as featured in Nosset al. 2002). The areas along the bordersbetween the two SITES results generally


84

Figure 3.11 Principle energy extraction threats facing lowland cores and linkages in the near future.

Polygons reflect approved oil and gas project sites.


85

Figure 3.12 Lowlands wildlands network alongside SITES solution for TNC’s Utah-Wyoming Moun-

tains Ecoregional Plan (Noss et al. 2002).

showed strong agreement as to whichareas should be considered cores andlinkages. Areas that were found not to becongruent were shaded to convey Transi-tion Study Areas between core areas in thetwo adjacent study areas (Figure 3.13).While these Transition Study Areas are notformally designated as cores or linkages,

we recommend that development andother sources of habitat fragmentation beminimized within these zones until de-tailed studies of wildlife movement allowidentification of critical travel routes.Transition Study Areas that were alsoidentified by American Wildlands as beingareas important to ungulates and bears in


86

Figure 3.13 Lowlands wildlands network alongside SITES solution for TNC’s Utah-Wyoming Moun-

tains Ecoregional Plan (Noss et al. 2002) with Transition Study Areas shown in blue.

their recent “Least Cost Path analysis” forthe greater Heart of the West region(American Wildlands, in prep) are likely tobe shown through field research to be veryimportant travel linkages between theTNC Utah-Wyoming Mountains portfoliosites and our lowland Heart of the West

core areas. American Wildlands’ LeastCost Path analysis for the greater Heart ofthe West region is featured in Appendix D.

Overall, the Heart of the West lowlandsSITES analysis, combined with TheNature Conservancy’s Ecoregional Plan


87

3.14 Lowlands wildlands network alongside SITES solution for TNC’s Southern Rocky Mountains

Ecoregional Plan. Lack of tight clustering in TNC’s Southern Rockies Ecoregional Plan reflects a

looser boundary length modifier than that used in our analysis for the Heart of the West lowland

study area.

for the Utah-Wyoming Mountains offersa comprehensive vision for large-scalelandscape protection for the greaterHeart of the West region. If the proposedprotections in the Utah-Wyoming Moun-

tains Plan are combined with our low-land study area (hereafter referred to thegreater Heart of the West region), animpressive amount (over 15,831,000hectares, or about 53.5%) of the greater


88

Figure 3.15 Lowlands wildlands network alongside The Southern Rocky Ecosystem Project’s (TWP)

wildlands network.

Heart of the West region is proposed forprotective status.

It is also instructive to link our greaterHeart of the West Wildlands Networkdesign with other TNC and WildlandsProject-sponsored network designs to the

south. Figure 3.14 depicts the greaterHeart of the West Wildlands Networklinked to TNC portfolio sites in the South-ern Rockies. Figure 3.15 depicts the greaterHeart of the West Wildlands Networklinked to The Wildlands Project sponsoredSouthern Rockies Wildlands Network.


89

3.5 Goal AttainmentWildlands Network more resilient tochange. We offer these predictions astestable hypotheses to evaluate withmonitoring.

Our GIS analysis for the lowland portionof the Heart of the West revealed that 4.1 %of our lowland study area (and 9.1% of ourproposed wildlands network solution) wasalready included as GAP 1 and GAP 2status lands. We recommend that anadditional 838,642 ha (or 40.8 %) of thelowland study area be managed in asimilar fashion to GAP 1 and 2 lands, for atotal of 44.9 % of the lowland study arearecommended for protection. When ourlowland study area Wildlands Network isconnected to Noss et al.’s conservationassessment for the Utah-Wyoming Moun-tains Ecoregion, 53.5% of the greater Heartof the West region would be protected ifboth plans were implemented and coresand linkages protected. Both our studyand that of Noss et al. (entire study isfeatured in Appendix A) arrived at thesefigures empirically, by evaluating andranking targets and sites for protectionbased on their biological values, without apreconceived idea of how much landwould need to be protected in the region.Not surprisingly, however, our proposalfalls in line with previous estimates of howmuch land should be secured to meetconservation goals; most estimates fall inthe range of 25% to 75%, and generallyaverage about 50% (Odum and Odum1972, Margules et al. 1988, Noss 1992, Ryti1992, Saetersdal et al. 1993, Noss andCooperrider 1994).

The Heart of the West SITES analysis andWildlands Network seeks specific repre-sentation, special element, and focalspecies conservation goals. We evaluatedhow well our final lowlands WildlandsNetwork (Figure 3.6) achieves these goals.Overall, conservation goals were met orexceeded for all 211 targets (including allthe individual focal species, NHP species,and land cover types), except for a fewtargets that were met at ranges of 70% to99% (Table 3.1, Appendix C).

In addition to meeting the quantitativegoals of specific elements, our proposedWildlands Network for the Heart of theWest, if implemented in part or in full,should help attain four key conservationgoals necessary for the establishment andmaintenance of lasting ecological integrity(i.e. representing all kinds of ecosystems inprotected areas, maintaining viable popu-lations of native species, maintainingecological and evolutionary processes, andbuilding a conservation network resilientto environmental change, Noss 1992, Nosset al. 1997). For example, the greaterprotection given to rare and imperiledspecies, whether it be Natural Heritagespecies occurrences clustered in cores, orwide-ranging focal species benefiting fromprotected linkages, might increase theprobability for long-term populationpersistence in the Heart of the West. Thegreater connectivity and reduced fragmen-tation of habitats that will be achievedthrough implementation of this WildlandsNetwork should promote operation ofnatural processes as well as the naturalmovements of organisms. Movements ofindividuals along elevational gradientsand into suitable microhabitats in the faceof future regional climate change shouldalso be enhanced, hence making the

91


Our SITES model helped delineate alowlands wildlands network of draft coreareas, linkages, and compatible use areasthat, through advanced work and refine-ment, resulted in a final proposed Wild-lands Network for the lowland areas of theHeart of the West (Figure 4.1). However,we wish to underscore that simply bydelineating these important areas on amap certainly does not mean that theprotection we desire for these areas willautomatically be achieved. Rather, it’s themanagement of these areas - not what weor others call them - that will ultimately

matter the most. Better coordination andcommunication among conservationists,land managers, and private landowners isneeded to achieve shared goals and objec-tives. These goals and objectives arecompatible with those outlined in thisconservation plan.

Below, we describe the types of goals andmanagement recommendations that accom-pany our wildlands network classifications,showcase 28 of our larger, key core areas inthe lowland study area, and describe two ofthe most important linkages in the network.

Chapter 4 - Introduction to the Heart of the WestWildlands Network

Copper Mountain, Wind River Erik Molvar

Chapter 4 - Introduction to the Heart of the West Wildlands Network

92

Core

Linkage

Compatible Use

Short term recovery

Long term recovery

4.1 Lowlands wildlands network with short and long-term core recovery areas added


93

4.1 Wildlands Network Unit Classification and Management GuidelinesThis chapter describes the wildlandsnetwork for the lower elevation region ofthe Heart of the West. Traditional conser-vation areas (e.g., National Parks, Wilder-ness Areas, and National Wildlife Refugesin the United States) generally have clearguidelines for management that have beendeveloped over decades. Managementguidelines for science-based conservationareas, such as those included in the low-lands Heart of the West Wildlands Net-work1, emphasize biological values and arestill in the process of development and

refinement. The unit classifications andgeneral management recommendationsbelow are our refinements based on thoseclassifications and guidelines featured inrecent Wildlands Project Wildlands Net-work Conservation Plans (Foreman et al.2003, Miller et al. 2003), which were in turnbased on Noss’s (1992) original reservedesign classification system. Furtherdiscussion and revision of these broadclassifications and management guidelinesis encouraged.

4.1.1 Core AreasCore areas are wilderness, or wilderness-like areas, managed so as to maintainecological processes and biodiversitywithin them. These areas comprise thebulk of the wildlands network featured inthe previous chapter. Core areas include allGAP 1 and GAP 2 status lands, as well asall roadless areas, as all of these featureswere captured in our initial lowland SITESmodel. Core areas are clusters of planningunits that include not only roadless areasbut also important biological and ecologi-cal features of the landscape.

We recommend that all core areas in theHeart of the West that possess wildernesscharacteristics be managed in accordancewith the 1964 Wilderness Act. Core areasshould be managed such that no new per-manent roads are built, use of motorized/mechanized equipment and vehicles isprohibited or substantially limited, loggingand other tree removal activities are cur-tailed, and new surface mineral extraction

activities avoided. In addition, predatorcontrol and trapping should be prohibited,unless necessary for restorative managementor recovery of focal species. Human useshould be managed to protect the ecologicalintegrity of the area. In general, we recom-mend that the chief human uses in core areasinclude nonmotorized activities. Huntingand fishing should be managed in a mannerthat prevents degradation of the ecologicalintegrity of the area. Livestock grazingshould be limited to levels of use that ensurediverse plant community composition,forage production at potential, and unim-paired riparian areas. We recommend thatcertain exotic species be controlled and/oreliminated in core areas. Species such asexotic trout, and monocultures of noxiousweeds, are especially detrimental in theseareas. Lastly, monitoring of habitat, focalspecies, and habitat function should estab-lish critical thresholds needed for species(especially carnivore) persistence.

1 In this chapter we principally refer to the lowlands Heart of the West Wildlands Network. Appendix A features Nosset al.’s report on the Utah-Wyoming Mountains conservation assessment, which includes unit (“megacore”) descrip-tions and management guidelines for these important units in the mountainous regions of the Heart of the West. Moredetailed prescriptions for individual units in the Utah-Wyoming Mountains is work in progress by The NatureConservancy and the Heart of the West Implementation Team.


94

Many lowland Heart of the West core areashave established roads, jeep tracks andtrails. A few of the cores possess oil andgas wells. We recognize the reality thatcontinued vehicle use related to oil or gasproduction will continue for some of theseroutes. In core areas, we recommend thatthe land manager reduce road density to alevel that encourages return of wildlifeand prevents further population loss ofcertain species. Such road densities willvary depending on habitat type andspecies.

A couple of examples demonstrate thisprescription. Studies have shown thatvehicle use and oil and gas well sitingscloser than two miles to a sage grouse lekleads to measurable changes in grousepopulations (Lyon 2000). This translatesinto a minimum well density of one wellper every 640 acres for sage grouse breed-ing habitat. In terms of elk, when road

density in forested habitat exceeds onemile per square mile, elk habitat effective-ness is reduced by 25% (Hartley 2003). Inmore open habitat, common in much of theHeart of the West, wildlife avoidance ofroads increases. In rolling shrublands withroad densities of 0.8 miles of road persquare mile, elk cease using much of suchhabitat (Lyon 1979).

To meet road density and well spacingrequirements for focal species, land man-agers have several options. New oil andgas wells can use existing well pads to drilldirectional wells2. Public motorized usecan be restricted to designated routes only.Routes not needed by the public can beclosed with a gate or the route removedand reclaimed. These sorts of actions incore areas would lead to lower road uselevels and road densities that would bettermeet the needs of wildlife.

These areas are places within core areasthat have more than 5 oil and gas wells perplanning unit (or more than one well per250 hectares). The core recovery areas arefurther divided into short-term recoveryareas (5 to 25 wells per planning unit), andlong-term recovery areas (more than 25wells per planning unit, or more than onewell per 50 hectares). Because of impacts atthis level, these recovery areas are func-tioning at a level that prevents the habitatfunction needed for focal species. How-ever, the SITES model still selected theseareas to be an integral part of our wild-lands network because of the ecologicalattributes they possess, and/or theirimportance in maintaining integrity ofcores and connectivity between cores.

Therefore, core recovery areas are incorpo-rated in the Heart of the West core areas asan important step in restoring these areasto an ecologically functioning and naturalstate, and eventually an integral compo-nent of intact core areas.

Areas identified for short-term and long-term recovery differ because of the magni-tude of recovery needed. Areas mapped forshort-term recovery generally have fewerimpacts and have habitat that still partlyfunctions for wildlife. Long-term recoveryinvolves restoring habitat in an area with amuch higher density of impacts.

Recovery schedules are affected by anumber of factors including the legal right

2 The details of this approach are explained more fully in Molvar (2002).

4.1.2 Core Recovery Areas


95

of land users to continue their activities.Where possible, current uses should bemodified to allow for use in deference tothe need of habitat to function for wildlife.In some cases this may not be possible andrecovery will not begin until, for example,oil production ends at a specific well.Short-term recovery for a producing oilfield would require that future wells bedrilled from existing wells, and thatnonproducing well sites be reclaimed.Recreational vehicle use must be limited toprinciple roads. Power lines should bemoved underground in areas whereraptors predation may affect a focal spe-cies. Mineral extraction operators shouldanticipate the need for these sorts ofrestoration activities, and their costs needto be part of the permit bonding process.

Long-term recovery applies to areas with ahigh density of wells, roads, pipelines, and

power lines. Reclamation of such an areamay not begin for one or more decades andcould take several decades to complete.

We recommend that core recovery areas bemanaged to restore and protect naturalecological conditions. Examples of restor-ative management might include:• Closing impacting vehicle use routes• Phasing out domestic livestock grazing

as has been traditionally practiced.Limit livestock grazing to a level thatensures recovery of plant communitystructure and productivity necessary forthe focal species of this area.

• Reclaim habitat related to oil and gaswells that are not economically viable.

• Rely on directional drilling from pastwell sites to reduce oil and gas wellspacing to acceptable densities

4.1.3 LinkagesLinkages are connecting segments ofland between core areas that link coreareas together so wildlife can movebetween them, while also allowingevolutionary and ecological processes(e.g. fire, succession, predation, etc.) tocontinue operating within an otherwisefragmented system. There are severalprimary functions for linkages. One, theyprovide dwelling habitat as extensions ofcore areas. Two, they provide for sea-sonal movement of wildlife (e.g., elk andpronghorn migratory movement). Three,they provide for dispersal and geneticinterchange between species in core wildareas (to tie metapopulations together).Four, they allow for latitudinal andelevational range shifts with climatechange. Any given linkage in the Heartof the West Wildlands Network fulfillsone or more of these functions.

One of the chief ways linkages weredelineated in the lowlands Heart of theWest Wildlands Network was by majorriver linkages between existing coreareas. These linkages thus serve ascritical connecting corridors for aquaticspecies (native fish, beaver, river otter,and invertebrates), riparian woodland-dependent species, and other terrestrialwildlife species that use riparian areasfor seasonal movements and dispersal.Specific linkages should be managed formovement by both terrestrial and aquaticspecies known to use those areas, withmanagement guidelines based on theneeds of those particular species.


96

Linkages are critically important and wesuggest the following management criteriafor these areas:• When intersecting moderate- or high-

use highways, linkages should includewildlife underpasses, tunnels, bridges,viaducts, and other structures that allowwildlife to cross roads safely.

• Limit additional human developmentalong linkages to ensure that the habitatof linkages functions for focal species.

• Restorative management in linkageswill ensure that the habitat of linkagesfunctions for focal species.

• Limit vehicle use to designated routesso that the habitat of linkages functionsfor focal species.

• Ensure that mineral developmentprescriptions that cater to native wild-life are validated and implemented.

4.1.4 Compatible Use Areas.Areas outside core areas and linkagesallow for a higher level of activity, yetthese activities must still protect land usevalues and productivity. All federal landsmanaged for multiple use are required tohave use managed in a manner that pro-vides adequate habitat for wildlife, andprevents the impairment of biologicalproductivity.

Compatible use areas can facilitate connec-tivity between core areas. There are severalprimary ecological functions of Compat-ible use areas. One, they ameliorate edgeeffects on core areas (insulate core wildareas from intensive land use). Two, theyprovide additional habitat for animals tomove between core wild areas, includingmovements in response to climate change(i.e., enhance connectivity). Three, theyprovide supplemental habitat for popula-tions of native species inhabiting coreareas – in particular for species whorequire several different habitat types,perhaps on a seasonal basis. The supple-mental habitat provided by Compatibleuse areas can lead to greater populationsizes, viability, or stabilization of popula-tion dynamics of certain native species.

We believe the following human activitiesto be suitable for Compatible Use Areas:

• Mechanical recreation (both motorizedand mountain bike) on designatedroutes only.

• Camping• Livestock grazing management that

uses stocking levels and seasons of usethat ensure that range health goals aremet and sustained, and riparian areasare restored. Grazing should be con-ducted in a manner that allows predatorpopulations to reach traditional levels,by utilizing “predator friendly” live-stock grazing which utilizes non-lethalmethods to deal with livestock depreda-tion wherever and whenever possible.

• Limit wood cutting to a level thatensures a presettlement patch workstands in varying structure and condi-tion. The native condition of much ofthe lower elevation forest in the Heartof the West was very few late-seralstands scattered widely through amatrix of open grass- and shrub-domi-nated vegetation. Reforestation of lowertimberline is a problem for some nativewildlife (i.e. compromising migrationroutes). Burning and small area cutshave been successful at opening updense forested areas.

• Restoration management should limithabitat manipulation to that necessaryfor focal plant and animal species.


97

• All fencing needs to meet state fencestandards for wildlife (i.e. WyomingGame and Fish Department standards,which are wildlife-friendly).

• Oil and gas should focus surface disturbanceas much as possible to existing oil fields.Directional drilling should be utilized withall new wells that are established, and theseshould be drilled from existing pads.Spacing between wells should be at least 3miles (6.6 km) between well pads. NoSurface Occupancy stipulations should bemandated for areas within 3 miles of sagegrouse leks, and within _ mile of activeraptor nests, important biological areasoutlined by the Wyoming Natural DiversityDatabase and other local experts, and allsensitive plant and wildlife habitats (includ-ing ungulate crucial winter range, prairiedog colonies, sage grouse winteringgrounds, wetlands, and 100-year flood-plains). In addition, all human activitiesassociated with oil and gas production

(including surface disturbance) should ceasebetween November 15 and April 15 on allbig game winter ranges. We recommendshothole exploration only, hand-laying oflines in particularly sensitive areas, andbanning the use of large vibrator trucks forseismic exploration.

Current laws, regulations, policies, andmanagement techniques for federal landscan integrate many of the recommenda-tions of the Heart of the West WildlandsNetwork and Conservation Plan intocurrent management decisions. Subse-quent implementation of this wildlandsnetwork might involve a proposed work-shop to bring together experts from gov-ernment, academia, conservation groups,and land-use groups to develop guidelinesfor 1) protection and ecological restorationin core areas, and 2) management forlinkages and compatible-use lands.

4.2 A Closer Look at Key Core Areas - Heart of the West LowlandsIn this section we describe in more detail 28of the larger core areas in the lowland studyarea (Figure 4.2). These core areas vary from32,500 to 1,367,680 hectares in size, and arefeatured below starting with those in thenorth and moving south.

1. Bighorn Canyon:General Description: At 50,976 hectares insize, this core area straddles the Montana-Wyoming border in the Bighorn Basin. Thisarea spans a range of community types,including mountains with coniferous forest,foothills robed in juniper scrub and moun-tain shrub communities, and sagebrushsteppe lowland types. The Pryor Mountainsform the western portion of this core, whilethe thousand-foot limestone walls of Bighorn

Canyon form the heart of the area. Here theBighorn River, impounded by YellowtailDam, is now a long reservoir - a significantimpact to the river system. An importantoverland trail bypassing Bighorn Canyonand used by native peoples in prehistoricand historic times runs through the area. TheDemi-John Archaeological District, listed onthe National Register of Historical Places, lieswithin this area.

Ecological Values: In our analysis of irre-placeability versus vulnerability of cores, thiscore area scored very high for wetland andriparian values, and also was a substantialcontributor of good sage grouse (Centrocercusurophasianus) habitat to the wildlands net-work. It is also notable that a herd of bighorn


98

4.2 Key core areas of the lowland wildlands network.

sheep (Ovis Canadensis) inhabits BighornCanyon proper. In addition, this core areacontains 100% of all element occurrences oftwo of our Natural Heritage Program (NHP)species targets: rabbit buckwheat (Eriogonumlagopus) and Wind River milkvetch, (Astraga-lus oreganus) and two-thirds of the occur-rences of another NHP target: bighorn

fleabane (Erigeron allocotus). Other occur-rences of NHP species are known in this corearea, including dagget rock cress (Arabispendulina var. russeola), persistent sepalyellowcress (Rorippa calycina), hairy prince’splume (Stanleya tomentosa var. tomentosa),peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), andsturgeon chub (Macrhybopsis gelida [Hybopsis


99

Bighorn Canyon Erik Molvar


100

gelida]). There are several major cave com-plexes in this area (Natural Trap Cave,Horsethief Cave, and Bighorn Caverns, pluscave complexes in the Pryor Mountains),which harbor cave fauna including tenspecies of bats.

Recommendations: A Citizens’ ProposedWilderness Unit (Pryor Mountain), whichis also receiving special management for

wild horses, exists within this core area.Much of this core falls within the BighornCanyon National Recreation Area, man-aged by the National Park Service. Werecommend that the BLM conduct thenecessary inventory work and/or researchto determine whether this unit qualifies forWilderness Study Area (WSA) status.

2. McCullough Peaks:General Description: An arid 47,557hectares of badlands and arid foothillsflanking the Shoshone River in the BighornBasin define this wild desert core. This is alow desert area in the rain shadow of theBeartooth and Absaroka Mountains. At theheart of the core, the McCullough Peaksrise up from the sagebrush steppes to thesouth to break into a maze of erodedbadlands that descends to the ShoshoneRiver floodplain. In the badlands, a

painted desert landscape is populated by asparse saltbush-greasewood community.

Ecological Values: This core area containsimportant NHP occurrences such assturgeon chub and whooping crane (GrusAmericana). A herd of 400 mule deer(Odocoileus hemionus) finds year-roundhabitat in this area. Swift foxes (Vulpesvelox), wild horses, and mountain lions(Puma concolor browni) are also found here.Prairie falcons (Falco mexicanus), merlins

Whistle Creek, McCullough Peaks Erik Molvar


101

(Falco columbarius), and golden eagles(Aquila chrysaetos) nest in the badlands,while sage grouse are found in the flattersagebrush steppe areas. The western partof the core affords important winter rangefor the Yellowstone elk herd.

Recommendations: A Citizens’ ProposedWilderness Unit (McCullough Peaks) existswithin this core area. We recommend thatthe BLM conduct the necessary inventorywork and/or research to determine whether

additional lands in the Whistle Creek bad-lands should be added to the existing WSA.

Threats: Natural gas exploration and devel-opment is ongoing in the area, and the USGSestimates that 2 billion cubic feet of naturalgas and 5,000 barrels of oil underlie the WSAalone. The fragile badlands and desertvegetation are vulnerable to damage in-flicted by Off Road Vehicles (ORVs) andother off-trail motorized vehicles.

3. Absaroka Front:General Description: A substantial 265,156hectares in size, this core area is locatedalong the outskirts and foothills of theAbsaroka Mountains in the northern partof the lowland Heart of the West studyarea. Semi-arid foothills rising to precipi-tous peaks and cliff-walled plateaus definethis core. Numerous streams and smallrivers descend through the foothills, linedwith cottonwood lowlands. These foothillsare robed in a mosaic of montane grass-lands and stands of conifers and aspens.

