1

WYOMING BLM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND

FOREST SERVICE PLAN COMPONENTS –

A CROSSWALK

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

MA 1 - Continue to support the development of statewide sagegrouse seasonal habitat models for the State of Wyoming.Standard operating procedure.

MA 2 - Field offices and ranger districts will work with project 

proponents, partners, and stakeholders to avoid or minimize impacts 

and/or implement direct mitigation (e.g., relocating disturbance, timing 

restrictions, etc.), and utilize best management practices (BMP) and 

offsite compensatory mitigation where appropriate.

Standard operating procedure.

MA 3 - Utilize the Wyoming Sage-grouse Implementation Team 

(SGIT) and Local Working Group plans or other state plans, analyses, 

and other sources of information to guide development of 

conservation objectives for local management of sage-grouse habitats. 

The BLM will collaborate with appropriate federal agencies, and the 

State of Wyoming as contemplated under Governor Executive Order 

2013-3, to: (1) develop appropriate conservation objectives; (2) define 

a framework for evaluating situations where Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation objectives are not being achieved on federal land, to 

determine if a causal relationship exists between improper grazing (by 

wildlife or wild horses or livestock) and Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation objectives; and (3) identify appropriate site-based action 

to achieve Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives within the 

framework

To be included in Forest Service Implementation Guidance.

MA 4 - Include the collection of baseline data and outline post-project 

monitoring components into project planning, as appropriate and 

necessary.

Standard operating procedure.

MA 5 - The BLM will coordinate new recommendations, mitigation, 

and conservation measures applied for sage-grouse with the WGFD 

and other appropriate agencies, local government cooperators, and the 

No similar management direction.
2

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Wyoming SGIT. These measures will be analyzed in site-specific NEPA 

documents, as necessary.

MA 6 - Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing 

vegetation management treatments according to the type of seasonal 

habitats present in a priority area. Vegetation treatments must include 

monitoring to determine achievement of objectives and their longterm success.

GRSG-TDDD-GL-018-Guideline1 – Within priority-connectivity 

habitat management areas, do not authorize new surface disturbing or 

disruptive activities from March 15 through June 30 within 4 miles of a 

lek or lek perimeter of an occupied lek within priority-connectivity 

areas. Activities that meet the exception, waiver, and modification 

criteria may be authorized. Where credible data, based upon field 

analysis, support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, 

dates may be shifted by 14 days before or after the above dates.

GRSG-TDDD-GL-019-Guideline1 – In general habitat management 

areas, do not authorize new surface disturbing or disruptive activities 

from March 15 to June 30 within 2 miles of the lek or lek perimeter of 

any occupied lek located inside general areas. Activities that meet the 

exception, waiver, and modification criteria may be authorized. Where 

credible data, based upon field analysis, support different timeframes 

for this restriction, dates may be shifted by 14 days before or 

subsequent to the above dates.

GRSG-TDDD-GL-020-Guideline1 – Within mapped winter 

concentration areas in priority-core habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize new surface disturbing or 

disruptive activities from December 1 through March 14 to protect 

priority-core and sagebrush focal area greater sage-grouse populations 

that use these winter concentration habitats. Activities not located in 

suitable habitat that meet the exception, waiver, and modification 

criteria may be authorized.

GRSG-TDDD-GL-021-Guideline1 – Within mapped winter 

concentration areas in priority-connectivity and general habitat 

management areas, do not authorize new surface disturbing or 

 

1On a case-by-case basis, and only when it can be demonstrated that the activity will not cause declines in greater sage-grouse populations, allow exceptions, 

modifications, and waivers. The authorized officer may grant an exception if a review determines that the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair 

the function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of greater sage-grouse.
3

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

disruptive activities from December 1 through March 14 where winter 

concentration areas are identified as supporting populations of greater 

sage-grouse that attend leks within priority-core habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas.

MA 7 - Ensure site-specific, measurable, conservation and mitigation 

objectives are included in project planning within sage-grouse habitats.

To be included in Forest Service Implementation Guidance.

MA 8 - Each BLM field office will develop landscape-scale restoration, 

conservation, and maintenance strategies, including special 

management of seasonal habitats and identified connectivity zones 

outside of PHMAs, working with voluntary partners and cooperating 

agencies. These strategies must be coordinated and reconciled, where 

possible, with adjoining management entities that share habitats or 

populations.

No similar management direction.

MA 9 - Design all range projects in a manner that minimizes potential 

for invasive species establishment. Monitor and treat invasive species 

associated with existing range improvements.

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-009-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, actions and 

authorizations should be designed to limit the spread and effect of 

undesirable non‐native plant species.

MA 10 - Apply all appropriate required design features (Appendix B) 

as mandatory Stipulations/Conditions of Approval (COA) within 

PHMAs for fluid minerals, travel management, lands and realty, range 

management, wild horses, coal exploration, locatable mineral location 

and entry, West Nile Virus, mineral materials, non-energy solid 

leasable minerals, vegetation management, fire and fuels management, 

and noise.

Required design features displayed in Appendix B of the FEIS that are 

not current standard operating procedure have been converted to 

standards or guidelines for the Forest Service draft proposed plan 

amendments. Those items that were not converted will be displayed in 

implementation guidance distributed after the project decision is 

finalized.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-088-Guideline – In priority and important 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize 

employee camps.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-089-Guideline – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, closed‐loop systems should be used 

for drilling operations with no reserve pits, where feasible.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-090-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, during drilling operations, 

soil compaction should be minimized and soil structure should be 
4

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

maintained using the best available techniques to improve vegetation 

reestablishment.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-091-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, dams, impoundments and 

ponds for mineral development should be constructed to reduce 

potential for West Nile virus. Examples of methods to accomplish this 

include:

 Increase the depth of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of 

water than is discharged. 

 Build steep shorelines (greater than 2 feet) to reduce shallow 

water and aquatic