Ecological Values: In our irreplaceabilityversus vulnerability analysis of cores, thiscore area scored very high for riparianvalues. It also contains nearly a dozenoccurrences of rare G1 and G2 NHP spe-cies, such as Evert’s waferparsnip(Cymopterus evertii), and Rocky Mountaintwinpod (Physaria saximontana var.saximontana). The Absaroka Front corecontains over half of the hairy prince’splumes (Stanleya tomentosa) and a full two-thirds of the shoshoneas (Shoshoneapulvinata) in the lowlands wildlandsnetwork. Wildlife is similarly abundantand diverse on the Absaroka Front. For-ested areas are home to boreal owls(Aegolius funereus), northern goshawks

(Accipiter gentiles), lynx (Lynx lynx), pinemartens (Martes pinus), and fishers (Martespennanti). This area also harbors estab-lished populations of gray wolves (Canislupus) and grizzly bears (Ursus arctoshorribilis). Cliff habitat supports nestingperegrine falcons as well as healthy popu-lations of bighorn sheep. Crucial winterranges for elk (Cervus elaphus), moose(Alces alces), and mule deer that summer inYellowstone National Park can be found inthis core area.

Recommendations: Roadless areas andBLM WSAs adjacent to the WashakieWilderness should be added to the wilder-ness through Congressional designation.Crucial winter ranges for ungulates shouldbe placed off-limits to road-building andoil and gas development.

Threats: There have been past efforts toopen the Absaroka Mountain Front to oiland gas drilling, but these efforts demon-strated that steep slopes and unstable soilswould have made environmental impactsextremely heavy. Outbreaks of endemicforest insects and parasites in recent yearshave set the stage for a potentially majortimber harvest program under the guise ofmaintaining “forest health.”


102

4. Bobcat Draw:General Description: 104,999 hectares insize, this core area in the center of the Big-horn Basin is an area of sweeping badlandstinted in reds, pinks, and purples. This is anarid land in the rainshadow of the AbsarokaRange, typified by saltbush-greasewooddeserts in badlands with highly saline soils,while more mesic stretches harbor sagebrushsteppe vegetation. Some of the most colorfuldesert badlands in Wyoming are found here.

Ecological Values: This core was a substan-tial contributor of good sage grouse habitatto the wildlands network, as well as sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus)lek sites. It also contains a full third of theEvert’s wafer parsnip in the lowlandswildlands network, and appreciableamounts of sturgeon chub. The TatmanMountain and Fifteenmile wild horseherds are found here, as well as year-round populations of bighorn sheep, muledeer, and pronghorn antelope(Antilocapridae cabri) in the uplands. Moun-tain lions and bobcats (Lynx rufus) areknown to roam the badlands.

Recommendations: The Gooseberry Bad-lands were once proposed as a NationalNatural Landmark by the National ParkService. Three WSAs (Sheep Mountain, RedButte, and Bobcat Draw Badlands), alongwith adjacent wilderness-quality landsnominated for WSA status by citizens’groups, exist within this core area. Werecommend that the BLM conduct thenecessary inventory work and/or research todetermine whether additional lands adjoin-ing these units qualify for WSA status.

Threats: Billions of cubic feet of naturalgas and hundreds of thousands of barrelsof oil are thought to underlie this area.Much of the natural gas is deep (15,000 to20,000 feet underground), tempering itsattractiveness to the oil and gas industry. Arecent gas drilling project in the ParadiseAlley are (an area just south of BobcatDraw WSA and in the Citizens’ WildernessProposal) is currently underway. TheDobie Creek and Worland Anticline oilfields adjoin the core area.

Bobcat Draw Erik Molvar


103

5. Honeycombs:General Description: 76,227 hectares insize, this wild core area of rolling sage-brush steppe and heavily eroded badlandslies along the eastern edge of the BighornBasin. Immediately north of the FullerPeak core, the Honeycombs core abuts theeastern edge of the lowland Heart of theWest study area.

Ecological Values: This area contains anabundance of crucial winter range for bothmule deer and antelope, as well as sagegrouse lek sites and nesting habitat forgolden eagles.

Recommendations: Two Citizens’ Pro-posed Wilderness Units (HoneycombsWSA and surrounding wilderness-qualitylands as well as the Buffalo Creek citizens’proposed wilderness) exist within this corearea. We recommend that the BLM take thenecessary actions to designate these areasfor wilderness study.

Threats: Coal deposits in the area havebeen worked in historical times. The coalitself is thought to be of marginal eco-nomic potential, but coalbed methane maybe a more attractive possibility for indus-try. The Worland Anticline oil field, amassive industrial development, is creep-ing into this core area as time goes on.Black sandstone deposits found in the areamay have the potential for producingniobium, titanium, tantalum, and otherstrategic minerals used in making high-tech alloys.

Honeycombs Erik Molvar


104

6. Cedar Mountain:General Description: This 32,499 hectarecore area surrounds a small and isolatedrange of hills that is dissected into steepand eroded ridges along its north slope.The hills rise above the Bighorn River atthe southern end of the Bighorn Basin. Thehills are robed in sparse woodlands ofjuniper (which is how Cedar Mountain gotits name), while the surrounding lowlandsto the north of Cedar Mountain are typi-fied by sagebrush steppe and saltbush-greasewood desert.

Ecological Values: Based on our irreplace-ability versus vulnerability analysis ofcores, this core area received a high scorefor its contribution of good wolf habitat tothe lowland wildlands network. Thisarea’s juniper woodlands are a rare com-munity type in Wyoming. It also containsappreciable numbers of burrowing owl(Athene cunicularia [Speotyto cunicularia]).Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) roostand forage along the Bighorn River in this

area, and merlins, golden eagles andprairie falcons nest in this core. The west-ern silvery minnow (Hybognathus argyritis)is known in this area, in the Bighorn River.

Recommendations: One WSA (CedarMountain) exists within this core area, andis associated with other wilderness-qualitylands that have never received interimprotection. We recommend that the BLMconduct the necessary inventory workand/or research to determine whetheradditional lands adjoining these unitsqualify for WSA status.

Threats: There is moderate potential foroil and gas production in the northeastpart of the Cedar Mountain core area.Additional dams have been proposedalong this reach of the Bighorn River;such dams would destroy importantcottonwood gallery forests and otherriparian habitats.

Cedar Mountain Erik Molvar


105

7. Fuller Peak:General Description: 94,910 hectares insize, this core area is adjacent to The WindRiver core area and abuts the easternboundary of the Heart of the West studyarea and the southern edge of the BighornMountains and the Bighorn Basin. Fromthe tip of the Bighorn Mountains, this corearea spans across an east-west runningexpanse of highlands, to the BridgerMountains and almost to the Wind Rivercorridor. Dominated by grasslands, sage-brush shrublands and juniper, this corearea includes some of the driest parts ofWyoming (Freilich et al. 2001).

Ecological Values: This core area containsmany NHP species occurrences, such asblack-footed ferret, bun milkvetch (As-tragalus simplicifolius), Devil’s Gatetwinpod (Physaria eburniflora), and hairyprince’s plume. The Fuller Peak core alsocontains a full third of all the Owl Creek

miner’s candle (Cryptantha subcapitata) inthe lowland wildlands network, and overa third of a very rare (G1) sage varietycalled Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri)in the network. Golden eagles, ferruginoushawks (Buteo regalis), and burrowing owlsalso nest in the area. A rare specimen ofAllen’s thirteen-lined ground squirrel(Spermophilus tridecemlineatus) was re-corded in this area in 1938.

Recommendations: Two Citizens’ Pro-posed Wilderness Units (Lysite Mountainand Fuller Peak) exist within this core area.We recommend that the BLM take thenecessary actions to designate these areasfor wilderness study.

Threats: Other than Uranium mining,which occurred in this area in the past, theimmediate threats to this core area arerelatively low.

8. Upper Wind River:General Description: The upper valley of theWind River is characterized by semi-aridgrasslands and eroded badlands stretchingbetween the Wind River Range and theAbsaroka Mountains. A broad stretch of theWind River Badlands, including the DuboisBadlands, has been recommended as aNational Natural Landmark. Portions of thiscore fall within the Wind River Reservation,administered by the Shoshone and Arapahotribes. The Upper Wind River core area is80,788 hectares in size.

Ecological Values: Important NHP speciescan be found in this core area, includingbun milkvetch, Wyoming point-vetch(Oxytropis nana), Weber’s saw-wort(Saussurea weberi), Jones’ columbine (Aqui-legia jonesii), aromatic pussytoes(Antennaria aromatica), William’s rockcress

(Arabis williamsii var. williamsii), sweet-flowered rock jasmine (Androsacechamaejasme ssp. Carinata), Rocky Mountaintwinpod (Physaria saximontana var.saximontana), and almost 90% of all theDubois milkvetch (Astragalus gilviflorus var.purpureus) in the lowlands wildlandsnetwork. Whiskey Mountain is home tothe nation’s largest bighorn sheep herd,and this herd supplies the breeding stockfor transplantings of bighorn sheep to theirnative range throughout the West. Otherrare species such as the lynx, river otter(Lontra canadensis pacifica), and fisherinhabit this area. The lowlands betweenthe mountains offer important winterranges for elk and mule deer.

Recommendations: Two WSAs (DuboisBadlands and Whiskey Mountain) existwithin this core area. We recommend that


106

the BLM conduct the necessary inventorywork and/or research necessary to deter-mine whether additional lands adjoiningthese units qualify for WSA status. Unau-thorized fences in the area should beremoved, and all fences should be broughtinto Wyoming Game and Fish Departmentcompliance (bottom wire smooth and atleast 16 inches above the ground) to facili-tate antelope passage. County-level plan-ning is needed in this area to protect openspace and arrest second-home sprawl.

Threats: The Dubois Arch oil fields arenear this core area, and exploration wellsin the core have yielded shows of oil fromthe Phosphoria formation. Illegal off-trailATV use and illegal dumping are majorproblems here, particularly within thefragile formations of the Dubois Badlands.Suburban sprawl from second homes inthe Dubois area is contributing to substan-tial habitat fragmentation and loss.

Upper Wind River Erik Molvar


107

9. Wind River:General Description: Serving as a poten-tial linkage between the greaterYellowstone Ecoregion and the BighornMountains, the Wind River core area linksto both the Absaroka Front core and theFuller Peak core as it hugs the north bankof the Wind River as it in turn drains theWind River Mountains and heads norththrough the Bighorn Basin. The 164,999hectares of low grassland basins and aportion of the rugged Owl Creek Moun-tains and Wind River Canyon define thiscore area. Wind River Canyon, a stunninglandform that divides the Bridger and OwlCreek Mountains, cuts into various geo-logic layers all the way down to ancientPrecambrian bedrock.

Ecological Values: In our irreplaceabilityversus vulnerability analysis of cores, thiscore area scored high for its contribution ofgood sage grouse habitat to the lowlandwildlands network. This core area containsmany NHP species occurrences, such asbun milkvetch, Rocky mountain twinpod,Hapeman’s sullivantia (Sullivantiahapemanii), Watson’s prickly-phlox(Leptodactylon watsonii), and hairy prince’splume. The Wind River core also contains

two-thirds of the Owl Creek miner’scandle in the lowland wildlands network,and one-third of the persistent sepalyellowcress in the network.

Recommendations: A great deal of thiscore area falls within the Wind RiverReservation, governed by the Shoshoneand Arapaho tribes. One WSA (CopperMountain) exists within this core area. Werecommend that the BLM conduct thenecessary inventory work and/or researchto determine whether lands adjacent tothis unit qualify for WSA status. The WindRiver Canyon has been proposed as aNational Natural Landmark and is sacredto the Shoshone and Arapaho people.

Threats: Oil and gas development arepresent in and around this core area. TheCopper Mountain Uranium District wasonce viewed as a highly promising miningarea, before accidents at nuclear powerplants reduced the public demand fornuclear power generation. Over-utilizationof water in the Wind River drainage forirrigation is contributing to stream flowlosses in the Wind River and its tributaries,threatening the survival of aquatic ecosys-tems and the trout fisheries they support.

10. Rattlesnake Hills:General Description: The RattlesnakeHills, a core area along the eastern borderof the Heart of the West lowlands, are theresult of volcanic intrusions into a largeanticline, since weathered into sharpdivides and narrow canyons and gulches.The hills are surrounded by grasslandsand sagebrush steppe. A portion of theRattlesnake Hills encompassing GarfieldPeak has been nominated for NationalNatural Landmark status. The RattlesnakeHills core is 82,679 hectares in size.

Ecological Values: In our irreplaceabilityversus vulnerability analysis of cores, thiscore area scored high for its contribution ofgood sage grouse habitat to the lowlandwildlands network. This core area hostsferruginous hawks, and contains onequarter of all the lowland wildlandsnetwork’s occurrences of a the rarePorter’s sagebrush.

Recommendations: We recommend thatno new permanent roads are built in thiscore, use of motorized/mechanized equip-


108

ment and vehicles are prohibited or sub-stantially limited, and new surface mineralextraction activities avoided. Livestockgrazing should be limited to levels of use

11. Upper Green River:General Description: Tucked between theWyoming Range and the Wind RiverMountains, this core area includes at itsheart the Green River, just emerging fromits headwaters in the Wind Rivers andstarting its long path towards theconfluence with the Colorado. At 323,678hectares in size, it’s one of the larger coreareas in the lowland study area, and is richin riparian areas and mesic meadows.

Ecological Values: This core area signifi-cantly contributes to the area of bothforested and shrub-dominated riparianzones – contributing almost 9% of theseland cover types that are captured in thewildlands network. In addition, the UpperGreen River core is a bastion for globallyimperiled (G2) endemic plants, for ex-ample housing over 57% of the occur-rences of beaver rim phlox (Phlox pungens)in the network, almost 95% of the BigPiney milkvetch (Astragalus drabelliformis),75% of the Cedar Rim thistle (Cirsiumaridum), and over 22% of the large fruitedbladderpod (Lesquerella macrocarpa) in thewildlands network. Other natural heritageplants found in the Upper Green Rivercore area in significant amounts includethe desert glandular phacelia (Phaceliaglandulosa var. deserta), Nelson’s phacelia(Phacelia salina), swallen mountainricegrass (Oryzopsis swallenii), andtrelease’s racemose milkvetch (Astragalusracemosus var. treleasei).

This entire area offers key sage grousenesting habitat, as well as potential habitatfor the pygmy rabbit, a specialist of thick-

that ensure diverse plant communitycomposition, forage production at poten-tial, and unimpaired riparian areas.

ets of large, old sagebrush that occur indraw bottoms. A herd of about 130 prong-horn antelope migrates through this areafrom its summer ranges in Grand TetonNational Park to the fringes of the RedDesert. The upper Green River valley alsoprovides a primary winter range for localpopulations of elk, mule deer, moose, andbighorn sheep in the neighboring Wyo-ming Range and Wind River Range,providing critical winter range for tens ofthousands of migratory big game species.The importance of this core area to migrat-ing ungulates, and the importance of thecrucial Green River Corridor Linkage thatallows for migration of wildlife to both theUpper Red Desert core and the FlamingGorge core, are discussed in more detail inSection 4.3.2 below.

Recommendations: We recommend thatthe BLM, USFS, and other land manage-ment agencies implement the “RestoringWild Patterns” initiative (and the variousproposed protections that are a part of thisinitiative) throughout the upper GreenRiver core area. More details on RestoringWild Patterns can be found in Box 4.1 (inSection 4.3.2).

Threats: The entire region that contains theUpper Green core area is under siege fromaccelerating oil and gas development,including the massive Jonah I &II oil andgas field, which will see over 1000 wellsdrilled in the near future. Gas wells areplanned or pending for three of the fourproposed wilderness units containedwithin the core area. Nearly the entireregion is presently leased for oil and gas


109

exploration, often with the few existingrestrictions being waived. With this expe-dited oil and gas exploration and develop-ment we shall see more and more pipe-lines, treaters, refineries, compressorstations and a wide web of roads connect-ing them. In addition, open spaces andranch lands have been subdivided with

more access roads and fences blocking thehistoric ungulate migration routes. Aggres-sive noxious weeds have invaded dis-turbed and overgrazed sites. ORVs dis-place wildlife, especially on winter range.Fences block large-scale winter range andwildlife movements.

12. Upper Red Desert:General Description: A substantial 602,303hectares in size, this core area includes animpressive acreage of wilderness and near-wilderness quality lands in a wide expanseof sagebrush desert that encircles thesouthern tip of the Wind River Mountains.Proposed wilderness units include theHoneycomb Buttes/Harris Slough, OregonButtes, Big Empty, Joe Hay Rim,Whitehorse Creek, Oregon Buttes Bad-lands, Pinnacles, South Pinnacles, AlkaliDraw, Parnell Creek, Sand Dunes, BuffaloHump, East Sand Dunes, Red Lake,Sweetwater Canyon, and Elk Mountainunits, along with potential wilderness asyet unsurveyed atop Steamboat Mountain.The historic South Pass portion of theOregon-California Trail used by earlypioneers traverses this core area, as doesthe Pony Express Trail and the Point ofRocks/South Pass Stage Road. The ruins of1860s-era goldfields can also be found nearAtlantic City, Miner’s Delight, and SouthPass City. The Indian Gap trail was usedby Native Americans during the periodpre-dating the frontier era. Volcanic fea-tures such as Boar’s Tusk and SteamboatMountain, the erosional remnants of theOregon Buttes and Continental Peak, havebeen nominated as National NaturalLandmarks, as have the Killpecker SandDunes.

Ecological Values: Many rare plants,including large-fruited bladderpod,

meadow pussytoes (Antennaria corymbosa),and Payson’s beardtongue (Penstemonpaysoniorum), can be found in this corearea. A good portion of the area achievesthe highest biodiversity site ranking by theWyoming Natural Diversity Database dueto the only known occurrence of the basinbig sagebrush/lemon scurfpea association.In general, this core area offers importanthabitat for pronghorn, desert elk, muledeer, sage grouse, mountain plover(Charadrius montanus), prairie dogs, pygmyrabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis[Sylvilagusidahoensis]), Wortman’s golden-mantledground squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis),mountain lion and swift fox (Vulpes velox).In particular, this core area contains crucialhabitat for high desert herds as well asWind River migratory herds of elk, deer,moose, and pronghorn, as well as birthinggrounds for both elk and mule deer. TheSteamboat Mountain elk herd in this areais particularly noteworthy because it is oneof the nation’s only elk herds that lives in adesert environment. Ferruginous hawks,prairie falcons , and golden eagles nesthere. Overall, this core area houses whatmay be the highest diversity of raptorspecies in Wyoming.

In the extreme southeast portion of thecore area, the Pinnacles Citizens’ ProposedWilderness Unit and the adjacent EastSand Dunes and Red Lake Units offer arelatively rare undisturbed portion of theGreat Divide Basin. The area includes


110

seasonal migration corridors and crucialwinter range for elk and deer, as well asimportant habitat for sage grouse, easternshort-horned lizards (Phrynosoma douglassiibrevirostre), mountain plover, burrowingowls, pygmy rabbits, white-tailed prairiedogs (Cynomys leucurus), Wortman’sgolden-mantled ground squirrel, and theGreat Basin gopher snake (Pituophiscatenifer deserticola). Overall, the WyomingGAP analysis predicts over 150 differentvertebrate species to inhabit this region -indeed, a biodiversity hotspot in Wyo-ming. Because of these biological valuesand the fact that the Pinnacles are a well-known natural landmark in the RedDesert, this area has been considered bythe BLM for designation as an Area ofCritical Environmental Concern (ACEC).

In the extreme southwest portion of thecore area, the Buffalo Hump/Boar’s Tusk/Sand Dunes Citizen Proposed WildernessUnit lies along the western margins of the

Killpecker Dune Field. Consisting of sandvalleys, blowouts, shifting andunvegetated sand dunes, and a mostunique feature - interdunal wetland pondswithin the sand dunes, fed by snowdriftsburied under the sand - the Buffalo Humparea is a varied and ecologically significantlandscape.

Recommendations: Many Citizens’ Pro-posed Wilderness Units exist within thiscore area. We recommend that the BLMconduct the necessary inventory work todetermine whether these units qualify forWSA status.

Threats: Motorized vehicle use on and offtrails continues to degrade habitat anddisrupt wildlife in the Buffalo Hump areaand along high rims throughout the region.Even within the current Buffalo Hump WSA,evidence of illegal ORV use is evident. Thelands outside the WSA are even morethreatened. Cattle concentrate in dune pondareas of the Killpecker Dunes, destroying

Upper Red Desert Erik Molvar


111

fragile wetland ecosystems. Gold mining hasoccurred historically in this area, and thereare a few would-be miners who believe thatimportant gold deposits remain to be foundin it. There is a very real threat of increasedoil and gas exploration and development(including coalbed methane) in this corearea. In fact, the Alkali Draw WSA in theCitizens’ Proposed Pinnacles Unit was

actually recommended by the BLM as beingunsuitable for wilderness because of itsvalue for oil and gas production, and the factthat the area is underlain by Cretaceous coalbeds, leaving open the possibility of stripmining or coalbed methane production. Boththe Wind River Front and the Jack MorrowHills area are currently under great oil andgas development pressure.

13. Sweetwater Rocks:General Description: 166,249 hectares insize, this core area encompasses a large areasouth of the Sweetwater river in centralWyoming that includes the SweetwaterRocks Roadless Area complex, the FerrisMountain Citizens’ Proposed WildernessUnit, and the area between. This core area isperhaps the best remaining example of thetransitional uplands that form the ecotonebetween the Red Desert ecosystem and theforest ecosystem of the Sierra Madre Range.It also contains a significant part of theOregon Trail, as well as important land-

marks of historical significance such as SplitRock and Devil’s Gate. Both Split Rock andDevil’s Gate have been nominated as aNational Natural Landmarks, as has MuddyGap, an excellent example of synclines andanticlines.

Ecological Values: This core area provideswinter, yearlong and summer range for elkand pronghorn antelope, and includescritical winter and yearlong range for muledeer as well as important migration corri-dors for this species. A bighorn sheep herdreintroduced into this area is struggling for



112

survival. Montane forests provide habitatfor animals such as pine marten, mountainlion, and northern goshawk (Accipitergentiles). Bald eagles have winter roostingsites along the Sweetwater River in thisarea. Rare plant species found here includethe Devil’s Gate twinpod, Payson’s beard-tongue, many-stemmed spider-flower,parry sedge (Cleome multicaulis), bunmilkvetch, slender seepweed, Wyomingpoint-vetch, and Brandegee’s Jacob’s-ladder (Polemonium brandegeei). The Whis-key Gap area is known for a particularlyhigh density of rare native plants.

Recommendations: Two WSAs (the greaterSweetwater Rocks roadless area complexand the Ferris Mountain) exist within thiscore area. We recommend that the BLMconduct the necessary inventory work and/or research to determine whether additional

lands adjacent to these units qualify for WSAstatus. The state of Wyoming has surfaceownership of several parcels within themultiple roadless areas proposed by theCitizens’ Wilderness Inventory for suitablewilderness. We recommend that land own-ers and managers consider land exchangesthat would add to public lands those landsidentified in core areas and establish addi-tional private lands outside these core areas.This plan encourages BLM to inventorynewly acquired public lands for wildernessqualities.

Threats: Heavy logging has occurred inthe Green Mountain massif, at the south-west edge of this core. Oil and gas poten-tial is currently believed to be low in thisarea, but there has been some small-scalemining for nephrite jade in the area.

14. Pedro Mountains:General Description: This 201,249 hectarecore area encompasses the granitic PedroMountains and the sedimentary synclineof the Seminoe Mountains, plus extensivetracts of sagebrush steppe between theranges. The Pedros are an exceedinglyrugged granitic range, with little soildevelopment and a woodland of limberpine and aspen growing wherever chinksin the bedrock can be found. The Seminoerange is a sedimentary monocline dis-sected by narrow draws and canyons,wooded with ponderosa pine and limberpine savannas as well as juniper scrub,with cottonwood gallery forests along thedraw bottoms. The Ferris Dunes, an east-ern extension of the Killpecker Dune Field,run through the southern part of this core.

Ecological Values: In our irreplaceabilityversus vulnerability analysis of core areas,

this core area scored high for its contribu-tion of good wolf habitat to the lowlandwildlands network. It is also one of the fewcore areas in the lowland network thatcontains active sand dunes. Partly becauseof this environment, the Pedro Mountaincore contains 100% of the rare (G1) blow-out penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) in thewildlands network. It also contains one-third of the persistent sepal yellowcressand over half of the alpine fever few(Parthenium alpinum) in the lowlandsnetwork. The Pedro Mountains also con-tain bald eagle winter roosts where theseraptors may congregate in numbers of upto 20 individuals. Long-billed curlew(Numenius americanus) are known from thisarea. Large complexes of white-tailedprairie dog towns as well as importantmountain plover nesting areas are alsofound within this core.


113

Recommendations: One WSA (BennettMountain) and one Citizens’ ProposedWilderness Unit (Pedro Mountains) existwithin this core area. We recommend thatthe BLM conduct the research necessary todetermine whether unprotected landsassociated with these candidate wildernessunits qualify for WSA status. In addition,the Ferris Dunes area (home to the blow-out penstemon) and the Seminoe prairie

dog colony west of Seminoe Reservoirhave been petitioned for ACEC status.

Threats: Some 1,240 coalbed methanewells have been proposed for the landssurrounding Seminoe Reservoir, at thesouth edge of this unit. Conoco once helduranium claims in the Pedro Mountainsarea, but they have since expired.


15. Shirley Basin:General Description: 166,249 hectares insize, the Shirley Basin core area is a highdepression ringed with clusters of small,rugged mountains. The bulk of the basin isgrassland and sagebrush steppe, butwoodlands can be found in the ShirleyMountains in the western part of the core.The monuments, pillars, and turretedcastles in the Bates Hole/Chalk Mountainarea have been nominated as a NationalNatural Landmark.

Ecological Values: Within this core area canbe found two of the four most importantconcentrations for mountain plovers inWyoming, as recently identified by ongoingresearch at the University of Wyoming,Laramie. This area also contains Wyoming’sonly reintroduced population of black-footedferrets (Mustela nigripes), as well as the majorwhite-tailed prairie dog complexes thatsupport them. The Shirley Basin is also hometo some of the most successful swift foxpopulations in the state.


114

Recommendations: Much of the ShirleyBasin has been petitioned for designationas an ACEC, and we recommend that theBLM make the designation.

Threats: There has been past uraniummining activity in the Shirley Basin. While

not presently economically viable, policies ofthe new administration may lead to in-creased nuclear activity in the near future. Asa result, uranium mining may once againbecome a major impact in this area. Oil andgas resources are marginal here.

16. Laramie Range:General Description: 109,345 hectares ofisolated granite peaks surrounded byforests of lodge pole and ponderosa pinecharacterize this core area. Numerousgrassy parks intrude into the forest, creat-ing a rich mixture of landscape types. Thisarea is an ecological mixing zone betweenthe shortgrass prairies of the Great Plainsand the coniferous forests of the SouthernRocky Mountain Ecoregion.

Ecological Values: This core area addssignificantly to the upper elevation habitattypes captured in the wildlands network –notably including almost 15% of the limberpine vegetation type and 26% of theponderosa pine type found in the Heart ofthe West Network. Significant forest firesand outbreaks of pine beetles have oc-curred in this area, making it an important

natural laboratory for studying naturaldisturbance patterns. This core is alsoextremely important habitat for the veryrare (G2) Laramie columbine (Aquilegialaramiensis); a significant 78% of the occur-rences included in the network can befound in this core area. In addition, theLaramie Range core houses 33% of alloccurrences of federally listed Preble’smeadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsoniuspreblei) in the wildlands network, and also25% of Virginia’s warbler (Vermivoravirginiae) – a neotropical migrant – occur-rences. This core is also home to importantpopulations of Townsend’s big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendii) and Lewis’woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis).Flammulated owls (Otus flammeolus) haverecently been discovered here. There is ahigh ridge of ponderosa pine savannasextending eastward from this core all the

Buffalo Peak, Laramie Range Biodiversity Conservation Alliance


115

way to the Thunder Basin National Grass-land, which is a migratory route for an elkherd that summers in the Laramie Rangeand winters on the national grassland.

Since the Laramie Range core is thefurthest east of any core area in theWyoming Basins Ecoregion portion ofthe lowland study area, it serves as animportant “transitional zone” betweenthe Wyoming Basins and the short andmidgrass prairie systems of the NorthernGreat Plains Ecoregion. The fact thatmany species of plants and animals reachthe edge of their range in this transi-tional zone is significant because indi-viduals at the edge of their range oftenpossess slight genetic variation, or aremore susceptible to conditions that caninduce slight variation, in comparison tothose at the core of the species’ distribu-tion (Frey 1993, Lesica and Allendorf1995, Garcia-Ramos and Kirkpatrick1997). This makes this outreachingsegment of these populations a dynamicfocus of evolutionary change, in whichthose individuals may be more likely tosurvive and adapt to regional perturba-tions, or climate shifts. From both anevolutionary perspective, and from theperspective of conservation of all speciesin the Wyoming Basins, populations at

their distributional limits are extremelyimportant.

Recommendations: This area contains sixForest Service roadless areas totaling89,516 acres, which deserve long-termprotection from high-impact activities suchas logging and off-road vehicle use.

Threats: Logging has occurred on a smallscale in this area, but could increase undersome forest management policies. IllegalORV use is rampant in this area, and one ofthe roadless areas also contains a trail whichis open to motor vehicles and which theForest Service has been promoting formotorized use. The grazing of domesticsheep in areas inhabited by bighorns is amajor concern from the standpoint of trans-mission of pasteurella and other diseasesthat could potentially wipe out the bighornherds. Second-home development, particu-larly on the many private parcels that inter-sperse with public lands, is becoming anincreasing source of habitat loss and frag-mentation. In a political climate where thereis great pressure to log areas near privateresidences, this is an area that could poten-tially suffer from major habitat degradationand fragmentation as a result projects claim-ing to reduce fire fuels.

17. Chain Lakes:General Description: 51,249 hectares insize, this core area is located at the veryheart of the lowland study area. The siteincludes alkaline wetlands and playaswith surrounding shrub and grass vegeta-tion typical of southwestern Wyoming.This core area also contains unique mudvolcanoes that are interesting from ageological standpoint.

Ecological Values: The Chain Lakes arealkaline wetlands trapped in the GreatDivide Basin with no outlet to the sea. Theyare magnets for waterfowl and shorebirds, abiological oasis in the midst of the RedDesert. According to Knight et al. (1976) “thegreasewood communities are as diverse inspecies composition as we’ve seen for thisvegetation type, and the ponds provide arare habitat in the area for avocets, ducks,killdeer, willets, and other waterfowl…This


116

whole area is truly unique and should bestudied as a possible representative of thealkaline depression – alkaline pond naturalhistory theme” (p. 167).

Recommendations: The Chain Lakes hasbeen proposed as an Area of CriticalEnvironmental Concern, and we recom-mend that the BLM make this designation.

Threats: There is substantial natural gasdrilling activity just to the south of thiscore. Overgrazing often occurs at themarshy margins of the lakes. A proposal toremove Clean Water Act protection fromwaters that do not ultimately drain into amajor river could remove statutory protec-tion as “Waters of the United States” fromthese fragile wetlands, leaving themvulnerable to discharges of pollutants fromthe nearby gas fields and/or uranium mill.

Chain Lakes BCA

18. Ham’s Fork:General Description: This 261,934 hectarecore area can be found at the western-mostpoint of the Heart of the West lowlandstudy area, squarely over the point whereIdaho, Utah and Wyoming come togetheralong the Bear River. This core contains

some of the highest value aquatic habitatsin the Heart of the West.

Ecological Values: This core area contrib-utes significantly to the open water andother aquatic and wetland cover types inthe lowlands wildlands network, for


117

example contributing over 18% of themeadow/grassy riparian land cover typecaptured in the entire lowlands network.Conservation populations of ColoradoRiver and Bonneville cutthroat trout arefound here…only one of two lowlandcores that can boast this occurrence. Thisarea contains important habitat for pygmyrabbit in dense stands of tall sagebrushtypically found along intermittent streamsand in draw bottoms.

The Ham’s Fork core area includes BearLake, the largest lake in the WasatchMountains. Due to its placement and size,the ecology of the lake unique, and so arethe rare endemic fish that live only in thelake. These fish - the Bear Lake sculpin(Cottus extensus) and Bear Lake whitefish(Prosopium abyssicola) – meet 100% of ourtarget for these rare G1 species.

Other important Natural Heritage ele-ments housed in the Ham’s Fork core areainclude highly significant amounts of theelement occurrences in the lowlands

network of three, key G1 and G2 species:Dorn’s twinpod (Physaria dornii )(G1,100%), entire-leaved peppergrass (Lepidiumintegrifolium var. integrifolium) (G2, 100%),and tufted twinpod (Physaria condensate)(G2, over 70%). Ham’s fork also housesconsiderable amounts of other NaturalHeritage plants like single stemmed wildbuckwheat (Eriogonum acaule), starvelingmilkvetch (Astragalus jejunus var. jejunus),ternate desert parsley (Lomatiumtriternatum), and tufted cryptanthia(Cryptantha caespitosa), as well as elementoccurrences of rare mammals such aspygmy rabbits and ringtails (Bassaroscusastutus).

Recommendations: The Lake Mountainand Raymond Mountain WSAs and neigh-boring wilderness-quality lands should begranted the full protections of wildernessdesignation.

Threats: A large-scale seismic oil and gasdevelopment project is currently under-way in the northeastern part of this core.

19. Upper Bear River:General Description: 283,898 hectares insize, this core area is situated in extremesouthwest Wyoming along the Utah-Wyoming border. Capturing the Bear Riveras it winds out of its headwater region inthe high Uinta Mountains, this core incor-porates key transitional habitat betweenthe mountains and deserts of the Heart ofthe West.

Ecological Values: The Upper Bear Rivercore houses only one of two occurrences ofBonneville cutthroat trout in the lowlandswildlands network, as well as significantnumbers of other Natural Heritage aquaticspecies (and Heart of the West focal spe-cies) like bluehead sucker (Catostomus

discobolus) and leatherside chub (Gilacopei). This core helps meet other NaturalHeritage representation goals, capturing100% of the narrowleaf goldenweed(Haplopappus macronema var. linearis)occurrences in the lowlands network, 50%of the prostrate bladderpods (Lesquerellaprostrate), and between 20 and 25% of allecho spring parsley (Cymopterus lapidosus),opal phlox (Phlox opalensis) and starvelingmilkvetch occurrences in the wildlandsnetwork. Important vertebrate speciesfound in the Upper Bear River core includepygmy rabbits and Wyoming groundsquirrels (Spermophilus elegans).


118

Recommendations: We recommend thatno new permanent roads are built in thiscore, that use of motorized/mechanizedequipment and vehicles are prohibited orsubstantially limited, and commerciallogging is curtailed. We also recommend

that certain exotic species be controlledand/or eliminated in the Upper Bear Rivercore area. Species such as exotic trout areespecially detrimental to the rare nativefish in this region.

20. Flaming Gorge:General Description: This 269,594 hectarecore area marks an important transitionzone between the Wyoming BasinsEcoregion and the Utah-Wyoming Moun-tain Ecoregion, and is located along theUtah-Wyoming border near the Coloradoline. The arid, alkaline deserts at the northend of this core give way to the highgrasslands and ponderosa pine woodlandsof the Teepee Mountains along the Wyo-ming-Utah border. The thousand-foot redwalls of Firehole Canyon incised into theflanks of Flattop Mountain have beennominated as a National Natural Land-mark, as has the Henry’s Fork Fault.

Ecological Values: Thirteen differentNatural Heritage plants are captured inhighly significant amounts in this corearea, including six species in which 100%of the species occurrence in the lowlandscore can be found in the Flaming Gorgecore. These include the Moab milkvetch(Astragalus coltonii var. moabensis), preco-cious milkvetch (Astragalus proimanthus)(G2), Rollins cateye, stemless beardtongue(Penstemon acaulis var. acaulis), Uinta draba(Draba juniperina), and Uinta greenthread(Thelesperma pubescens). Important verte-brate occurrences in this core includebonytail (Gila elegans), 50% of the northerntree lizard occurrences in the lowlands

Devils Playground, Flaming Gorge Erik Molvar


119

network, and 75% of the Wyoming groundsquirrel occurrences in the lowlandsnetwork. This core holds the stronghold ofthe midget faded rattlesnake (Crotalusviridus concolor), and also healthy popula-tions of spotted bat (Euderma maculatum).

Recommendations: A Citizens’ ProposedWilderness Unit (Devil’s Playground)exists within this core area. We recom-mend that the BLM conduct the necessaryinventory work and/or research to deter-mine whether additional lands adjacent tothe current WSA qualify for WSA status.

Threats: Flaming Gorge Dam has alreadyhad a devastating effect on the ColoradoRiver Endangered fishes (the razorbacksucker (Xyrauchen texanus), ColoradoPikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius),bonytail, and humpback chub (Gila cypha)by drastically lowering the temperature ofthe Green River below the dam, effectivelyeliminating the native fish fauna. Seismicexploration has been pursued in theDevil’s Playground WSA, indicating thatindustry is interested in pursuing gasdevelopment in this area.

21. Adobe Town/Vermillion Basin:General Description: 362,954 hectares insize and situated in the proximity of theColorado-Utah-Wyoming border, thisimpressive wilderness country encom-passes the three largest roadless areaswithin the Wyoming portion of the low-land study area (Kinney Rim North -128,597 acres, Kinney Rim South - 125,562acres, and Adobe Town - 180,910 acres). At

the heart of the core area, the massivemonocline of the Kinney Rim rises above asea of sagebrush. Farther east, the spec-tacular badlands, monoliths, and grottoesof the Adobe Town and Skull Creek Rimwind for 25 miles from north to south. Thisarea possesses outstanding primitivequalities and exemplifies the wide openspaces for which Wyoming is known, butwhich are fast disappearing in the state.

Adobetown Biodiversity Conservation Alliance


120

Between the major rims are plains wheresagebrush grows on small stabilized dunesand saltbush communities are found in theblowouts between them, while to the westof Kinney Rim are vast tracts of sagebrushsteppe draining into Vermillion Creek.Much of the eastern part of this core lieswithin the proposed Washakie BasinNational Natural Landmark, with itsworld-class Eocene fossils and spectacularerosional landforms such as the Haystacks,Adobe Town Rim, and Skull Creek Rim.

Ecological Values: This core area comprisesan important habitat connection betweenthe Great Divide Basin and the highdeserts of western Colorado. It is alsohome to active ferruginous hawk, burrow-ing owl and golden eagle nest sites, andincludes pronghorn crucial winter range.The midget faded rattlesnake has beendocumented along the Adobe Town Rim,at the northeastern limit of its range. Thenorthern plateau lizard (Sceloporusundulatus elongatus) and eastern short-horned lizard are among the other rare andsensitive reptile species that are known toinhabit this area. The Pine Butte area wasonce proposed as an ACEC because of itsunique geological and wildlife habitatattributes. The Adobe Town WSA andgreater Adobe Town area are of greatimportance as one of the last large rem-nants of the Red Desert ecosystem thatremains in a pristine state.

Recommendations: The BLM has alreadygiven interim protection to 85,710 acres ofthe Adobe Town roadless area and hasacknowledged that an additional 40,000acres deserves wilderness status. All180,910 acres of Adobe Town that qualifyas wilderness should be protected from oiland gas leasing. In addition, the BLM hasfailed to recognize a large portion of the

Kinney Rim area for roadless or wildernessqualities. As such, we recommend that theBLM take heed of the Wyoming Citizens’roadless area inventory and wildernessproposal, and elevate the many roadlessareas in this core area (i.e. Kinney RimNorth, Kinney Rim South, and VermillionBasin) to WSA status. The Vermillion BasinNatural Gas Project was predicated on adefective Environmental Assessment (EA)that violated NEPA, and routes con-structed under the aegis of this illegaldocument might well be required to bedecommissioned and obliterated as aresult of ongoing legal actions.

Threats: The Deoslation Flats Natural Gasproject, entailing 385 gas wells, wouldimpact 50,000 acres of wilderness-qualitylands in the Adobe Town portion of this coreif approved, including important mountainplover nesting habitat. Several routes con-structed recently as part of the VermillionBasin Natural Gas Project have been in-cluded within the boundaries of the Vermil-lion Basin Citizen’s Proposed WildernessUnit. Although these routes meet BLM’sdefinition of a “road,” they will be requiredto be obliterated upon abandonment, and areanalogous to similar roads determined to betemporary intrusions and included withinexisting WSAs such as Adobe Town. Inaddition to the Vermillion Basin Natural GasProject which is already underway, forma-tions bearing potential reserves of naturalgas at shallow to moderate depth include theWasatch, Ft. Union, Lance, and Lewis forma-tions, and the Mesa Verde group of theAlmond formation. Adobe Town WSA andthe surrounding wildlands are under directthreat from expanding oil, gas, and coalbedmethane drilling in the Washakie Basin.


121

22. Medicine Bow:General Description: 1,367,680 hectares insize, this core area encompasses the northernextent of the Southern Rockies Ecoregionwithin the Heart of the West lowlands studyarea, including the coniferous forests of theMedicine Bow and Sierra Madre ranges plussome areas of adjacent rims and benchlandsand lower elevation shrubland habitat andshortgrass basins. The western part of thecore includes the Atlantic Rim country, anarea of high rims robed in sagebrush steppeand mountain shrub communities andmanaged by the BLM. This area includes theimportant Muddy Creek and Little Snakedrainages, which not only harbor importantpopulations of rare native fishes but arecritically important to maintaining thenatural flows and sediment levels of theYampa and Green River systems, home tofour species of endangered fish. To the eastof the range, the core encompasses the BigHollow, a massive natural blowout that hasbeen nominated as a National NaturalLandmark.

Ecological Values: Three of Wyoming’sseven sharp-tailed grouse leks on publiclands can be found in this core area. Thiscore also contains important elk calvingand wintering areas. This area containssoutheast Wyoming’s best habitat for therecovery of carnivores, such as lynx,wolves, and grizzly bears. A great deal ofcrucial winter range for elk and muledeer is found along the foothills of theSierra Madres and the Atlantic Rimcountry. This area also has Wyoming’sonly known occurrence of ringtail.Important conservation populations ofColorado River cutthroat trout are foundin several branches of the Little SnakeRiver. The Medicine Bow core area alsocontains the northernmost extension ofGambel oak woodlands in southeasternWyoming. The core contains parts of theLaramie Basin where freshwater andbrackish lakes are clustered, includingthe Hutton Lake National Wildlife Ref-uge. This lake district is a magnet forwaterfowl and shorebirds including the

Snowy Range, Medicine Bow Erik Molvar


122

white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi), andprovides the world’s last remaininghabitat for the Wyoming toad (Bufobaxteri[Bufo hemiophrys baxteri]), one ofthe rarest animals on the EndangeredSpecies List. Alpine areas in the SnowyRange are habitat for the brown-cappedrosy finch (Leucosticte australis) and apopulation of white-tailed ptarmigan(Lagopus leucurus) that is barely hangingon, as well as eight species of rare nativewildflowers that inhabit the fragilealpine tundra.

Recommendations: Based on recommenda-tions made in the Citizens’ ConservationAlternative for the Medicine Bow NationalForest Management Plan, we recommendfor this core area 1) a moratorium on newroads, 2) accelerated rates of road decom-missioning, and 3) that logging neverexceed more than 25% of the area of anywatershed of any order. We also recom-mend that previous logging practices bereplaced with selective harvest as amethod of timber removal in the core. TheMedicine Bow National Forest’s relianceon clearcutting as a timber harvest methodis inconsistent with longstanding ForestService policy to move away fromclearcutting. Rivers recommended for Wildand Scenic River status include the Roar-ing Fork of the Little Snake River, BigSandstone Creek, the North Fork of theLittle Snake River, Solomon Creek, RoseCreek, Encampment River, and the NorthPlatte River; these areas should be recom-mended for this protection. Seasonalclosures to snowmobile use should occurin National Forest roadless areas, andwhere there are conflicts with wildlife andtheir winter needs, and at times and placeswhere snow depth is not sufficient toprevent damage to the underlying soilsand vegetation. A moratorium should be

placed on future water diversion projectsthat rob one watershed to provide addi-tional water to another.

Threats: A 3,880-well coal bed methanedrilling project has been proposed in theAtlantic Rim part of the core area. If imple-mented, this project would industrializehundreds of thousands of acres of crucialwinter range, and the operation’s waste-water would threaten the survival ofsensitive native fish. These include(bluehead sucker, roundtail chub (Gilarobusta), and flannelmouth sucker(Catostomus latipinnis) in the Muddy Creekwatershed as well as four species of en-dangered fish in the Yampa/Green Riversystem downstream. In addition, the oiland gas industry has proposed seismicexploration for oil and gas in the RockCreek Roadless area, portendingindustry’s interest in future development.

Water diversion projects also are raidingflow from streams in the Little Snake water-shed, home to conservation populations ofColorado River cutthroat trout, to feed waterdemands in Cheyenne and the North Plattebasin. Additional water diversions may bebuilt in the future, further stressing theColorado River system.

Decades of mismanagement have left theForest Service in charge of a Medicine BowForest that is in grave trouble. Forestfragmentation is rampant; the patchworkof roads and logged areas that characterizethe forest today is far beyond the range ofnatural variability for this forest ecosys-tem. Wildfires that occur naturallythroughout the Forest are suppressed assoon as they start. Beetle epidemics areviewed as forest diseases and are activelyfought. The response to endemic dwarfmistletoe (Arceuthobium abietinum) has


123

been to clearcut the forest. Stands oflodgepole pine have been artificiallymaintained in an early seral state throughclearcutting and replanting with morelodgepole, instead of allowing these standsto naturally convert to spruce-fir forest.The disappearance of species such as lynxand wolverine (Gulo gulo) are likely to bedirectly related to the increased roadbuilding and logging that began in the

1950’s. Currently, many parts of the Medi-cine Bow core area are traversed by nu-merous four-wheel drive routes, andillegal off-trail ATV use in the fragilesnowglade area causes significant resourcedamage in June and early July. Privatelands in this core are at risk for subdivisionand second home development.

23. Rawah Mountains:General Description: This core area, alongwith the Medicine Bow core, comprises thenorthern-most extent of the SouthernRockies Ecoregion. Practically abuttingFort Collins, CO., it is one of our few coreareas that is in very close proximity to afairly large city. The Rawah Mountain corearea is 363,667 hectares in size.

Ecological Values: This core area addssignificantly to the upper elevation habitattypes captured in the wildlands network –notably including almost 20% of the limberpine vegetation type and 28% of theponderosa pine type found in the Heart ofthe West Network. There are a number ofG2 Natural Heritage species elementoccurrences captured in this core, includ-ing Gray’s peak whitlow grass (Drabagrayana) (100% of occurrences in overalllowlands network), Larimer aletes (Aleteshumilis) (85% of occurrences), palemoonwart (Botrychium pallidum) (100% ofoccurrences), and reflected moonwart(Botrychium echo)(50% of occurrences). TheRawah mountains contain a number ofspecies that are endemic to the southernRocky Mountains and which are capturedin this core area, like the Rocky Mountaincinquefoil (Potentilla effuse var rupincola),the Rocky Mountain columbine (Aquilegiasaximontana), and the southern Rocky

Mountain cinquefoil (Potentilla ambigens).Additionally, the Rawah Mountains corecaptures 50% of all pygmy shrew (Sorexhoyi) occurrences in the lowlands network.

Since the Rawah Mountain core is thefurthest east of any core area in the South-ern Rocky Mountain Ecoregion portion ofthe lowland study area, it serves as animportant “transitional zone” between theSouthern Rockies and the short andmidgrass prairie systems of the NorthernGreat Plains Ecoregion. The fact that manyspecies of plants and animals reach theedge of their range in this transitional zoneis significant because individuals at theedge of their range often possess slightgenetic variation, or are more susceptibleto conditions that can induce slight varia-tion, in comparison to those at the core ofthe species’ distribution (Frey 1993, Lesicaand Allendorf 1995, Garcia-Ramos andKirkpatrick 1997). This makes these out-reaching segments of these populations adynamic focus of evolutionary change, inwhich those individuals may be morelikely to survive and adapt to regionalperturbations, or climate shifts. From bothan evolutionary perspective, and from theperspective of conservation of all speciesin the southern Rockies, populations attheir distributional limits are extremelyimportant.


124

Recommendations: Since the northern thirdof this core area was extensively logged inthe late 1800’s for railroad ties, this area(especially in the vicinity of the Old Roachtownsite), is still recovering from this exten-sive logging. As such, we recommend thatno more logging be carried out in the RawahMountain core area.

Threats: Since the majority of this core areais included in wilderness areas, threats arecomparatively few to this core. However,part of the area not included in wildernessis logged to some extent (see above), andthe recreation pressure inside the wilder-ness areas is currently intense.

24. Flat Tops:General Description: This core area com-prises the northwest most extent of theSouthern Rockies Ecoregion, and is locatedin the southeast part of the lowland studyarea. 492,378 hectares in size, this coreincludes both the forested Flat Tops regionand the lower-elevation Roan Plateauregion.

Ecological Values: The Roan Plateautowers more than 3,000 feet above I-70along the southern edge of this region.The massive cliffs at its rim are formedfrom the sandstone and shale of theGreen River Formation. A dark brownline is apparent in the cliffs, even from I-70, and denotes the presence of an oilbearing stratum called the MahoganyLedge. The oil-bearing layers of theGreen River Formation thicken as onemoves north and west into the PiceanceBasin core area. Consequently, mostcommercial oil shale development effortstook place farther north, and left theRoan Plateau relatively unscathed.

The Roan Plateau’s gentle valleys androlling hills end abruptly in the 1,500-footdeep canyons carved by the East Fork andEast Middle Fork of Parachute Creek onthe Plateau’s western edge. This uniquegeology, with high waterfalls plunging offthe edge of the Plateau, creates perfectisolated conditions for native ColoradoRiver cutthroat trout to thrive. The geo-

logic isolation protects the nativecutthroat’s genetic purity by eliminatingthe possibility of hybridization by rainbowtrout invading from downstream. TheRoan Plateau also provides ideal habitatfor large herds of mule deer and elk. TheRoan Plateau hosts an abundance of rareand imperiled native plant communities,including cliff seeps containing rare hang-ing gardens. The Green River Formation,through which the Plateau’s valleys arecut, contains abundant fossils.

On the northern edge of the Flat Tops corearea, the Colorado Plateau’s least alteredriver - the Yampa - courses through therangelands of northwest Colorado. Largeherds of elk and deer winter along theYampa River. Because the Yampa is essen-tially free-flowing from its source toconfluence with the Green River in Dino-saur National Monument, it provides thebest remaining habitat for imperiled nativeColorado River fishes, most particularlythe Colorado pikeminnow. Most of theYampa is designated critical habitat for thepikeminnow.

Recommendations: Three Citizens’ Pro-posed Wilderness Units (Grand Hogback,Yampa River, Roan Plateau) exist withinthis core area. We recommend that theBLM conduct the necessary inventoryresearch to determine whether these unitsqualify for WSA status.


125

Threats: Most of the Roan Plateau is free ofoil and gas leases, but the BLM is currentlycompleting a management plan for theRoan Plateau that could throw the areawide open to oil and gas exploration.Open-pit coal mines flank the Yampa River

and threaten to invade the proposedwilderness. A large reservoir was onceproposed for this segment of the Yampa atJuniper Mountain, but is now defunctbecause of economics.

25. Piceance Basin:General Description: 235,386 hectares insize, this core area captures the heart of thePiceance Basin in northwest Colorado.

Ecological Values: The Piceance Basin ischaracterized by high ridge tops and steepslopes, where Douglas fir clings to therugged walls of narrow canyons. ThePiceance Basin has long harbored one ofthe premier mule deer herds in NorthAmerica, sustaining the largest migratoryherd in Colorado. The White River coursesthrough the heart of the basin and pro-vides abundant habitat for wintering baldeagles and numerous golden eagles. ThePiceance Basin’s unique shale outcropsand soils support an abundance of en-demic and globally rare plant species.

Recommendations: Four Citizens’ Pro-posed Wilderness Units (Pinyon Ridge, BigRidge, Black Mountain WSA, Windy GulchWSA) exist within this core area. Werecommend that the BLM conduct thenecessary inventory work and/or research

to make the determination as to whetherPinyon Ridge and Big Ridge qualify forWSA status.

Threats: Extensive mineral explorationand development has occurred in recentyears in this region of Colorado. Theresulting maze of roads, power lines, andpipelines has severely diminished theavailable solitude for wildlife, puttingever-increasing pressure on them as theunroaded area shrinks. If oil shale is everdeveloped in a major fashion, Black Moun-tain, Windy Gulch and the other proposedwilderness units will remain the onlyuntracked area in oil shale country.

The Pinyon Ridge proposed wildernessarea in this core is facing a dozen separateproposed oil and gas lease parcel sales.Industry has proposed drilling a halfdozen wells in the Big Ridge proposedwilderness area. Farther east in the basin,no oil and gas leases occur within BlackMountain and Windy Gulch proposedwilderness units.

26. Duschene:General Description: This 313,511 hectarecore area is in the extreme southwestcorner of the lowland study area, andprovides a critical link between the lowerelevation habitats of the Book Cliffs inUtah to both the Wasatch Plateau andUinta Mountains.

Ecological Values: Important fish habitexists along the Strawberry River and itstributaries, and winter range for elk anddeer are found in the Argyle Ridge area.First American rock art sites, particularlyalong Nine Mile Canyon, offer some of thehighest density and most remarkabledisplays in Utah, and the particular styleof the rock art are unique to this region.


126

This core area contributes significantly toupland habitat types in the lowlands wild-lands network, containing 10% of the pin-yon-juniper land cover type present in thenetwork, and fully 44% of the mountain firvegetation type. This is a particularly impor-tant core area in terms of capturing habitatfor a few, very rare (G1 and G2) NHP spe-cies; the Duschene core includes 100% of theBarneby pepper grass (Lepidiumbarnebyanum) (G1), 100% of the Green rivergreenthread (Thelesperma caespitosum) (G1),and 28% of the federally threatened Uteladies’ tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis)(G2) in the lowlands network. Rare verte-brates known to occur in the Duschene corearea include the plateau-striped whiptail(Cnemidophorus velox), thirteen-lined groundsquirrel, and ringtails.

Recommendations: Several Citizens’Proposed Wilderness Units on both Na-tional Forest and BLM lands exist withinthis core area. These include Willow Creek,Bad Lands (Argyle Canyon), Lion Hollow,and Long Ridge. We recommend that theForest Service and BLM conduct thenecessary inventory work and/or researchto determine whether these units qualifyfor WSA status. We also recommend thatnew vehicle routes for ORVs be curtailed.

Threats: This area, close to a number ofcommunities in the Uinta Basin, is seeingincreased ORV use. Oil and gas developmentincreasingly has made inroads into remoteareas. Such production, opposed for parts ofNine Mile Canyon, threaten not only wildlifehabitat but also cultural sites.

27. Book Cliffs:General Description: 783,571 hectares insize, the 2,000 foot-high escarpment of theBook Cliffs and Roan Cliffs mark the south-ern perimeter of our study area in Utah, andis part of a roadless area that is over a millionacres in size. The thousand-foot-high wall ofthe Book Cliffs that run for 250 miles along I-70 across Utah and Colorado is the longestcontinuous escarpment in the world (UWC1990). These cliffs, together with the RoanCliffs and the Tavaputs Plateau, comprisethis ecologically important core area. TheTavaputs Plateau, topped with spruce,aspen, and fir, is a monument to the battlebetween uplift and erosion. This two-milethick block of sedimentary strata was up-lifted directly in the path of the Green River;as the land rose the Green scoured its chan-nel deeper, eventually cutting the TavaputsPlateau in half. Between those two halves,the Green winds for 80 miles in a gorge –Desolation Canyon - nearly as deep as theGrand Canyon.

Ecological Values: In the Book Cliffs, highelevation (8,000 ft) sandstone canyonsdrain to the north through lush meadows.These stone canyon walls are capped withDouglas fir forests. The region between I-70 on the south and the White River to thenorth harbors an estimated 375 vertebratespecies of wildlife - half of the numberfound in Utah (UDWR 1977). The TavaputsPlateau offers ideal summer habitat for elk,deer, cougar, and bear, and harbors per-haps the largest and most well-studiedblack bear population in Utah. The GreenRiver in Desolation Canyon is a majormigration route for waterfowl and afavorite winter roosting site for baldeagles. Bighorn sheep have been success-fully reintroduced to this region, wherethey were formerly extirpated.

Importantly, some of the highest scoringsuitable wolf habitat in the Heart of theWest lowlands study area was captured inthis core area. The Book Cliffs core, if


127

properly protected and managed, couldoffer critical wolf migration routes linkingsource populations of wolves in the Utah-Wyoming Mountain Ecoregion to excellentwolf habitat in the Southern Rocky Moun-tains.

Recommendations: The majority of acreagewithin this core area is comprised of amost impressive number of inventoriedroadless areas, all of which are currentlyproposed for wilderness designationunder America’s RedRock Wilderness Act(proposed legislation in Congress). Thiswilderness proposal would protect thisregion’s important wildlife resources inperpetuity.

Threats: Current BLM wilderness propos-als would leave fully half of the roadlessareas in this region open for developmentof coal, petroleum and natural gas. Whilegeologic exploration has shown a lowlikelihood for major fossil resources, BLMhas a history of allowing exploratory wellsto be developed in WSAs in this core area.Today, many unprotected areas are alreadybeing hit hard by energy exploration anddevelopment proposals. The state has along history of managing a 60,000 acreportion of this region primarily for wild-life. Currently this policy has been re-versed and new roads and logging areentering this critical wildlife habitat.

28. Little Book Cliffs:General Description: 100,464 hectares insize, the Little Book Cliffs core encom-passes the cliffs and canyons of the eastend of the Book Cliffs. Thousand-footcanyon walls rise from the entrance toMain Canyon at its confluence with theColorado River, and portions of the 2,000-foot vertical face of the Book Cliffs, visiblefrom throughout the Grand Valley, areincorporated into the area. The sheerenormity of these unscalable walls, com-bined with the views from the mesasabove them, provide incomparable wilder-ness values. Evidence of the FremontCulture can be found throughout the area,lending it archaeological as well as ecologi-cal and scenic value.

Ecological Values: This core area includesthe Little Book Cliffs Wild Horse Range,one of only three such designated WildHorse Ranges in America, and the onlyone in the Colorado Plateau Province.More than 100 wild horses roam the area,providing unique opportunities for ob-

serving and photographing them whilehiking, backpacking, or horseback riding.Portions of Little Book Cliffs also providecritical winter range for mule deer. LittleBook Cliffs is one of very few remainingroadless areas in the Book Cliffs region ofwest central Colorado. Major canyons cutthrough the area - Main, Cottonwood,Spring and Coal - and these twistingcanyons contain trickling desert streamsgraced by cottonwoods and Douglas firs intheir upper reaches. Plunge pools andwaterfalls dot the canyons. Several naturalbridges and numerous hoodoos line thetan and gray canyon walls.

Recommendations: Four Citizens’ Pro-posed Wilderness Units (Cow Ridge,Hunter Canyon, Shale Ridge, LittleBooksliffs) exist within this core area. Werecommend that the BLM conduct thenecessary inventory work and/or researchnecessary to make the determination as towhether these units qualify for WSAstatus.


128

Threats: The entire region is under siegefrom accelerating oil and gas development.Gas wells are planned or pending for threeof the four proposed wilderness units.Nearly the entire region is presently leased

for oil and gas exploration with few re-strictions. Modest coal reserves also under-lie Little Book Cliffs, but the only produc-ing underground mines closed during the1990s.

Conservation biologists have found thatour current system of protected “islands ofhabitat” are not sufficient by themselves tosustain biodiversity over the long term.These areas do not provide for all theneeds of wildlife and so they must beconnected to one another by safe passageand by smaller areas of habitat. Whilethere are many important landscape

linkages that have been identified in theHeart of the West Wildlands Network(Figure 4.1), we focus below on two thatare particularly crucial to identify forimmediate protection: the Powder RimLinkage and the Green River CorridorLinkage.

4.3.1 The Powder Rim LinkageThe Powder Rim Linkage (Figure 4.3) is abroad swell of high country that rises atthe south end of the Washakie Basin andincludes both the area known as thePowder Rim and the adjoining AtlanticRim. If protected, this area will serve as acritical landscape corridor of habitatbetween the Adobe Town/Vermillion corearea and the large Medicine Bow core area.As such, it will contribute to ensuringconnectivity between the Uinta Mountainsin the Utah Wyoming Mountain Ecoregion(via the Adobe Town/Vermillion core) andthe Southern Rocky Mountains Ecoregion.

The Powder Rim Linkage is robed in a mixof juniper woodland and sagebrushsteppe/grasslands. The northern side ofthe rim slopes down into the Skull Creekbasin, where it is dissected into clay bad-lands. There are a number of permanentsprings in the area, important in such a dryregion. The area within and around thePowder Rim Linkage provides perhaps thefinest opportunities for primitive recre-ation in a juniper woodland setting avail-able in Wyoming.

In terms of important plant and animalspecies in the Powder Rim Linkage, thislinkage boasts its own desert elk herd,seven species of rare native plants, criticalwinter habitat for mule deer, and sagegrouse, a species of particular concern.Muddy Creek, one of the few permanentwaterways in the area, is home to threetypes of fish rated as sensitive species bythe BLM. This area also includes cotton-wood riparian communities rated “highestpriority” by the Wyoming GAP Analysis.It is also home to rare raptors such asgolden eagle and ferruginous hawk;juniper-obligate birds like gray flycatcher(Empidonax wrightii), western scrub jay(Aphelocoma californica), plain titmouse(Parus inomatus), gray vireo (Vireo vicinior),black-throated gray warbler (Dendroicanigrescens), and other passerines that arerare in Wyoming such as Scott’s oriole(Icterus parisorum).

The Powder Rim Linkage serves as a criticalwildlife linkage between the Adobe Town/Vermillion core area and the Medicine BowNational Forest. The Adobe Town area is of

4.3.1 Highlighting Key Linkages in the Lowlands Heart of the West Wildlands Network


129

great importance as one of the last largeremnants of the Red Desert ecosystem thatremains in a pristine state, and the MedicineBow is a 1.37 million hectare important corearea of habitat for elk as well as many otherspecies and home to several rivers that havebeen recommended for Wild and Scenicprotection status. Even within the PowderRim Linkage there are two small core areasidentified by the SITES model: the ReedCreek roadless area and Flattop Mountain.These areas provide excellent habitat for therare Gibben’s beardtongue (Penstemongibbensii). The Powder Rim Linkage providesan important corridor for migrating elk and

Figure 4.3 The Powder Rim Linkage, which connects the Adobe Town/Vermillion Core Area

to the Medicine Bow Core Area in the lowland Wildlands Network

mule deer, is perhaps the last east-westlinkage joining sage grouse populations inthe southern Red Desert, and also has someof the last lightly impacted lands in the midstof a rash of oil and gas development.

Specific management recommendationsfor the Powder Rim Linkage includepreservation as an Area of Critical Envi-ronmental Concern as suggested in theCitizens’ Alternative for the Great DivideManagement Plan. The BLM is currentlyrevising this management plan for theBLM’s Great Divide Resource Area insouthern Wyoming.

4.3.2 The Green River Corridor Linkagebelow, it is a critical component of connect-ing wildlife winter use areas to summeruse areas in southwest Wyoming.

The Green River Corridor Linkage (Figure4.4) links the Upper Green River core areato both the Upper Red Desert core and theFlaming Gorge core area. As described


130

Between Greater Yellowstone’s mountainhighlands and the sagebrush steppe ofWyoming’s high deserts lie ancient animaltrails well worn by thousands of years ofseasonal migrations. Each fall and spring,great waves of pronghorn antelope, muledeer, elk and moose - numbering in thetens of thousands - follow these trails(especially along the Green River corridor)from the animals’ lush summer ranges totheir snow-free winter range in the WindRiver Basin, Green River Valley, and theRed Desert. These trails are critical to thesurvival of these species, but they are atrisk of being blocked by human activities.

In response to the threats to these crucialwildlife migration corridors, a coalition ofWyoming Environmental groups cametogether to found the Restoring Wild

Figure 4.4 The Green River Corridor Linkage connecting Upper Green, Upper Red Desert,

and the Flaming Gorge Core Areas.

Patterns conservation effort (Box 4.1). Themap in Box 4.1 conveys the importance ofthe Green River Corridor Linkage toseasonal migrations of Wyoming’s ungu-late wildlife.


131

Box 4.1 Restoring Wild Patterns

Since the last Ice Age, an array of wildlife species have followed ancient migration patterns

each year from the heart of Yellowstone south through the Gros Ventre, Snake, Hoback, and

Green River drainages to their wintering grounds in the Wyoming Basins. Natural bottle-

necks have long funneled wildlife into narrow ways along their route. But today those bottle-

necks are being choked by development that is threatening to completely block the migra-

tion corridors altogether. Booming oil and gas fields, livestock overgrazing, sprawling subdi-

visions and other human developments are fragmenting habitat, encroaching on critical

winter range and blocking historic wildlife travel routes that link the Greater Yellowstone to

the lowlands of the Heart of the West. Safeguarding vital links between summer and winter

ranges is critical to ensure the survival of abundant, healthy, genetically diverse wildlife

populations in the future. The Restoring Wild Patterns (RWP) program envisions restoration

of healthy, sustainable, free-ranging wildlife populations to the diverse, native habitat in the

southern Greater Yellowstone and Green River Valley.

Protecting and restoring wildlife migration corridors requires the conservation of large landscapes

rather than the piecemeal, politically expedient land partitioning we have seen in the past. To

ensure the long-term survival of our wildlife populations, RWP challenges wildlife and public land

managers to re-evaluate their priorities by working to safeguard existing migration corridors and

restore missing links in those corridors. The choice to protect and restore historic migration paths

is ours now, but as the last great corridors are being fragmented, this may be the last chance we

get to make that choice. RWP recommends the following actions that are necessary if we are to

protect and restore historic migration routes through Yellowstone and Grand Teton Parks, Buffalo

Valley, Jackson Hole, Gros Ventre Valley and Green River Basin:

• Create incentives to private landowners to

protect open space and migration corridors

through the voluntary sale of conservation

easements

• Tax mineral production on public lands to

create a wildlife trust fund to finance

habitat acquisition and conservation

easements

• Adopt an aggressive noxious weed cam-

paign to eradicate non-native invasive

plants that are compromising native

habitat and reducing available forage

• Manage livestock grazing operations to

minimize competition with wildlife on

available habitat

• Provide access to and make available public

land winter habitat for wintering wildlife

• Implement proactive travel plans where

motorized vehicles and snowmobiles

impact or displace wildlife. Road density

should be reduced and road conflicts

eliminated in important wildlife habitat

• Modify or remove fences to allow large-

scale wildlife migrations to proceed with-

out impediments

• Implement county land-use plans that

reduce future subdivision sprawl and,

where development has already occurred,

help private landowners avoid conflicts

with migratory wildlife

• Place a moratorium on new oil and gas

leasing in migration corridors until federal

agencies can complete cumulative-effects

analyses of the impacts of this unprec-

edented pace of energy development

• Phase out elk feedgrounds where possible

and allow supplemental feeding only on an

emergency basis. Manage wildlife at

carrying capacity on native range in order

to reduce wildlife concentration and the

risk of disease which impacts free-ranging

wildlife herds


132

Overlay of RWP ungulate migration routes with Heart of the West Wildlands Network.

The serious threats facing these migrating animals is evidenced by the fact that the

destination of many migrations is into a matrix of private lands, ranches and oil and gas

activities (and thus not included in core areas).

• Improve and restore habitat to assure

healthy flora and fauna and increase

vegetative health by fire treatment, native

seed planting, etc. as habitat improvement

projects to provide alternative winter

range.


133

In the Greater Yellowstone, there remains one of the last intact ecosystems in the temper-

ate zones of the earth. Protecting and restoring traditional wildlife migration corridors

between the vast landscapes of Yellowstone and the Wyoming Basins is a daunting chal-

lenge. RWP’s habitat restoration plan would maintain human social values as well as the

benefits resulting from viable big game herds. RWP has the vision to make the correct

choice at this crossroads to promote free-ranging, healthy wildlife, rather than domesti-

cated and diseased elk and bison sustained on artificial feedlots and cutoff from their

historic wintering grounds.

135

Adobetown Erik Molvar

5.1 Introduction


In this chapter, we describe how the Heartof the West Wildlands Network is used toeffect change on the ground and achievethe basic conservation goals of this plan(Table 5.1). Implementation involvesdesigning and applying land use prescrip-tions specific to different parts of thewildlands network. Drawing from specific

Chapter 5 - Implementation of the Heart of theWest Wildlands Network

land management practices and protectivedesignations commonly used today, thisconservation plan applies a step-by-stepdecision procedure for guiding land use inthe Heart of the West.

Chapter 5Implementation of the Heart of the West Wildlands Network

136

Table 5.1 Goals of the Heart of the West Wildlands Network and Conservation Plan

Our implementation model employsseveral fundamental principles, includingmanagement for ecologically functionalhabitat for populations of focal species, theprinciple of adaptive ecosystem manage-ment, and the precautionary principle:

Managing for healthy populations of focalspecies - While focal species habitat model-ing was key in designing the wildlandsnetwork, the focal species concept contin-ues to be critical in the implementationstage as well. For example, many of theHeart of the West focal species werechosen because they can serve as indica-tors of habitat health. The decline of theseindicator species may be a signal that thehealth of the land has also diminished.Part of implementation involves putting inplace management prescriptions that willensure healthy and viable populations offocal species and functional focal specieshabitat.

Adaptive management - Biologically basedadaptive management allows for adjust-ments based on ecological indicators. Theappropriate use of adaptive management

Goal 1: Protect and restore viable populations of all native plants and animals (including

some that have been extirpated) within the Heart of the West.

Goal 2: Protect sufficient amounts of all habitat types from further degradation and loss.

Goal 3: Maintain and restore all ecological and evolutionary processes.

Goal 4: Protect land from further fragmentation. Protect and restore functional

connectivity for wide-ranging species native to the region.

Goal 5: Prevent the spread of exotic species. Reduce the distribution and abundance of

exotics, with the ultimate goal of elimination.

Goal 6: Prevent or reduce further introduction of ecologically destructive pollutants into

the region.

involves testing management changes forthe desired result, making changes basedon monitoring of key ecological indicators,and independent peer review.

The precautionary principle - The urgency forincreased habitat protection requires us tomake scientifically informed decisions in theface of imperfect knowledge. In these in-stances we must apply the precautionaryprinciple. The precautionary principleprescribes erring on the side of caution in theface of uncertainty. It suggests that the betterthe monitoring is, the more certain a man-ager can be that management practices donot put ecological health at risk, while theless adequate monitoring is, the greater theuncertainty and the greater the risk. Forexample, if we are to ensure viable popula-tions of sage grouse, we cannot afford toallow further loss of function of sagebrushsteppe, which means that we cannot affordcontinuing to use unproven managementprescriptions. The burden of proof in cases ofdoubt necessarily falls on the proponents ofa particular land use to show that it will notimpair the land, not on the proponents ofconservation to show that it will.


137

In the implementation process, each of theabove three principles will be differentiallyapplied to the various components of thewildlands network (core areas, core recov-ery areas, linkages, and compatible useareas) in order that human activities occurin deference to the needs of the land.

The remainder of this chapter elaborateson the concepts just mentioned. Section 5.2describes a systematic approach for imple-mentation (with flowchart), which in-cludes developing site-specific manage-ment prescriptions, evaluating manage-ment actions against the conservation plan,developing remedies for management,implementing the remedies, evaluating theresults against the goals of the conserva-tion plan, and updating the conservation

plan with new information. Next, Section5.3 describes management prescriptionsthat are consistent with this conservationplan. These prescriptions are derived froma number of sources and reflect the bestknowledge on monitoring, managinghuman activities, and evaluating impactson wildlife and habitat. Section 5.4 dis-cusses various tools that can ensure protec-tive designations for linkages and/or coreareas or parts of cores. Section 5.5 gives anexample of how a land use planningprocess can be made congruent with theconservation plan in a specific part of theHeart of the West (in this case, managingoil and gas development within Heart ofthe West core areas in the Uinta Basin ineastern Utah).

5.2 General Implementation Approach: Affecting Management Change forWildland Network UnitsThis section of the Heart of the WestConservation Plan describes a wildlandsnetwork implementation approach thatin stepwise fashion translates the plan’sprescriptions into actions on the land.The Heart of the West Wildlands Net-work Design features core areas, link-ages, and compatible use areas. Thenetwork components each come withimplementation prescriptions that de-scribe the types of human activitiescompatible with those protective desig-nations, as well as the habitat indicatorsfor measuring the compatibility of theseactivities with biological goals. Prescrip-tions described in this conservation plan

are standards for managing humanactivities in a manner that is consistentwith habitat needs. These prescriptionsare developed from information in thefocal species accounts, past managementpractices, and other scientific analyses.

We recommend that implementationoccur in the steps of the flow path shownin Figure 5.1. These steps aid land users,managers, and conservationists (referredto in this plan as “reviewers”) as theymake this conservation plan a basis forland use decisions. Below we developthe concepts represented by each box inthe flow chart in Figure 5.1.

5.2.1 Recommended Changes in Land Use or ManagementOnce the reviewer has identified thoseland uses that are inconsistent with theconservation plan, the next step is todesign a remedy. Based on the biological

prescriptions in the conservation plan,the reviewer designs the type of treat-ment needed to meet the plan’s goals,including the kind and intensity of


138

Figure 5.1 - Wildlands Network Implementation Chart

Focal species

analysis

Habitat

analysis

Conservation

Plan

Measurable habitat

goals

Implementation

perscriptions

Relationship

between

use/management

and habitat

Further scientific study

Conservation Plan

model revisions

Conservation Plan

indicators not met

Remedy:

Recommend change

to land

use/management

Identify parts of plan/

land use inconsisten

with Conservation Plan

Land managers’

current land use

Conservation Plan

goals met yet

species remain at risk

Monitoring of focal

species and habitat

function

Conservation Iniative

(ie...Citizens’ Alternative

Legislation)

Conservation action:

(ie...Planning amendment

project action)

Conservation goals met.

Focal species are viable.

Thank those responsible

for this success

Design management

tools based on

conservation biology

Agency land use action is consistent with the

Conservation Plan

Congratulations, thank the agency!

not consistent

consistent

WildlandsNetworkDesign

human use acceptable in specific places,and necessary monitoring.

The remedy required to achieve the con-servation plan’s goals will likely includethe following components:

1. Inventory of focal species habitat —prior to continued or new habitat distur-bance, an inventory of focal species habitatuse, and habitat function for that species,should be conducted.

2. The location and degree of impacts fromhuman activities — identify those activitiesthat potentially affect the focal species and itshabitat, and begin monitoring on the site inquestion. Attempt to quantify or otherwisedescribe the relationship between humanactivity and degradation of habitat function.

3. Land use stipulations — suggest man-agement stipulations that are designed tomaintain and/or restore habitat functionfor focal species.


139

4. Peer review — solicit expert peerreview from scientists that have no conflictof interest with either land users or theland manager.

5. Ensure adequate funding – as a part ofany action, funding should maintain themonitoring and evaluation necessary toimplement the management remedy.

Timing on when best for the reviewer toaffect land management decisions is alsoimportant. In most cases this requires thereviewer to be involved in the decisionprocess at the earliest possible stage.

5.2.2 Design Management Tools Based on Conservation BiologyLand and wildlife managers have col-lected extensive data over long periodsof time. These data can sometimes beused to support the biology-based deci-sions called for in the Heart of the WestConservation Plan. However, in somecases the necessary data have either notbeen collected or the agency decisionprocess excludes key biological consider-ations. BLM’s range monitoring offers agood example. Historically, rangelandmonitoring has emphasized forage for

livestock and browse for big game overother land health considerations, such asstream and riparian health. Thus, wherecrucial information concerning over-allland health is lacking it is imperativethat reviewers augment monitoring andecosystem health assessment methods –especially in cores and linkages. Box 5.1gives a good example of a case whereindependent scientists and conservation-ists developed an alternative procedurefor assessing stream and riparian health.

5.2.3 Conservation Action: Planning Amendment or Project ActionOpportunities to implement the wildlandsnetwork will often coincide with an agencydecision process. The revision of a ForestPlan, the renewal of a grazing permit, theapproval of a gas field development Envi-ronmental Impact Statement (EIS), or theupdating of a travel plan are examples ofopportunities to use the conservation plan toguide land uses. The reviewer can use thesedecision processes as opportunities topromote remedies for management prob-lems identified in the previous step of theimplementation flowchart.

The best time to affect a land use decisionis early on. For example, by the time aDraft EIS is released, the possibility ofmodifying the preferred alternative may

be remote. The reason for this is that therange of possible outcomes is often deter-mined long before the public becomesaware of the environmental analysisprocess. In order to justify the expense fora land manager to write an EIS, the agencyneeds to have a clear idea of the nature ofthe problem and how to fix it. When theagency begins to write the EIS, the moneythe agency has budgeted for the taskalready defines the kind of informationthat will be gathered, what scope of analy-sis the agency can afford, and a narrowedrange of possible preferred alternatives.The decisions that shape an EIS or land useplan are often in place prior to the agencyfiling a notice of intent to prepare an EIS inthe Federal Register.


140

Box 5.1 Riparian Health Assessment Example.

In the mid 1990s, the BLM established Rangeland Health standards that advocated for the

proper ecological functioning of rangelands. To implement this policy for riparian/

wetland areas, BLM developed a rapid assessment method to determine the hydrological

and geomorphic function of streams. BLM’s assessment method has been more broadly

used by BLM to determine whether an area is in Properly Functioning Condition (PFC),

and thereby meeting the Rangeland Health standards. As is the case with some agency

monitoring and assessment methods, BLM omitted key biological considerations required

by the rangeland health standards in their PFC assessments and omitted instructions on

exactly how to reach a final PFC determination. As a result, many BLM PFC assessments

underreport deteriorated riparian areas. In response to this, the conservation community

in Utah assembled a team of scientists to design an alternative PFC assessment method for

riparian areas that more fully implements BLM’s rangeland health standards. The

resulting revised PFC assessment method gives the conservation community a stronger

tool to use in promoting a conservation remedy in riparian areas impacted by

overgrazing. Importantly, the BLM actually implemented part of the revised PFC

procedure in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah.

Deer Creek in the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument Jim Catlin


141

agement institution’s way of thinking,those advocating a remedy must designthe recommended action to comply withthe regulatory structure and culture ofthe institution. The reviewer needs toknow how an agency makes decisions.Recruiting the support of decision mak-ers for a conservation remedy is also ofcritical importance. This can be achievedby creating long-term relationships withthose in the managing agency that shareour conservation goals. Approaching keydecision makers early to understandtheir needs and concerns may help thereviewer find a way to make the conser-vation remedy have more of an impact.

In order to have maximum influence on theland use plan, the conservation plan re-viewer should be involved in shaping theland manager’s request for the planningbudget well in advance of any public notice.This will usually involve personal contactwith key agency staff, often more than a yearin advance of the start of an EIS. Early andongoing personal involvement will usuallybe required if it is to have a meaningful effecton the decision process.

In addition, to be part of an existing landuse decision process, the conservationplan remedy must have a logical place incurrent institutional structure. For aremedy to have a place in a land man-

5.2.4 Conservation Initiativesas useful alternatives to wilderness pro-posals developed by federal agencies orlegislators. They may also serve to identifyspecies habitats that land managers shouldgive higher priority for protection. Almostwithout exception, agency wildernessrecommendations are much smaller thanwhat is eventually designated wildernessby Congress.

The Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal is justone example of an independent alternativefor land management. As with any sug-gested remedy, these independent alterna-tives are suggestions that are more likelyto succeed when they resonate with thevalues of the community and have broadpolitical support.

At times, a conservation remedy is mosteffective when initiated external to the landmanagement agency. A conservation initia-tive may take the form of a wilderness orwildlife habitat inventory, proposed legisla-tion that promotes habitat protection, or a“Citizens’ Alternative” for a land use plan.Effective conservation initiatives ofteninclude cooperative partnerships and a well-organized campaign.

Citizen wilderness proposals are a goodexample of a citizen initiative. Whilewilderness management is not perfect,much of the protective managementrequired for core areas can be achieved bywilderness designation. Citizen wildernessproposals and designated wilderness (theresult of past campaigns) for the Heart ofthe West region are shown in Figure 5.2.

While designation of wilderness is theultimate goal for a wilderness proposal,citizen wilderness proposals also providemore immediate benefits. They can serve


142

Figure 5.2 - Current citizen wilderness proposals, candidate wilderness, and existing wilderness

within the greater Heart of the West region.


143

5.2.5 Monitoring of Focal Species and their Habitatresult desired, a feedback loop directs thereviewer to reassess and, if necessary,change the remedy. The remedy, onceadjusted, is again applied as describedearlier. The second path assumes that theremedy was applied and the prescriptiongoals were met, but for some reason thefocal species remains in trouble. Thesecond path is described below.

Assume that the conservation plan remedyhas been applied and enough time haspassed for change to occur. Monitoring ofthe key indicators for focal species andtheir habitat will help determine whetherthe remedy was successful. Depending onthe results of this evaluation, one of twoimplementation paths in Figure 5.1 will bechosen. If the remedy did not achieve the

5.2.6 Further Scientific Study and Conservation Plan RevisionThis conservation plan incorporates theevolution of scientific knowledge. Likespecies, plans also can evolve over time.Indeed, they must. The Heart of the WestConservation Plan will someday need to beupdated. The accumulation of data andunderstanding of ecosystems grows at arapid rate. What we know today will berevised as science improves our knowledgeof ecosystem processes. This conservationplan should be revisited to make certain thatit incorporates this new information.

Another reason for additional analysisoccurs in the case where our implementa-

tion of the plan appears successful, yet keyecological problems persist. For example,if the key implementation prescriptions areconducted and monitoring shows thattarget goals have been met, then onewould expect that key focal species (forexample, bighorn sheep) should haveviable populations in the core areas of thewildlands network. But in the case thatbighorns have not recovered as successfulimplementation would predict, we thenneed to revisit our methods and plan. Newprescriptions should be developed basedon new scientific studies and data.

5.2.7 Using the Implementation Flowchart - Sage Grouse ExampleThe following example looks at how theconservation plan prescriptions can beimplemented for one of our focal species.Sage grouse populations can be negativelyinfluenced by increased raptor predation.Developments that provide new places forraptors to perch (such as a powerline pole)allow for greater hunting success forraptors. As a result, sage grouse are likelyto face abnormally high losses in areaswhere raptors have access to these artifi-cial perches.

Oil and gas development is frequentlyaccompanied by power lines, fences,towers, tanks, buildings, and drill headstems that provide an elevated place fora raptor to perch. Land managers canprotect sage grouse from excessivepredation by raptors by putting stipula-tions on oil and gas development thatcan prevent new raptor perches. In coreareas that are known to have sagegrouse, the stipulations on developmentcan require that above-ground structuresbe no higher than one meter. Or thestructures might be designed so thatraptors cannot perch on them.


144

In summary, when using the flowchart(Figure 5.1) to implement the conserva-tion plan’s goals for sage grouse, thereviewer should check the land use planto see if the plan authorizes oil and gasdevelopment (or other land uses) incon-sistent with the function of sagebrushcommunities for sage grouse. What sortof guidance does the land use plan givein terms of the negative impacts ofcertain oil and gas development activi-ties? If the land use plan calls for activi-ties that are incompatible with function-ing sage grouse habitat, then a remedymust be devised that implements theneeded changes. This remedy could beimplemented either in the land useplanning process, or through individualprojects on the ground, or with some sortof Citizens’ conservation initiative. Oncethe remedy is in place, careful monitor-ing of sage grouse populations andsagebrush habitat must be conducted toensure that the prescriptions were car-

ried out; and ultimately, that the goals ofthe Heart of the West conservation plan(in this example, regarding sage grouse)have been met.

In addition to this implementation ex-ample with sage grouse in core areas andlinkages, there are other implementationexamples that are already underway in theHeart of the West. Box 5.2 illustrates onesuch example, regarding restoration of keymigration routes of ungulates in Heart ofthe West core areas and linkages.

Elk Scott Smith


145

Results of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation’s

fence inventory in parts of Wyoming.

Box 5.2. An Implementation Example: Restoring Wild Patterns

migrating native ungulates. Part of this campaign has identified fences as one of the key

obstacles to wildlife movement. Fences are one of the main tools that range managers,

land owners, and highway departments use to control livestock. Fences also influence

wildlife - particularly the migration of larger ungulates. With the help of the University of

Wyoming, the Restoring Wild Patterns Coalition assembled maps of fences on public

lands in Wyoming. These maps describe the location and kind of fence that are found in

key migration routes. The figure here presents the results of this fence inventory in parts

of Wyoming.

The Restoring Wild Patterns effort has direct relevance to Heart of the West Wildlands

Network implementation. Knowing where the fences are that block Heart of the West

linkages and impair core areas is the first step to restoring wild patterns. The next step

involves a management prescription that uses this fence inventory and traditional native

ungulate migration routes to identify those fences which are causing migration problems

– especially in linkages between core areas. Management recommendations will then be

developed to correct the problem. For example, this may involve replacing one strand of

barbed wire fence with unbarbed wire and changing the spacing so that antelope may

pass under. In other cases, fences may be removed or turned into “seasonal fences” which

are let down during migration periods. It is critical that implementers insert this

prescribed management remedy into the appropriate place in a decision process, such as

a land use plan revision, an updated travel plan, or other planning process for the

Wyoming Department of Transportation. Depending on the location of certain fences, it

may be appropriate to work directly with private landowners.

When most Americans think of Wyoming,

they envision roving herds of antelope, elk,

deer, and bison in seasonal migration

across open expanses of forests and shrub

deserts. Today, much of that natural

migration is restricted, and in many places

is blocked by fences. This causes a serious

problem that is growing over time. The

continued viability of these historic herds

and their habitat is inexorably linked to

these recurring migration events.

The Wyoming Wildlife Federation, along

with other regional groups like the

Wyoming Outdoor Council, has initiated a

campaign to restore wild patterns of


146

5.3 Conservation Plan PrescriptionsThe prescriptions described in this conser-vation plan give priority to the mainte-nance and, where needed, restoration ofpopulations of Heart of the West focalspecies. The prescriptions are organized bywildlands network component type, withthe more conservative prescriptions per-taining to cores and linkages. Prescriptionsare designed to apply the precautionaryprinciple in all cases.

Sources used to assemble these prescriptionsinclude scientific studies, agency standardsand guidelines, past land use plans, bestmanagement practices regarding wildlifehabitat, recovery plans for federally listedspecies, and management recommendationsof conservation groups. The focal species

accounts that were assembled to help designthe Heart of the West Wildlands Networkalso provide relevant information.

Prescriptions are built upon four keyelements: baseline information, measur-able ecological goals, monitoring of eco-logical indicators and human activities,and the actual stipulations that guide thelocation and degree of human activities.Below, we further describe these basicelements of a conservation plan prescrip-tion. We also include a short discussion oncertain management elements, laws andregulations that pertain to all lands in theHeart of the West. We conclude this sectionwith a discussion of prescriptions for privatelands within cores and linkages.

5.3.1 Baseline InformationWith the conservation plan’s ecologicalgoals in mind, the reviewer needs todetermine baseline conditions in terms ofthe needs of focal species. Some analysis ofthe existing baseline data, even if incom-plete, is needed to shape the prescriptionsthat will follow. The baseline informationshould map the area historically and

currently occupied by focal species. Thereviewer should assemble any records onfocal species use of the habitat in the areaof interest. Habitat needs for each part ofthe life cycle of the focal species must bedescribed and the current function ofhabitat for the focal species determined.

5.3.2 Measurable Ecological GoalsRestoring and maintaining viable popula-tions of focal species requires achievingmeasurable population goals for each focalspecies in a core area. Measurable goals forviable populations of sage grouse, forexample, include achieving populationsizes and demographics that represent thehabitat’s historic potential and that indi-cate proper habitat function for the species.

Again drawing on our sage grouse example,secondary goals for the sage grouse in coreareas offer indirect indicators of habitat

function necessary for this species. Forexample, habitat condition for sage grouse ineach core area can be measured by currentvegetation inventory techniques. Measuresof ground cover, exotic species, plant com-munity composition, and herbaceous andshrub productivity, are a few such measures.The measurable plant community goalcompares a site in question against a stan-dard. Relict sites are commonly used asstandards to assess the potential condition ofa plant community. In this example, if bothplant community productivity and composi-


147

tion are at or near reference site conditions,then habitat is assumed to function ad-equately for sage grouse. This is one of manyindicators that managers can use to assesshabitat function for focal species.

Yet another habitat goal could be presenceor relative abundance of indicator species.For example, amphibians are an excellentindicator of healthy wetland areas, andthus could be used as a proxy to determinethat habitat is properly functioning forvarious aquatic and wetland Heart of theWest focal species.

Often, a federal agency will have alreadydone the groundwork to determinewhether habitat function goals are beingmet. For example, a habitat goal may bethe proper function of riparian zones and

other surface waters. Agency-conductedproperly functioning condition assess-ments are an example of one type ofecosystem health assessment tool forriparian areas developed by the Depart-ment of the Interior and Department ofAgriculture (Barrett et al. 1998). Manyfocal species, such as river otters andbeavers, require riparian habitats that areproperly functioning.

Goals pertaining to focal species includerestoration of required habitat. For ex-ample, sage grouse are strongly associatedwith big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata).Since as much as half of original sagebrushhabitat in the intermountain West has beeneliminated (Call 1975), restoring largesagebrush tracts is one example of ameasurable goal for a core area.

5.3.3 MonitoringMonitoring of focal species populationsand their habitats is a key feature of imple-menting this conservation plan. Wherepracticable, focal species should be directlymonitored. For example, in the case of sagegrouse, annual bird counts at leks duringmating season offer a good measure ofpopulation changes over time. There are anumber of proven methods for directmonitoring of Heart of the West focalspecies. Because many focal species arehighly mobile, monitoring of habitatfunction is often more practical than directmonitoring of the species. There are anumber of techniques, some which wehave already described, to assess habitatfunction for focal species as representedby, for example, the health of riparianareas, or plant community composition.

The monitoring required for this conserva-tion plan is a departure from that com-monly conducted for, say, livestock graz-

ing management. While some of the samefield monitoring methods may still beused, the monitoring needed here directlyrelates to the indicators of habitat functionfor key focal species. Much of the monitor-ing conducted for livestock grazing man-agement, on the other hand, is conductedfor a different purpose. Monitoring forlivestock grazing commonly focuses onchanges in the utilization and frequency ofthe most prevalent forage grasses. As aresult, major losses of herbaceous produc-tivity may not be caught.

One important component of all monitor-ing activities and habitat health assess-ments entails comparing monitoring datato some sort of “benchmark,” or relict, siteconditions. Few satisfactory ecologicalreference sites exist today, yet they arecritically important for effective landmanagement. For this reason, one of thetop priorities in managing a wildlands


148

network is to establish ecological referencesites to represent each habitat type (includ-ing riparian areas) in each core area.

5.3.4 Prescription Stipulations for Activities in Cores and LinkagesIn Chapter 4 we outline the generic stipula-tions we recommend for core areas, linkages,core recovery areas and compatible use areasin the Heart of the West Wildlands Network.Here is a quick summary:

Core Areas - Core areas are wilderness, orwilderness-like areas, managed so as tomaintain ecological processes andbiodiversity within them. This prescriptionrequires that no new permanent roads arebuilt, use of motorized/mechanizedequipment and vehicles is prohibited orsubstantially limited, logging and othertree removal activities are curtailed, newoil and gas development use directionaldrilling from existing well pads, and newsurface mineral extraction activities areavoided. To reduce the impacts of seismicoil and gas exploration, we recommendshothole exploration only, hand-laying oflines in particularly sensitive areas, andbanning the use of motorized vehicles offof main roads for seismic exploration.Predator control and trapping should beprohibited. Livestock grazing should belimited to a timeframe when plant commu-nities are near or at their potential, andintensity of grazing should be limited toprotect the forage base. Special attentionshould be given to ensure that riparianareas function at their potential for wild-life. Exotic species that significantly affecthabitat should be controlled in core areas.

Core Recovery Areas - For the lowland Heartof the West study area, oil and gas welldensity was used to identify those lands inneed of recovery. Recovery areas have morethan 5 oil and gas wells per wildlands

network hexagon (or more than one well per250 hectares). Today, these recovery areasnormally fail to function in the mannerneeded to support focal species. Yet theseareas are ecologically important and areincorporated in our core areas. Recovery fora producing oil field would require thatfuture wells be drilled from existing wellpads, and that nonproducing well sites andassociated roads and pipelines be reclaimedand habitat restored. Recreational vehicle useshould be limited to principal roads. Powerlines should be moved underground in areaswhere raptor predation may affect a focalspecies. Additionally, livestock grazingshould be limited to a level that ensures thatrangelands adequately function for focalspecies in the area.

Linkages - Linkages should be managed formovement by both terrestrial and aquaticspecies known to use those areas, based onthe needs of those particular species. Ingeneral, we recommend that when linkagesintersect well-used highways, structuresallowing the passage of wildlife be con-structed. Fences in linkage areas should bemodified to allow traditional migrationpatterns for native ungulates. We alsorecommend that human development, suchas mineral activities, occur in deference tothe habitat needs of dispersing and migrat-ing focal species. Public vehicle use must belimited to designated routes in linkages.

Compatible Use Areas - Areas outside coreareas and linkages are identified in the planas compatible use areas. These areas allowfor a higher level of human activity than isallowed in cores and linkages. However,


149

these human activities, must still be man-aged in order to meet basic environmentalrequirements. By law, federal lands managedfor multiple use must be managed in amanner that provides adequate habitat forwildlife and which prevents significantimpairment of habitat. A number of humanactivities, with appropriate stipulations, aresuitable in compatible use areas. Some ofthese include motorized recreation ondesignated routes, camping, fishing andhunting, wood-cutting, habitat manipulationneeded to restore the function of wildlifehabitat, and ecologically sound livestockgrazing. Oil and gas development shouldemphasize continued production fromexisting oil fields. In important wildlife

habitat, directional drilling should be prac-ticed from existing pads. Spacing betweenwell pads should be at least 3 miles (6.6 km)in such habitat. Human activities associatedwith oil and gas production should ceasebetween November 15 and April 15 on biggame winter ranges.

In summary, the above generic stipulationsare a good starting point for managementwithin network components. Individualprescriptions unique to specific situationswill have to be developed for each corearea and linkage. Box 5.3 (page 150) illus-trates a good example of how livestockgrazing should be managed in core areasknown to contain sage grouse.

5.3.5 Stipulations that Apply Throughout the NetworkDefined by law, certain basic land manage-ment practices apply to all federal lands.These basic practices present standards formanagement that reflect basic land stew-ardship important for the productivity ofthe land. This conservation plan arguesthat these common standards should beapplied regardless of whether the area isinside or outside a core area or linkage.

There is a long list of existing laws andpolicies that, if applied, would help usmake significant progress in protectingimportant ecological sites everywhere.Here, we will present a few of these lawsand regulations that are potentially bemost important. A few of the basic envi-ronmental standards are:

• The Secretary of the Interior, by law,manages public lands for the purpose ofpreserving, protecting, and maintainingresource values of said lands. Federalagencies are required to manage uses inorder to prevent the permanent impair-ment of the productivity of the land.

• Federal agencies must inventory andrestore riparian areas and wetlands, andsurface waters must meet Clean WaterAct standards.

• Motor vehicle use on public lands mustbe managed to prevent significantimpact to those lands.

• There are a number of pieces of legisla-tion that offer strong protection forspecies at risk, especially threatened andendangered species.

• Both the BLM and the Forest Service arerequired to protect and provide adequatehabitat for wildlife. The Fish and WildlifeService and state wildlife agencies havemanagement practices designed toprotect wildlife.

• Rangeland Health Standards and Guide-lines apply ecological standards tomanage livestock grazing on BLM lands.

• Organic acts for the BLM and the ForestService call for mineral development thatminimizes its impacts to the land.


150

Box 5.3 An Example of Prescription Stipulations in a Core Area: Sage Grouse and

Livestock Grazing Stipulations.

Sage grouse, a Heart of the West focal species, require management prescriptions for core

areas that will produce habitat functions adequate for the foraging, breeding, migration,

rearing, and security needs of grouse (Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 2003). Livestock

grazing is often the most impactive activity affecting sage grouse. Here, we use a

prescription for livestock grazing within core areas as an example of how land use can be

modified for the benefit of a focal species.

The prescription for livestock grazing in sage grouse habitat focuses on a goal of ensuring

plant community function and riparian area health. Sage grouse need sagebrush

communities that include adequate litter and herbaceous plant cover for foraging,

rearing and security needs (Gregg et al 1994, Sveum et al 1998). To function adequately

for sage grouse, sagebrush communities should contain shrubs, perennial grasses, and

other herbaceous plants. (Sharon and Paige 2000). Stocking levels and periods of grazing

should be determined by the need to restore and maintain plant community structure,

composition, and productivity in deference to the needs of sage grouse. For a number of

reasons, livestock grazing use, especially by sheep, should be avoided during the growing

season and sage grouse breeding season (Call 1975, Ritter and Paige 2000, Holloran 1999,

Klebenow 1982 ).

The Heart of the West grazing prescription

in core areas known to contain sage grouse

includes these steps:

• Determine whether the habitat meets

rangeland health standards and habitat

structure and function necessary for sage

grouse.

• Determine the kind and magnitude of

livestock grazing that may have led to an

area meeting or not meeting the

standards.

• For areas failing to meet the standards, change season of use and/or reduce livestock

grazing to seasons and/or levels that will ensure the recovery of upland and riparian areas.

• Give priority to the recovery of riparian areas.

• Establish best management practices that include thresholds that trigger necessary

management changes.

• Monitor the relationship between livestock grazing, habitat condition, and sage grouse

populations.

• Ensure that adequate funding to implement this prescription is in place before livestock

grazing continues.

We are developing similar prescriptions based on focal species needs for each human

activity that agencies manage within the Heart of the West. These prescriptions fit into

the implementation flow chart found at the beginning of this chapter (Figure 5.1).

Cattle in Sagebrush George Wuerthner


151

This list mentions only a few of the laws thatfavor management in deference to the needsof the land. The environmental practices

5.3.6 PrivateLands Within the Wildlands NetworkThe Heart of the West wildlands Conserva-tion Plan considers the habitat needs offocal species without regard to land own-ership. After all, animals can’t read lineson a map and many populations of focalspecies, as well as rare and threatened“special element” species, currently dwellon private land. Hence, some ecologicallyimportant private lands are included in theHeart of the West Wildlands Network.

This conservation plan respects the rights ofprivate landowners and does not advocatethat these private lands become federal orstate lands. It provides the private land-owner with information on the ecologicalimportance of these lands and offers anumber of management options that theymay choose from to promote the needs ofwildlife while continuing to use their lands.

Stewardship for wildlife can be improvedwith a number of management actions onprivate lands:• Private landowners can work with state

wildlife agencies to survey and monitorkey focal species and habitat on theirland, and can preserve existing naturalhabitat important to wildlife.

• Farmers can schedule cultivationactivities before or after nesting sea-son, can attach bird flush chains tomowing machines, and apply inte-grated pest management practices topreserve native pollinators and thefood supply for insect-eating birds(Gillihan et al. 2001).

• Landowners can ask electrical utilitiesto configure power poles in order toprevent raptor electrocution (Ligouriand Burrus 2001).

• Ranchers can take a number of steps tomanage grazing to help wildlife. Forageutilization can be managed to leaveabundant residual cover that willbenefit birds, small mammals, and othernative herbivores. Escape ladders can beput in watering troughs for birds andsmall animals (Gillihan et al. 2001).Also, ranchers can make their opera-tions “predator friendly” by usingguard dogs and llamas, various non-lethal scare tactics, and employingmany tested strategies such as calvingin the spring when predators haveplenty of natural prey.

• Private land holders can take steps tocontrol the spread of non-native specieson their property.

• Landowners can reseed with nativespecies.

• Landowners can also enroll their prop-erty in a conservation reserve program,or work with land trusts1 and otherconservation interests to develop con-servation easements on their property.

There are a large number of tools available tolandowners to increase protection of wildlifehabitat on their lands. Options for Landowners(Vint 1998) lists 23 land protection tools forachieving various landowner goals. Table 5.2illustrates some of these options, all of whichare described in detail by Vint (1998).

1Land Trusts are private, nonprofit organizations that work with landowners who want to voluntarily protect land withimportant natural, scenic, archeological, recreational, agricultural, or historic value for the public benefit. Land trustsacquire land directly through donation and purchase, hold conservation easements, and often provide stewardshipmanagement of protected lands.

discussed above apply to all lands bothinside and outside of cores and linkages.


152

Table 5.2 Examples of land protection tools available to private landowners

(reprinted from Vint 1998)

The decision on how to manage privatelands remains with the landowner. Witheach property right comes a responsibilityto the land and its occupants. All privateland exists within a larger setting that hasinterrelated biological, economic, andsocial connections. This conservation plan

identifies those lands, including privatelands, that contain key wildlife habitat in alarger ecosystem. The Heart of the WestConservation Plan offers the privatelandowner an opportunity to be part of alarger regional effort to preserve the futureof wildlife.

5.4 Protective Land DesignationsConservationists have available to them adiverse set of tools for establishing specialprotective designations in core areas andlinkages. Some of these are:• Legislative designation of new Wilder-

ness Areas, National Monuments andWild and Scenic Rivers.

• Conservation easements on privatelands (discussed above).

• Facilitate ecologically beneficial landexchanges between public and privatelands. Land exchanges that reducehabitat fragmentation can be usefulwhere the underlying goal of the landswap is to improve management oflinkages and core areas.

• Promote open space protection throughlocal governments and private landowners.

• Work with First Americans to identifylands they regard as important forpreservation and restoration, in terms of

Bargain Sale

Charitable Gift Annuity Trust

Conservation Buyer

Conservation Easement Donation

Conservation Easement Sale

Deed Restrictions

Donating Conservation Land

Donating Trade Land

Donating Land by Will

Donating a Remainder Interest

Donations of Undivided Partial Interests

Installment Sale

Leasing Your Land

Like-Kind Exchange

Limited Development

Management Agreement

Mutual Covenant

Purchase Option

their regional context, local biologicalvalues, or as sacred sites.

• Establish land trusts that promote theconservation plan goals.

The above list is not comprehensive, butoffers a great place to start. In addition,there are also a number of federal pro-grams, already in place, that can createspecial protective designation:Forest Legacy Program, administered by the

Forest Service, protects private forestlands from being converted to non-forest uses through the purchase ofconservation easements or direct acqui-sition

Forest Resource Management Program(or Rural Forestry Assistance Program),

administered by the Forest Service,provides matching funds to state agen-cies for technical assistance to privatelandowners who protect habitat.


153

Forestry Incentives Program, a Forest Serviceand Natural Resources ConservationService program, provides technical,educational, and financial assistance tohelp landowners defray the costs ofmaking long-term investments inforests, including promoting naturalregeneration.

Conservation Reserve Program, promoted bythe federal Farm Service Agency, pro-vides farm income support and pro-motes environmental protection bytaking important wildlife habitat out ofcrop production. This is the nation’slargest private lands long-term retire-ment program.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program,administered by the Natural ResourcesConservation Service, provides up to75% cost share of locally approvedconservation practices.

Wetlands Reserve Program, administered bythe Natural Resources ConservationService, pays for the restoration ofwetlands on non-federal lands.

Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, a NaturalResources Conservation Service pro-gram, helps landowners improvewildlife habitat on private lands.

Partners for Wildlife Program, administeredby the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,provides cost share and technical assis-tance for a variety of projects focused onwildlife.

Roadless lands protection. Both BLM and theForest Service have programs to desig-nate and protect roadless areas.

Additional Protective designations on federallands also include such designations asAreas of Critical Environmental Con-cern (BLM) and Research Natural Areas(USFS).

These approaches offer a number of oppor-tunities that fit with the implementationsteps (in Figure 5.1) used to achieve theconservation plan’s ecological goals.

5.5 An Implementation Example: BLM’s Vernal Field Office ResourceManagement PlanImplementation opportunities often comeas part of some scheduled activity ordecision process. This example describessuch an opportunity. In 2002, the BLMbegan to revise its Resource ManagementPlan (RMP) for the Vernal Field Office innortheastern Utah. In this example weshow how the Heart of the West Conserva-tion Plan and its biology-based prescrip-tions can be used to guide the part of theVernal RMP dealing with oil and gasdevelopment.

BLM land use plans are designed to pro-vide approximately ten years of guidancefor a number of land uses. For the VernalField Office, BLM’s planning process will

revise a past RMP based on new issues,changes in policy, and changing condi-tions. The RMP establishes various BLMprograms, management zones, and man-agement prescriptions for a particularBLM planning area. The plan addresseswild and scenic river designation recom-mendations, oil and gas leasing and devel-opment, wildlife and habitat, livestockgrazing, surface water and riparian areas,transportation (which includes off-roadvehicle use), protection of scenery, utilitycorridors, and more.

Located in the southwestern part of theHeart of the West study area, the VernalField Office manages an area that totals


154

Figure 5.3. The BLM Vernal Field Office Planning Area in northeast Utah.

nearly 2.2 million acres of lands (Figure5.3). This region of Utah includes some ofthe most remote and wild places in thecontinental United States, such as the BookCliffs roadless area with over one millionacres of contiguous undeveloped candi-date wilderness lands. The Green, Yampaand White Rivers pass through this wildand largely undeveloped region, providingcritical wildlife habitat. In the northernUinta Basin, Dinosaur National Monumentand Flaming Gorge National Recreationarea carve out a corner of the easternslopes of the Uinta Mountains.

For decades the Vernal planning area hasbeen the center of oil and gas developmentin Utah, and fossil fuel production iscentral to the economic interests of com-munities and land managers in this region.

More than 7,000 wells have been drilledand thousands more are planned. Figure5.4 shows both active, and abandoned, oiland gas wells in the area. The oil and gasdeposits are not uniformly distributed inthis area. The geology of the hydrocarbondeposits is complex and commercial viabledeposits are generally found only inpockets and fractures of uplifted domes.This means that a majority of this regionhas a low likelihood of economically viabledeposits of oil and gas outside of devel-oped fields. Superimposed over thisactivity is the fact that much of the plan-ning area is critical for wildlife. The chal-lenge is to manage the land so that oil andgas development adequately respectscritical wildlife habitat by employing leastimpactive methods and favoring develop-ment in biologically less important areas.


155

The Vernal RMP revision builds on twoexisting plans, the Diamond MountainRMP and the Book Cliffs RMP. Driven bythe current administration’s policy toaccelerate development of fossil fuels,BLM saw a need to revise these older plansin order to expedite the development ofoil, gas, and coal bed methane.

Based on guidance from the Heart of theWest Conservation Plan, a conservationalternative for the Vernal RMP revisionwas recently developed with a number ofpartners that live and work in the UintaBasin, including conservation organiza-tions, scientists, and a number of inter-ested people working with differentgovernment agencies. This group as-sembled a biology-based planning ap-

proach which we call the “Responsible UseAlternative.”

The first step in developing a conservationalternative for the Vernal RMP involvedreviewing past planning decisions, review-ing the condition of the land today, andassessing whether past planning decisionswere/are consistent with the wildlandsnetwork. Prescriptions that BLM appliedwere reviewed in order to identify thosemanagement decisions that have workedwell, and those that have not met ecologi-cal goals.

This example focuses on just one of themost impactive activities in this planningarea - oil and gas development. Extensivescientific studies have confirmed the

Figure 5.4. Active, and abandoned, oil and gas wells in BLM Vernal Planning Area. BLM managed

lands are shown in yellow.


156

detrimental effect that well pads, roads,and pipelines have on the survival ofwildlife (e.g. Bradshaw et al. 1997, Gese etal. 1989). Land use plans manage oil andgas activities by zones, with each zonedescribing an area with a particular oil andgas management prescription. Dividedinto four categories, the zones are definedby oil and gas land categorization. Thesecategories are (BLM 1994):• Category I - This category identifies

areas that are open to exploration anddevelopment, subject to the terms andconditions that accompany a standardlease.

• Category II – These areas are open forleasing but subject to seasonal or otherminor constraints. These stipulationsapply where conflicts with “resourcevalues” require specific protection, butthe development activity is not ofsufficient magnitude to preclude surfaceoccupancy.

• Category III – These areas are open forleasing but subject to No Surface Occu-pancy. They possess special resourcevalues or land use opportunities, suchas camping or picnic areas, scenic areas,recreation sites, significant historicaland/or archaeological areas. They mayalso contain buffer zones along theboundaries of special areas such as wildand scenic river corridors.

• Category IV – These areas are closed toleasing either through discretionary ornondiscretionary decisions. These areashave other land uses or resource valuesthat cannot be adequately protected, evenwith the most restrictive lease stipula-tions, if they are drilled. Appropriateprotection of these areas can only beensured by closing the lands to leasing.

The current land use plans for the VernalPlanning Area (the Diamond Mountainand Book Cliffs RMPs) designate different

Gas Pipeline in the Uinta Basin Jim Catlin


157

parts of the Planning Area into one ofthese four categories (Figure 5.5). CategoryI areas are subject to standard stipulationsthat focus on administrative practices, bestdevelopment practices common to alldrilling and production, and reclamationonce production ends. Category II has anumber of stipulations that are oftenspecific to certain wildlife species andcritical habitat locations. For example,drilling activity is not allowed within aspecified distance of sage grouse leksduring part of the year. Category I and IIstipulations generally do not preventhabitat fragmentation and lead to habitatdegradation over time.

The next step in implementing the Heart ofthe West Conservation plan requires compar-ing the wildlands network with its prescrip-tions to the existing management. Most ofthe core areas include important wildlifehabitat. Figure 5.6 depicts a close-up view ofa section of the wildlands network along theWhite River in the Uinta Basin, showing coreareas and linkages, as well as oil and gaswells and associated roads. Some of the coreareas have existing producing gas wells,2 andmany contain roads or ways. The conserva-tion plan recognizes and respects thesecurrent uses as long as they were createdlegally. The conservation plan identifiesthese important cores, linkages and core

Figure 5.5. Current oil and gas zoning categories in the Vernal Planning Area, as designated in the

Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs RMPs.

2For the lowlands study area, the Heart of the West Wildlands Network identifies both short-term and long-term corerecovery areas based on the number of oil and gas wells in those places.


158

recovery areas in order to guide futuredevelopments and, in some cases, prioritizerestoration activities.

The conservation plan makes recommenda-tions for how oil and gas activities should beconducted in core areas and linkages. Notethat new wells and continued production aresupported in the plan with certain stipula-tions. In core and linkage wildlands networkunits, existing producing wells may continueoperation. However, directional drillingshould be used to create new wells fromeither existing well pads or from locationsoutside core areas and linkages. Based onthese prescriptions in the conservation plan,the working group for the Vernal Respon-sible Use Alternative recommended that

candidate wilderness areas (all of which arecaptured in Heart of the West core areas) beclassified as Category IV (no leasing). Werecommend Category III management forlinkages, which in this case will ensure thatnew roads and wells are not put into sensi-tive riparian areas. The final Responsible UseAlternative included a map of our proposedoil and gas zoning (Figure 5.7).

Hexagons lying within core recovery areashave a slightly different prescription. Practi-cal measures will need to be taken to reducethe density of wells and roads to a levelconsistent with the habitat needs for the focalspecies found in the area. For recovery areas,new wells must be drilled from outside thecore/linkage area. Some existing wells,

Figure 5.6. A section of the wildlands network along the White River in the Vernal Planning Area,

depicting the relationship between rivers and proposed wilderness; roads, trails, and oil and gas

wells; and Heart of the West core areas, linkages, and recovery areas.


159

roads, and pipelines will need to be removedin order to meet wildlife habitat require-ments. The detailed map for the White Riverarea demonstrates the relationship of theserecovery hexagons to other core and linkagehexagons (Figure 5.6).

Next, the working group for the VernalResponsible Use Alternative created a newmap (Figure 5.8) that shows those areaswhere past oil and gas classifications arecompatible with the conservation plan (ingreen) and other classified areas wherechange is needed (in red). The next step onthe implementation flow chart directs us touse this remedy to help the BLM develop therevised Vernal RMP.

In this example we showed how the Heart ofthe West Conservation Plan could be used toaffect oil and gas development and manage-ment in the Vernal planning area in northeastUtah. This example demonstrates the need tointegrate the scientific results in the wild-lands network into the regulatory anddecision-making process that land managersfollow (in this case – for oil and gas develop-ment). Similar efforts are needed for otherland uses, including management of trans-portation, off-road vehicles, livestock graz-ing, wildlife, and other mineral extraction.

Another good example of Heart of the WestWildlands Network implementation isBiodiversity Conservation Alliance’s conser-vation biology-based Citizens’ Alternative

Figure 5.7. Recommended oil and gas stipulation categories featured in the final Responsible Use

Alternative for the BLM’s RMP for the Vernal Field Office in Utah.


160

for the BLM’s Great Divide Basin RMPrevision in southern Wyoming (http://www.voiceforthewild.org/greatdivide/index.html).

Figure 5.8. Oil and gas activity areas that is compatible with Heart of the West ecological goals (in

green) and those areas where management change is needed (in red).

5.6 A Note on Implementation StrategiesIn the Heart of the West, other organiza-tions, agencies, landowners, and scientistshave ongoing programs that complementand help implement the wildlands net-work. These programs are not necessarilyassociated with the Heart of the WestWildlands Network and many predate it.Those who developed the Heart of theWest Conservation Plan recognize theseindependent efforts as important inachieving our common ecological goals.

Implementation of the Heart of the WestWildlands Network does not require asingle campaign. There will be a diversityof approaches that vary by local organiza-tion and focus. However, the more coordi-nation that can occur, the more likely wewill see success.

Building political support plays a significantrole in promoting a conservation remedy.Facts alone, no matter how scientifically


161

sound, carry little weight in the decision-making process when they stand alone.Detailed science-based comments are rarelyimportant unless accompanied by broadlocal support. This political support cancome in a number of forms. It can take theform of a positive letter from an electedofficial, a good story in the press, largenumbers of letters from the public, or thesupport from respected community organi-zations. This may come as a surprise tosome. Land mangers often describe theirdecision process as one of professionaljudgment based on the best science. How-ever, in practice, it often only takes a singlephone call from a protesting elected officialto stop a conservation remedy. Land manag-ers rarely change practices without positivepolitical support and often give in to thelightest of political opposition.

Those advocating the conservation planwill need to understand the structure ofpolitical power that influences land man-agers. Marshaling these political influencesin the name of conservation requiresdeveloping direct and indirect connectionswith key people. It can take a long time togain these peoples’ trust, respect, under-standing of our concerns, and support forour recommendations. To persuade theland manager to implement sage grouseprescriptions, for example, in grazingmanagement, it makes good sense toidentify the right messenger to help ap-proach local government, develop anongoing relationship with the local media,and develop positive relationships withpeople in the grazing community.

We normally call for help from those whoadvocate for wildlife, and those who hunt,fish and manage wildlife. However, inmany cases, people in the conservationmovement may not be the best messengers

to people outside the conservation com-munity. For example, to speak to thegrazing community we may want to askhelp from those who ranch. Ideally, thiswould be a rancher who understands therelationship between range productivityand wildlife and can advocate for therecovery of sagebrush habitat. Similarly,there may be people in the mineral indus-try who want to help out with part of animplementation process. Introducing thepress to a willing rancher and supportivemineral companies can lead to positivearticles in local papers that influenceelected officials and land managers.

In general, the normal reaction of a landmanager to controversy is to continue doingwhat they did in the past. In order to dosomething new, and this conservation plancalls for exactly this, the conservation planreviewer needs to lay the groundwork toeither gain support for the conservationremedy or, where that isn’t possible, act toreduce opposition. The collective influence ofthe press, supportive land users, the generalpublic, and elected officials shapes the landmanager’s actions. In addition, there are anumber of opportunities to shape landmanager’s budgets to promote implementa-tion of the conservation plan. Land manag-ers are more like to welcome conservationmeasures that come with funding.In some cases legal action may be a majorpart of a larger campaign to implement theconservation plan. Such legal action maybe required to restore or protect wildlifehabitat. The eventual success of such legalaction benefits from implementation of theconservation plan using the methods justdescribed.


162

5.7 ConclusionsThis chapter presented a strategy to imple-ment the Heart of the West ConservationPlan. While much is yet to be learnedabout the complexities of ecosystemcomposition, structure, and processes, bothscience and management experience havegiven us some proven tools for responsibleecosystem management with predicableoutcomes. This chapter emphasized theimportance of various social, political, andlegal tools for making land managementdecisions in deference to ecosystem health.Part of our job in implementing this planmust include understanding and workingwith communities, land users, and landmanagement agencies. It is not enough toseek the support of the environmentalcommunity. For example, we need to joinwith and help city councils as they workfor the health of their community’s watersupply. We need to work with land manag-ers and help them apply the science ofconservation biology to shaping good landuse decisions.

This conservation plan emphasizes severalkey concepts. Land management shouldfollow the precautionary principle ratherthan traditional risk analysis. Populationtrends of many focal species are an indicatorof ecosystem health and must be carefullystudied and monitored. We need to movepast traditional monitoring practices in orderto properly assess ecosystem health.

This chapter did not comprehensivelycover all that is needed to implement theHeart of the West conservation plan.Above all, the core areas need to be care-fully scrutinized individually, or in smallgroups, and specific remedies and recom-mendations should be made for these

areas based on our implementation model.A number of land use plan revisions arenow underway in the Heart of the West,presenting good opportunities for doingthis. Implementation of the conservationplan is, and will continue to be, a verycomplex but rewarding challenge.

We hope this document will prove to be auseful tool for all who share the Heart of theWest vision. We hope that it will inform,inspire, and support individual conservationwork. While the task of preservingbiodiversity can seem overwhelming, it canbe accomplished one step at a time, assuccess stories from other wildlands networkprojects have shown.3 In regions acrossNorth America, and beyond, conservation-ists are assembling similar wildlands net-works, each one another piece in a largerecological mosaic. Our combined effortsenhance our collective power.

3Be sure to check out other Wildlands Project conservation plans that describe some of these implementation successstories (i.e. Foreman et al. 2003, Miller et al. 2003).

163


Change is underway in the Heart of theWest at an unprecedented pace and scale.For example, this region—which includesmost of Wyoming, northeastern Utah,northwestern Colorado, and part ofIdaho—faces the most significant fossilfuel development of any region in theUnited States. These same lands alsopossess significant remnants of our naturalheritage and are the very essence of theAmerican West. Great sagebrush basins,wild rivers, and remote mountain forestsare home to one of the most remarkableassemblages of wildlife in North America.Elk and antelope still make several-hun-dred-mile seasonal migrations. America’slargest hawk, the ferruginous hawk, stillnests in a sea of sagebrush. Native troutspawn in some of our last remainingworld-class streams and rivers. Theromance of wild places and wild ani-mals—this is the West as it once was and,

Chapter 6 - Discussion and Conclusions

to a significant extent, still is. It needs ourvigilant protection against the efforts ofthose who, wittingly or not, would de-grade it in the pursuit of economic or othershort-term goals.

The Heart of the West Conservation Planattempts something not yet undertaken bymost land management efforts: productionof a land use plan based on the ecologicalneeds of the land. This conservation plandescribes a wildlands network of coreareas and linkages that offers a proactiveframework for planning and managingland uses.

The three tracks of conservation planningpursued in this study are designed toassess the biological needs of the region inorder to provide conservation prioritieswithin it. The results will provide a basisfor a variety of land protection strategies

Upper Wind Rivers Erik Molvar


164

and improved land management, includ-ing congressional and administrativedesignations of new wilderness and wildand scenic rivers, designation of specialconservation management areas, manage-ment direction for mineral extraction, bestmanagement practices for wildlife, recre-ational vehicle management and rangemanagement, stewardship assistance tolandowners, and conservation easements.Land users, land trusts, conservationorganizations, local communities, state andfederal agencies, industry, and communitygroups all stand to benefit greatly fromusing this plan.

Because this conservation plan is based onrigorous scientific principles, data andmethods, we are confident that the result-

ing wildlands network represents theminimum amount of land requiring pro-tection to ensure the viability of focalspecies and the maintenance of ecologicalprocesses across the Heart of the West. Byidentifying those areas where humandevelopment can be compatible withecological goals (compatible use areas) andthose that should be more conservationoriented (cores and linkages), this plan canhelp minimize the socio-economic andideological biases inherent in large scaleconservation planning. We also intend forthis plan to clarify the various conse-quences and trade-offs involved in re-gional land use decisions. When trade-offsinvolved in such choices are explicit andtransparent, conflicts between competingvalues can be minimized.

6.1 The Benefits of a Wildlands Network to Local CommunitiesWildlands networks are just as importantto local and rural communities as they areto the ecosystems they contain. The wildheritage of the West is particularly impor-tant to those who live in rural communi-ties. They, perhaps more than anyone else,value the wild country they were raised in.And they want their grandchildren to beable to enjoy it too. Economic, cultural,and social dimensions of communities arestrongly linked to local ecosystems—thus,future evolution of the local community(i.e. planning for growth) should benefitconsiderably from a comprehensive eco-logical analysis such as the one providedin the Heart of the West ConservationPlan. A wildlands network proposal that isclosely suited to the local history of com-munities provides a way for people tocontinue to make a living from the land,which is their lifeblood, while maintainingbiodiversity and healthy ecosystems. Infact, local people may realize certain

economic incentives to support implemen-tation of a wildlands network in theircommunity. For example: income fromhunting permits on their land, lower taxesthrough conservation easements, jobopportunities with ecological restorationefforts, new state and federal parks andpreserves, and multifarious incomestreams derived from tourism and recre-ation. All of this is over and above thenumerous “ecological services” thathealthy ecosystems provide—such aseffective water storage, filtration andpurification, soil maintenance and freshair—amenities that we seldom acknowl-edge because we have not had to pay forthem so far.

A necessary first step to realizing thebenefits and opportunities of wildlandsconservation networks is for every indi-vidual, family, and community to rethinkits relationship to the land and the ap-


165

proaches taken to land use and landmanagement. In many instances, thehistorical approach has been exclusivelyone of opportunistic resource extraction inthe way of hunting, logging of old growthtrees, mining of valuable minerals, and(often) removal of these resources tooutside the region, with little thought tohow it is done or what the long termeffects will be. Even farming and ranchinghave often caused erosion and topsoil lossor permanent loss of desirable vegetativecover through overgrazing or inappropri-ate methods of plowing. Enlightenedchange is desirable—change that willallow for traditional practices, but only inso far as they are compatible with thehealth of the whole system, which in turnis essential to a continuation of suitabletraditional practices.

This new approach is fostered by viewingour entire landscape and natural world asa living organism, of which we are a part.This systemic whole is not something to bethoughtlessly dismembered and con-sumed, but something to be nourished,cultivated and carefully exploited with aneye to the future and the health of the

whole. This means that both private andpublic land management will need to shiftorientation toward restoration and sustain-able, holistic landscape health. The ongo-ing social and economic health of indi-viduals and communities depends upon it.

Quality of life issues are of concern toevery segment of society, particularly inrural areas where economic pressures andimpending residential development maylead to major lifestyle changes. Thousandsof families in the Heart of the West areaffected by uncertainty due to “boom andbust” economic cycles, subdivision en-croachment on open space, air and waterpollution, and fears that the natural worldbequeathed to future generations will soonbe largely degraded. Wildlands conserva-tion is an effective, ethical response tomany of the conditions that threaten toreduce the quality of life we enjoy in theHeart of the West. For many years, protect-ing native ecosystems has been a recog-nized tool for improving the well being ofsensitive species, but it is a proven methodfor ensuring the quality of life of currentand future generations of humans as well.

6.2 The Future of the Heart of the WestThis visionary plan for long term conser-vation in the middle Rockies we call theHeart of the West represents a startingpoint. Whether it is implemented is up toindustry, conservation groups, land man-agers, land trusts, local communities, andprivate land holders who live and work inthe Heart of the West.

Not only will certain key areas and habi-tats need to remain ecologically functional,but degraded habitats currently withincores and linkages will need to be restored.Habitat restoration can take many forms,

including removal (or better management)of exotic species along streams and insensitive or degraded habitats, changes inlivestock grazing practices to ensurehabitat recovery, return of riparian treesand shrubs to degraded stream segments,restoration of natural fire regimes toforested regions, erosion-control projects,return of natural patterns of forest patches,and so on.

Yet another form of restoration is re-introduction (or facilitation of naturalrecovery) of extirpated focal species to


166

parts of the Heart of the West from whichthey have been extirpated. The chiefcandidates for restoration are the bison,sage grouse, native trout, wolverine, lynx,gray wolf, and grizzly bear. The recoveryof some of these species—bison for ex-ample—will require an incremental ap-proach, with local communities, conserva-

tion groups, and management agenciesworking together over the course of de-cades to restore the species to suitableparts of its historic range. Other species,such as the sage grouse, which are stillpresent but in diminished populations, canachieve recovery to unoccupied parts oftheir natural ranges in shorter time frames,assuming that existing and impendingthreats are mitigated. A full recovery planfor any one of these species will requireextensive planning beyond what is de-scribed in this conservation plan. Restor-ing extirpated species will require separatemodeling efforts, planning documents,maps of proposed reintroduction (orrecovery) zones, and coordination withstate and federal land management agen-cies and wildlife management agencies.

It will be a challenge to conserve carni-vores in the Heart of the West, let alonerestore populations and seek to expandcurrent ranges. Many of the carnivorepopulations in the Greater YellowstoneEcoregion of the Heart of the West are nowon the periphery of their ranges due toclimate change or anthropogenic factors orboth. The capacity of protected areas toserve as refuges for these species as theyrecolonize vacant historical habitat willdepend upon a combination of factors:area size, degree of isolation, degree ofconnectivity, habitat quality and reprievefrom human persecution. The evidenceindicates that some focal species, such aswolves and grizzly bears, are now in aphase of population expansion beyond thelimiting confines of the GreaterYellowstone Ecoregion. Unfortunately, asthese carnivore populations rebound fromhistorical eradication efforts, they may findtheir most desirable habitat options—primarily in the southern part of the Utah-Wyoming Mountain Ecoregion—generallyforeclosed by the rapid rate of landscapeLynx Howie Garber


167

alteration. Reducing habitat fragmentationcaused by roads and other human activi-ties may be necessary to provide themsecurity. Linkages may need special modi-fications. For example, wildlife under-passes and other highway modifications instrategic places will be helpful in allowingcarnivores safe travel between core areas(Noss and Cooperrider 1994).

Noss et al. (2002), through both static anddynamic habitat models for grizzly bear,wolf, lynx and wolverine, depict differentscenarios for future viability and range ofthese carnivores based on both an “optimis-tic future” outlook and a predicted outlookthat assumes a continuation of current trends(Appendix A). Building a comprehensiveconservation strategy for the greater Heart ofthe West region that combines core areas forthe entire carnivore guild will be challeng-ing. In general, areas of high value for

multiple species of carnivore must combineboth biological productivity and securityfrom human impacts (Carrol et al. 2001).Unfortunately, such areas in the Heart of theWest tend to be threatened by development(Hansen and Rotella 1999). However, we areconfident that they are captured in either thecore areas identified in our lowland SITESmodel, or in the adjacent portfolio sitesidentified in TNC’s Utah-Wyoming RockyMountains Ecoregional Plan (Noss et al.2002, Appendix A).

Regional habitat prioritization for conserva-tion management, as outlined in this conser-vation plan, along with specific prescriptionsfor core areas, linkages and compatible useareas, can serve as a valuable guide fordetailed planning of land uses that willensure the long-term survival of nativespecies, as well as focal species in the Heartof the West.

White River Steve Mulligan


168

species habitat function for both coreareas and linkages. For linkages, suchmonitoring would ascertain whetherungulates and carnivores, for example,are adequately supported by core areasand are using the linkages as travelroutes for dispersal and migration.Similarly, core areas should be moni-tored regularly for abundance of focalindicator species, and habitat functionfor those species should be comprehen-sively assessed. In the future, conserva-tion measures and prescriptions forthese focal species and habitats withincores and linkages should be based onthis monitoring.

Consideration of regional climate change:Regional climate change could acceler-ate a number of the threats to conserva-tion targets within the wildlands net-work by causing, for example, thespread of invasive species and anincreased risk of unnatural wildfires.However, it was beyond the scope ofthis conservation plan to address thespecific impacts of regional climatechange to the Heart of the West. Furtherwork is needed to guide conservationefforts under different climate changescenarios. For example, it would beuseful to predict the future level of riskthat certain species and their ecologicalsystems face under different futureclimatic scenarios.

6.3 Data Gaps, and Research/Inventory/Monitoring Needs

Conservation goals and viability analysis:The various assumptions made regard-ing focal species viability in this docu-ment need further validation fromempirical research. Such research wouldinvolve studies of focal species popula-tion demographics, habitat function,and the spatial assemblage of function-ing habitat on a landscape scale. Re-search results would then allow us todetermine whether the proposed wild-lands network will adequately ensurelong term viability of those species.

Inventory needs: Inventory efforts shouldbe directed toward targets that did notmeet conservation goals, particularlythose not represented or documented inour wildlands network. Additionally,inventory efforts should be a priority inthose cores and linkages with low levelsof field verification for target elements,but with high levels of threats and/orother human activities.

More detailed threats analysis: The threatsanalysis completed for our lowlandHeart of the West study area GIS modelwas necessarily limited to existing GISdata. We must acquire additional digitaldata regarding fires and fire recovery,grazing practices, the ecological impactof exotic species, and motorized vehicleuse. This data should be analyzed at thelevel of individual core areas.

Monitoring focal species and habitat: Monitor-ing needed to implement the conserva-tion plan requires a shift in methods tocapture those indicators that assess focal

Throughout this project, our science team documented data gaps, monitoring andinventory needs, and future research necessary to verify and build on the ConservationPlan for the Heart of the West:


169

6.4 Conclusions and Recommendations1. Ensure that the conservation plan is

part of any land use decision in theHeart of the West.

2. Prioritize data gaps, inventory andresearch needs, and develop a plan toaddress these issues.

3. Identify specific threats to the wildlandsnetwork and management changesrequired to insure proper functioninghabitat within cores and linkages. Workwith partners within agencies and otherconservation groups to develop strate-gies to address pervasive threats (bothspecific strategies for individual coresand multi-area strategies to improvehabitat management across the studyarea).

4. Develop monitoring methods for coreareas and linkages that assess theproper function of habitat for focalindicator species. Make future manage-ment actions contingent upon adequatebiologically-based monitoring.

5. View the conservation wildlands net-work design as an iterative process,allowing for continued evolution basedon improved knowledge, better data,and new analysis. Update and revisethis wildlands network and conserva-tion plan periodically.

6. Work with our partners to educate thepublic about the opportunity the Heartof the West Conservation Plan offers forslowing and reversing the currentdecline in landscape quality in manyparts of the Heart of the West.

Even the best plan comes to naught if it isnot implemented. The world is on theverge of a global extinction crisis. If we fail

Our study indicates that continued andimproved biological and ecological healthof the Heart of the West demands a conser-vation plan that integrates criteria basedon conservation biology into currentmanagement plans. Because of competinggoals, current management does notensure the necessary habitat for all focalspecies at a landscape level. Most areaswhere habitat protection is emphasized(i.e. National Parks and wilderness) wereprotected mainly for their scenery or lackof development potential, and so poorlyrepresent the range of habitats that exist inthe region. From an ecological standpointthey are important but inadequate. Theprimary product of our conservationassessment is a prescribed set of core areasand linkages, based on the best availabledata, representing an optimal strategy forachieving ecological targets throughout theHeart of the West. The resulting wildlandsnetwork for the lowlands study area,combined with the existing ecoregionalplan for the Utah-Wyoming Mountains,consists of 71 core areas/portfolio sites andconnecting linkages, together comprising15,462,702 hectares, or 53.5% of theecoregion. More than 75% of the land areawithin the wildlands network is federal orstate-managed land and nearly 25% is inprivate ownership. Therefore, a diversecombination of players will need to under-take a diverse combination of actions forthis conservation plan to succeed—fromon-the-ground protection of specific coresto multiple core/compatible use areastrategies designed to abate threats totargets across the region.

In closing, we make the following recom-mendations in accordance with the scien-tific results of this conservation assessmentand the implementation recommendationsof the previous chapter:


170

to mitigate this crisis in our own part ofthe world the result will be the loss of ourwild heritage and a drastic deterioration inthe productivity of our land. This in turnwill mean an impoverished future for thecurrent generation and for our descen-dants. We must tackle this problem on thelocal level. For this reason, it is imperativethat the Wildlands Network Design for theHeart of the West be integrated into landuse policies, plans and actions for ourregion of the middle Rockies. It is our besthope for responsible land stewardship inthe Heart of the West. We urge First Ameri-can nations, conservation groups, localcommunities, mineral extraction compa-nies, and government land managementagencies to unite in working toward itsimplementation.

The Pinnacles Erik Molvar

Literature Cited

American Wildlands. In prep. Corridors of Life report: regional wildlife habitat connectiv-ity analysis results (in progress), American Wildlands, Bozeman MT.

Andelman, S., I. Ball, F. Davis, and D. Stoms. 1999. SITES V 1.0: An analytical toolbox fordesigning ecoregional conservation portfolios. A manual prepared for the Nature Conser-vancy.

Barrett, H., Cagney, J., Clark, R., Fogg, J., Bebhart, K., Hansen, P., Mitchell, B., Prichard, D.and D. Tippy. 1998. Riparian area management: a user guide to assessing proper func-tioning condition and the supporting science for lotic areas. Technical Reference 1737-15, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Beauvais, G. P. 2000. Mammalian responses to forest fragmentation in theCentral and Southern Rocky Mountains. Pages 179-201 in: (R.L. Knight, F.W.Smith, S.W. Buskirk, W.H. Romme, and W.L. Baker, eds.) Forest fragmentation in theSouthern Rocky Mountains. University of Colorado Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Belnap, J. 1995. Surface disturbances—their role in accelerating desertification: Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment 37: 39-57.

Belnap, J. 1998. The biota and ecology. Pp. 21-30 in: (R.B. Keiter, S.B. George, and J.Walker, eds.) Visions of the Grand Staircase Escalante. Utah Museum of Natural Historyand Wallace Stegner Center, Salt Lake City, UT.

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance. 2003. The western heritage alternative, a sustainablevision for the public lands and resources of the Great Divide, managed by the RawlinsField Office of the Bureau of Land Management. Laramie, Wyoming

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1994. Diamond Mountain Resource ManagementPlan. BLM, Vernal, UT.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1999. Draft EIS for the Pinedale anticlilne oil andgas exploration and development project, Sublette County, WY. US Dept of Int., BLM,Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, WY.

Bock, C.E., Bock, J.H., Jepson, K.L., and J.C. Ortega. 1986. Ecological effects of plantingAfrican lovegrasses in Arizona. National Geographic Research 2: 456-463.

Bonn, A., Rodrigues, A.L and K.J. Gaston. 2002. Threatened and endemic species: arethey good indicators of patterns of biodiversity on a national scale? Ecology Letters 5:733-741.

Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. Pages 109–156 in: (R.L. Knight and K.J.Gutzwiller, eds.) Wildlife and recreationists. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Brattstrom, B.H. and M.C. Bondello. 1983. Effects of off-road vehicle noise on desertvertebrates. Pp. 7–206 in: (R.H. Webb and H.G. Wilshire, eds.) Environmental effects ofoff-road vehicles: impacts and management in arid regions. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Brooks, M.W., Esque, T.C. and C.R. Schwalbe. 1999. Abstract. Effects of exotic grasses viawildfire on desert tortoises and their habitat. Proceedings of the 24th Desert TortoiseCouncil Symposium.

Literature Cited

Burdick, D.M., Cushman, D., Hamilton, R. and J.G. Gosselink. 1989. Faunal changes andbottomland hardwood forest loss in the Tensas watershed, Louisiana. ConservationBiology 3: 282-289.

Burroughs, E.R., Jr. and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads.U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-264.

Call, W. M. 1975. Habitant requirements and management recommendations for sagegrouse. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.

Caro, T.M. and G. O’Doherty. 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservationbiology. Conservation Biology 13: 805-814.

Carrol, C., Noss, R.F. and P.C. Paquet. 2001. Carnivores as focal species for conservationplanning in the Rocky Mountain region. Ecological Applications.

Cassirer, E.F., Freddy, D.F. and E.D. Ables. 1992. Elk responses to disturbance by cross-country skiers in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 375–381.

Catlin, J., Walker, J., Jones, A. Carter, J. and J. Feller. 2003. Multiple use grazing manage-ment in the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument: a tool provided to the Monu-ment range staff by the Southern Utah Land Restoration Project. A special publication ofthe Wild Utah Project. Salt Lake City, UT.

Charlesworth, D. and B. Charlelsworth. 1987. Inbreeding depression and its evolution-ary consequences. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18: 237-268.

Chase, M.K., Kristan, W.B., Lynam, A.J., Price, M.V. and J.T. Rotenberry. 2000. Singlespecies as indicators of species richness and composition in California coastal sage scrubbirds and small mammals. Conservation Biology 14: 474-487.

Clarren, R. 1999. Oil wells in my backyard? High Country News. 15 March 1999. Paonia,CO.

Clifford, H.T. 1959. Seed dispersal by motor vehicles. Journal of Ecology 47: 311–315.

Clifford, H. 2001. Wyoming’s powder keg. High Country News. 5 November 2001.Paonia, CO.

Cole, E.K., Pope, M.D. and R.G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of roads management on move-ment and survival of Roosevelt elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 1115–1126.

Comer, P. 2001. Observations and recommendations for setting conservation goals inecoregional plans. Memo to TNC staff, January, 2001.

Comer, R.D. 1982. Understanding secondary effects of development on wildlife re-sources in mitigation planning. Pps. 16-31 in: (Comer et al., eds.) Proceedings of thesecond symposium on issues and technology in the management of impacted westernwildlife. Thorne Ecological Institute, Boulder, CO.

Cote, I.M. and W.J. Sutherland. 1997. The effectiveness of removing predators to protectbird populations. Conservation Biology 11:395-405.

Literature Cited

Coupal, R., S. Lieske, G. Beauvais, and D. Feeney.� In preparation.� Private lands and publiceconomics: the role of private lands in big game habitat.��Report prepared for the Insti-tute of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

Davidson, D.W, Newmark, W.D., Sites, J.W., Shiozawa, D.K., Rickart, E.A., Harper, K.T.and R.B. Keiter. 1996. Selecting wilderness areas to conserve Utah’s biological diversity.Great Basin Naturalist 56: 95-118.

Davitt, K., Grandi, R., Neasel, C., and T. Skeele. 1996. Conserving prairie dog ecosystemson the northern plains: learning from the past to insure the prairie dog’s future. Spec.Pub. of the Predator Project, Bozeman, MT. 28 pp.

DeFarrari, C.M. and R.J. Naiman. 1994. A multi-scale assessment of the occurrence ofexotic plants on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Journal of Vegetation Science 5:247–248.

Despain, D.G. 1990. Yellowstone Vegetation. Robert Reinhart Publishers. Boulder, CO.

Dobson, A., Ralls, K., Foster, M., Soule_, M.E., Simberloff, D., Doak, D., Estes, J., Mills, S.,Mattson, D., Dirzo, R., Arita, H., Ryan, S., Norse, E., Noss, R., and D. Johns. 1999. Re-gional and Continental Restoration. In: (Soulé, M.E. and J. Terborgh, editors) ContinentalConservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. Island Press, Wash-ington, DC.

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 1991. Riparian-wetland initiative for the 1990’s.Bureau of Land Management, Washington. BLM/WO/GI-91/001+4340.

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 1995. Rangeland Health: Standards and Guidelinesfor Healthy Rangelands. Washington, DC.

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 2000. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health.Version 3. Technical Reference 1734-6.

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for RaptorProtection from Human and Land Use Disturbances. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt LakeCity, UT. Jan 30, 2002.

Donohue, D.L. 1999. The western range revisited: removing livestock from public landsto conserve native biodiversity. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Douglas, M.J.W. 1971. Behaviour responses of red deer and chamois to cessation ofhunting. New Zealand Journal of Science 14: 507–518.

Edge, W.D. and C.L. Marcum. 1985. Movements of elk in relation to logging distur-bances. Journal of Wildlife Management 49: 926–930.

Esque, T. C. 1999. Abstract. Managing fire and invasive plants in the Mojave Desert:Defining an integrated research program to address knowledge gaps. Mojave DesertScience Symposium. Las Vegas, NV. 25 February 1999.

Estes, J. A., N. S. Smith, and J. F. Palmisano. 1978. Sea otter predation and communityorganization in the western Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Ecology 59:822-833.

Literature Cited

Estes, J. A., M. T. Tinker, T. M. Williams, and D. F. Doak. 1998. Killer whale predation onsea otters linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science 282:473-475.

Evans, R.A. and J.A. Young. 1972. Microsite requirements for establishment of annualrangeland weeds. Weed Science 20:350-356.

___________. 1984. Microsite requirements for downy brome infestation and control onsagebrush rangelends. Weed Science 32, Supplement 1: 13-17.

Fertig, W. 2001. 2000 survey for Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) in Wyoming.Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office by the WyomingNatural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

Foreman, D., Daly, K., Dugelby, B., Hanson, R., Howard, R.,. Humphrey, J., KlyzaLinck, L., List, R. and K. Vacariu. 2000. Sky Islands Wildlands Network ConservationPlan. Tucson, AZ: The Wildlands Project.

Foreman, D., Daly, K.,. Noss, R., Clark, M., Menke, K. and D. Parsons. 2003. New Mexicohighlands wildlands network vision: connecting the Sky Islands to the Southern Rockies.�Wildlands Project, Richmond, VT.

Franz, E.� 2001.� Ecology, values, and policy.� Bioscience 51:469-474.

Freddy, D.J., Bronaugh, W.B. and M.C. Fowler. 1986. Response of mule deer to distur-bance by persons on foot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14: 63–68.

Freilich, J., Budd, B., Kohley, T. and B. Hayden. 2001. The Wyoming Basins EcoreginalPlan. Special publication by The Nature Conservancy, Lander, WY. 2001.

Frenkel, R.E. 1970. Ruderal vegetation along some California roadsides. University ofCalifornia Publications in Geography 20: 1–163.

Frey, J. 1993. Modes of peripheral isolate formation and speciation. Systematic Biology42:373-381.

Froehlich, H.A. 1978. The influence of clearcutting and road building activities on land-scape stability in western United States. Pp. 165–173 in: Proceedings of the 5th NorthAmerican Forest Soils Conference. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Garcia-Ramos, G., and M. Kirkpatrick. 1997. Genetic models of adaptation and gene flowin peripheral populations. Evolution 51:21-28.

Gese, E.M., Rongstad, O. J., and W. R. Mytton. 1989. Changes in coyote movements dueto military activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(20): 334-339.

Gillihan, S.W, Hanni, D., Hutching, S., Toombs, T. and T. VerCauteren. 2001. Sharing yourland with shortgrass prairie birds. Special Publ. of the Rock Mountain Bird Observatory.

Gregg, M.A., Crawford, J.A., Drut, M.S. and A.K. Delong. 1994 . Vegetational cover andpredation of sage grouse nests in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:162-166.

Groves, C., L. Valutis, D. Vosick, B. Neely, K. Wheaton, J. Touval, and B. Runnels. 2000.Designing a geography of hope: a practitioner’s handbook for ecoregional conservationplanning. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

Literature Cited

Haddad, N.M. 1999. Corridor use predicted from behaviors at habitat boundaries.American Naturalist 153: 215-227.

Haddad, N.M. and K.A. Baum. 1999. An experimental test of corridor effects on butterflydensities. Ecological Applications 9: 623-633.

Hansen, A.J. and J. Rotella. 1999. Abiotic factors. Pgs 161-209 in: (M.L. Hunter, ed.)Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,UK.

Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest: island biogeography theory and the preserva-tion of biotic diversity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Hartley D.A. et al. 2003. Ecological effects of a transportation network on wildlife: aspatial analysis of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. Special Publica-tion, The Wilderness Society.

Hendee, J.C., Stankey, G.H., and R.C. Lucas. 1990. Wilderness management. Secondedition. North American Press, Golden, Colorado. 546 pp.

Henke, S. E. and F. C. Bryant. 1999. Effects of coyote removal on the faunal community inwestern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1066-1081.

Hitt, N.P., and C.A. Frissell. 1999. Wilderness in a landscape context: a quantitativeapproach to ranking aquatic diversity areas in western Montana. Presented at the Wilder-ness Science Conference, 1999.

Hobbs, N.T. 1989. Linking energy balance to survival in mule deer: development and testof a simulation model. Wildlife Monograph 101. 39 pp.

Hobbs, R.J. and L.F. Huenneke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity and invasion: implicationsfor conservation. Conservation Biology 6: 324–337.

Holloran, M.J. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) seasonal habitat use nearCasper, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, University of Wyoming. 130 pp.

Humphries, C.J., Williams. P.H., and R.I. Vane-Wright. 1999. Measuring biodiversity valuefor conservation. Annual review of ecology and systematics 26: 93-111.

Hunter, R. 1999. California Wildlands Project: South Coast regional report. CaliforniaWilderness Coalition, Davis, CA.

Jeo, R.M. 2002. Extending conservation area design framework to the North Coast regionof British Columbia, Canada. Special Report by Round River Conservation Studies, Saltlake City, UT.

Jeo, R.M., Sanjayan, M.A. and D. Sizemore. 2000. A conservation area design for thecentral coast region of British Columbia, Canada. Special Report by Round River Conser-vation Studies, Salt lake City, UT.

Kerr, J.T. 1997. Species richness, endemism, and the choice of areas for conservation.Conservation Biology 11: 1094-1100.

Literature Cited

King, M.M. and G.W. Workman. 1986. Response of desert bighorn sheep to humanharassment: management implications. Transactions of the North American Wildlife andNatural Resources Conference 51: 74–85.

Klebenow, D.A. 1982. Livestock grazing interactions with sage grouse. Proceedings:Wildlife-Livestock Relations Symposium 10:113-123.

Knapp, P.A. 1996. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L) dominance in the Great Basin Desert:history, persistence, and influences to human activities. Global Environmental Change6(1):37-52.

Knick, S.t. and Rotenberry. 1997. Landscape characteristics of disturbed shrubsteppehabitats in southwestern Idaho. Landscape Ecology 12: 287-297.

Knight, R.L. 1994. Mountains and plains: the ecology of Wyoming landscapes. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, CT. 338 pp.

Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists. Island Press, Washing-ton, D.C. 372 pp.

Knight, D.H., R.J. Hill, and A.T. Harrison. 1976. Potential natural landmarks in the Wyo-ming Basin: terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Report to the USDI National Park Service,Contract No. 9900X20047, 229 pp.

Lackey, R.T. 2001.� Values, policy, and ecosystem health.� Bioscience 51:437-443.

Lacy, J.R. 1987. The influence of livestock grazing on weed establishment and spread.Proc. Mont. Acad. Sci. 47:131-146.

Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal Species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation.Conservation Biology 11: 849-856.

Lee, B.,�W.M. Hudson, and T. Buchanan.� 1989.� Hunting and fishing expenditure esti-mates for Wyoming, 1989. Report prepared�for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department,Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Lesica, P. and F.W. Allendorf. 1985. When are peripheral populations valuable for conser-vation? Conservtion Biology. 9:753-760.

Leopold, A. S. 1972. “Round River_A Parable.” Round River: From the Journals of AldoLeopold. New York: Oxford University Press. P. 165.

Leslie, D.M., Jr. and C.L. Douglas. 1980. Human disturbance at water sources of desertbighorn sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin 8: 284–290.

Liguori, S. and J. Burruss. 2001. Raptor electrocution reduction program (RERP) trainingmanual. Joint publication by Hawkwatch International and Utah Power and Light. SaltLake City, Utah

Lindenmayer, D.B., Manning, A.D., Smith, P.L., Possingham, H.P., Oliver, I. And M.A.McCarthy. 2002. The focal species approach and landscape restoration: a critique.Conservtion Biology. 16:338-345.

Literature Cited

Long, R., P. MacKay, C. Reining, B. Dugelby, and K. Daly. 2002. Maine wildlands networkvision: a scientific approach to conservation planning in Maine. Richmond, VT: WildlandsProject.

Lonsdale, W.M. and A.M. Lane. 1994. Tourist vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in KakaduNational Park, northern Australia. Biological Conservation 69: 277–283.

Lovallo, M.J. and E.M. Anderson. 1996. Bobcat movements and home ranges relative toroads in Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: 71–76.

Lyons, J.J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover. Journal ofForestry 77:658-660.

Lyon, A.G. 2000. The potential effects of natural gas development on sage grouse(centocerus urophasianus) near Pinedale, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis. University of Wyoming,Laramie, WY.

MacArthur, R.A., Geist, V. and R.H. Johnson. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses ofmountain sheep to human disturbances. Journal of Wildlife Management 46: 351–358.

Mace, R.D., Waller, J.S., Manley, T.L., Lyon, L.J. and H. Zuuring. 1996. Relationshipsamong grizzly bears, roads and habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal ofApplied Ecology 33: 1395–1404.

Mack, M. C. and C. M. D’Antonio. 1998. Impacts of biological invasions on disturbanceregimes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:195-197.

Margules, C.R., Nicholls, A.O. and R.L. Pressey. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves tomaximize biological diversity. Biological Conservation 43:63-75.

Margules, C.R. and R.L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243-253.

Martin, W. and A.L. Jones. In prep. Potential gray wolf habitat in the southern Rockies: apredictive spatial model.

McIntyre, S. and S. Lovoral. 1994. Predicting richness of native, rare and exotic plants inresponse to habitat and disturbance variables across a variegated landscape. Conserva-tion Biology 8: 521–531.

Mech, L.D., Fritts, S.H., Radde, G.L. and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and roaddensity in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16: 85–87.

Mech, S.G. and J.G. Hallett. 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of corridors: a geneticapproach. Conservation Biology 15: 467-474.

Mehlman, D. 1997. Suggested guidelines for incorporating birds into TNC’s ecoregionalplanning process. The Nature Conservancy, Boise, ID. Unpubl. Paper.

Menge, B.A., Berlow, E.L., Blanchette, C.A., Navarrete, S.A., and S.B. Yamada. 1994. Thekeystone species concept: variation in interaction strength in a rocky intertidal habitat.Ecological Monographs 64: 249-286.

Literature Cited

Merrill, A. and J. Jacobson. 1997. Montana almanac. Falcon Press. Helena, MT.

Mikusinski, G., Gromadzki, M. and P. Chylarecki. 2001. Woodpeckers as indicators offorest bird diversity. Conservation Biology 15: 2008-217.

Miller B., Foreman, D., Fink, M., Shinneman, D., Smith, J., DeMarco, M., Soulé, M.,.Howard, B. and T. Hogan. 2003. Southern Rockies Wildlands Network Vision. The South-ern Rockies Ecosystem Project, The Denver Zoological Foundation and The WildlandsProject, Boulder, CO.

Miller, B., Reading, R., Strittholt, J., Carroll, C., Noss, R., Soule, M., Sanchez, O., Terborgh,J., Brightsmith, D., Cheeseman, T. and D. Foreman. 1999. Using focal species in thedesign of nature reserve networks. Wild Earth 8: 81-92.

Mills, L.S., Soule, M.E. and D.F. Doak. 1993. The history and current status of the key-stone species concept. Bioscience 43: 219-224.

Molvar, E.M. 2002. Drilling smarter: using direction drilling to reduce the impacts of oiland gas development. Special Publication by the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance,Laramie, Wyoming.

Niemi, G. J., J. M. Hanowski, A. R. Lima, T. Nicholls, and N. Weiland. 1997. A critical analy-sis on the use of indicator species in management. J. Wildl. Manage. 61(4):1240-1252.

Noss, R. F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience.33:700-706.

Noss, R. F. 1992. The Wildlands Project Land Conservation Strategy. Wild Earth. (SpecialIssue) 1992: 10-25.

Noss, R. F. and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and RestoringBiodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Noss, R. F., E. Dinerstein, B. Gilbert, M. Gilpin, B. J. Miller, J. Terborgh, and S. Trombulak.1999b. Core areas: Where nature reigns. In: (M. E. Soulé and J. Terborgh, eds.) Continen-tal conservation: scientific foundations of regional reserve design networks. Island Press,Covelo, CA and Washington, D.C.

Noss, R.F., M.A. O’Connell, and D.D. Murphy. 1997. The science of conservation planning:habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Noss, R. F., J. R. Strittholt, K. Vance-Borland, C. Carroll and P. Frost. 1999a. A conservationplan for the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion. Natural Areas Journal 19(4): 392–411.

Noss, R. F., C. Carroll, K. Vance-Borland, and G. Wuerthner. 2002. A multicriteria assess-ment of the irreplaceability and vulnerability of sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosys-tem. Conservation Biology 16:895-908.

Odum, E.P. and H.T. Odum. 1972. Natural Areas as necessary components of Man’s totalenvironment. Proceedings of North American wildlife and natural resources conference37:178-189.

Paine, R.T. 1966. Food web complexity and species diversity. American Naturalist 100:65-75.

Literature Cited

Palomares, F., P. Gaona, P. Ferreras, and M. Debiles. 1995. Positive effects on gamespecies of top predators by controlling smaller predator populations: An example withlynx, mongooses, and rabbits. Conservation Biology 9: 295-305.

Paquet, P.C., Strittholt, J.R. and N.L. Strauss. 1999. Wolf reintroduction feasibility in theAdirondack Park. Special Report, Conservation Biology Institute. Corvalis, OR.

Power, M.E., Tilman, D., Estes, J.A., Menge, B.A., Bond, W.J., Mills, L.S., Daily, G., Castilla,J.C., Lubchenco, J. and R.T. Paine. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. Bio-science 46: 609-620.

Pressey, R.L. and R.M Cowling. 2001. Reserve selection algorithms and the real world.Conservation Biology 15: 275-277.

Randall, J.M. 1996. Weed control for the preservation of biological diversity. WeedTechnology 10: 370-383

Responsive Management.� 1998.��Wyoming 1997�hunting�expenditures.� Report�preparedfor the�Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Ritter, S.A. and Page, C. 2000. Keeping birds in the sagebrush sea. Wyoming Wildlife:03/2000.

Ryti, R.T. 1992. Effect of the focal taxon on the selection of nature reserves. EcologicalApplications 2: 404-410.

Saetersdal, M., Line, J.M. and H.B. Birks. 1993. How to maximize biological diversity innature reserve selection: vascular plants and breeding birds in deciduous woodlands,western Norway. Biological Conservation 66: 131-138.

Samson, F. and F. Knoph (Eds.). 1996. Prairie conservation: preserving North America’smost endangered ecosystem. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 339 pp.

Schmidt, W. 1989. Plant dispersal by motor car. Vegetatio 80: 147–152.

Scott, J.M., Davis, F.W. McGhie, R.G., Wright, R.G., Groves, C. and J. Estes. 2001. NatureReserves: do they capture the full range of America’s biological diversity? EcologicalApplications 11(4):999-1007.

Scovile, A., Scovile, J., Meik, J., Tingey, R. and R. Jeo. 2001. Identification and assessmentof landscape connectivity in the Wyoming Heart of the West: preliminary report. Spec.Publication, Round River Conservation Studies, Salt Lake City, UT.

Shuman, R., and F.W. Whicker. 1986. Intrusion of reclaimed uranium mill tailings byprairie dogs and ground squirrels. Journal of Environmental Quality 15(1):21-24.

Simberloff, D., Doak, D., Groom, M., Trombulak, S., Dobson, A., Gatewood, S.,. Soulé, M.,Gilpin, M., Martinez del Rio, C. and S. Mills. 1999. Regional and Continental Restoration.In: (Soulé, M. and J. Terborgh, eds.) Continental Conservation. Island Press, Washington,DC.

Soule, M.E., ed. 1987. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.

Literature Cited

Soulé, M. E., D. T. Bolger, A. C. Alberts, R. Sauvajot, J. Wright, M. Sorice, and S. Hill. 1988.Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinctions of chaparral-requiring birds in urban habitatislands. Conservation Biology 2:75-92.

Soule, M. and R. Noss. 1998. Rewilding and biodiversity: complementary goals forcontinental conservation. Wild Earth 8: 18-28.

Soule, M. and J. Terborgh, eds. 1999. Continental conservation: design and managementprinciples for long-term, regional conservation networks. Island Press, Covelo, Ca.

Stolte, K.W. and D.R. Mangis. 1992. Identification and use of plant species as ecologicalindicators of air pollution stress in National Park Units. Pages 373-392 in: (D.H. McKenzie,D.E. Hyatt and V.J. McDonald, eds.) Ecological indicators Vols 1 and 2. Internationalsymposium, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers, Ltd.

Strittholt, J.R., and D.A. DellaSala. 2001. Importance of roadless areas in biodiversityconservation in forested ecosystems: a case study—Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, U.S.A.Conservation Biology 15(6):1742-1754.

Strittholt, J.R., Frost, P.A. and C. Carroll. 1999. A science-based conservation assessmentfor the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion. A special report prepared for the Siskiyou EducationProject. Earth Design Consultants, Inc.

Sveum, C.M, Edge, W.D. and J.A. Crawford. 1998. Nesting habitat selection by sagegrouse in south-central Washington. Journal of Range Management 51:265-275.

Terborgh, J. 1998. The big things that run the world – a sequel to E.O. Wilson. Conserva-tion Biology 2: 402-403.

Terborgh., J., Estes, J., Paquet, P., Ralls, K., Boyd, D., Miller, B., and R. Noss. 1999. The roleof top carnivores in regulating terrestrial ecosystems. In: (Soule, M. and J. Terborgh, eds.)Continental conservation: design and management principles for long-term, regionalconservation networks. Island Press, Covelo, Ca.

Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability inWisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 113: 404–407.

TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2001. Southern Rocky Mountains: an ecoregional assess-ment and conservation blueprint. Special publication by The Nature Conservancy, Boul-der, CO.

Trombulak, S.C. 1996. How to design an ecological reserve system. Wild Earth, SpecialPaper No. 1.

Tyser, R.W. and C.A. Worley. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trailcorridors in Glacier National Park, MT. Conservation Biology 6: 253–262.

UNESCO. 1974. Task force on criteria and guidelines for the choice and establishment ofbiosphere reserves. Man and the Biosphere Report No. 22. Paris, France.

Unsworth, J.W., Kuck, L., Scott, M.D. and E.O. Garton. 1993. Elk mortality in theClearwater drainage of northcentral Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 495–502.

Literature Cited

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest.2000. Oil and gas leasing draft Environmental Impact Statement. December 2000. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson. 197pp. plus appendices.

USDI (Department of the Interior), Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office.2000. Record of Decision for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Develop-ment Project. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, PinedaleField Office, Pinedale. 53 pp. plus appendices.

USDI (Department of the Interior), Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field Office.2002. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and draft planning amendment for thePowder River Basin oil and gas project. WY-070-02-065. January 2002.

Van Dyke, F.G., Brocke, R.H., Shaw, H.G., Ackerman, B.B., Hemker, T.P. and F.G. Lindzey.1986. Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity. Journal of WildlifeManagement 50: 95–102.

Vint, M., M. Briggs, L. Carder, L. Propst. 1998. Conservation options for landowners. TheRincon Institute. 72 pp.

Wace, N. 1977. Assessment of dispersal of plant species — the car borne flora inCanberra. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 10: 167–186.

Weller, C., Thomson, J., Morton, P. And G. Aplet. 2002. Fragmenting our lands: theecological footprint from oil and gas development. Special publication: The WildernessSociety. Denver, CO.

Welsh, H.W. and S. Droege. 2001. A case for using plethodontid salamanders for moni-toring biodiversity and ecosystem integrity of North American Forests. ConservationBiology 15: 558-569.

Whicker, A.D. and J.K. Detling. 1988. Ecological consequences of prairie dog distur-bances. BioScience 38: 778-785.

Whipple, E. and G. O’Gara. 2003. Dismissing high-tech solutions. Casper Star-Tribune.

Whitlock, C. and P. Bartlein. 1993. Spatial variations of Holocene climatic change in theYellowstone region. Quaternary Research 39: 231-238.

Wilcove, D., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A. and E. Losos. 2000. Leading threats tobiodiversity-what’s imperiling U.S. species. Pages 237-254 in: (Stein, B.A., L.S. Kutner, andJ.S. Adams, eds.) Precious heritage-the status of biodiversity in the United States. TheNature Conservancy and the Association for Biodiversity information. Oxford UniversityPress, New York. 399 pp.

Wilmer, B. In prep. Prioritizing conservation efforts Using SITES: a sensitivity analysis.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department.� 2001.��2000 Annual�harvest�report.� Report pre-pared for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. [�http://gf.state.wy.us/HTML/hunting/harvest.htm ].

Literature Cited

Yarmolov, C., Bayar, M. and V. Geist. 1988. Behavior responses and reproduction of muledeer, Odocoileus hemionus, does following experimental harassment with an all-terrainvehicle. Canadian Field Naturalist 102: 425–429.

Young, M.K., Schmal, R.N., Kohley, T.W. and V.G. Leonard. 1996. Colorado Rivercutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus. In: (D.A. Duff, editor) Conservationassessment for inland cutthroat trout: distribution, status, and habitat managementimplications. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region,Ogden, Utah.

conservation corridorconservationcorridor.org/cpb/jones_et_al_2004.pdf · heart of the west...

Documents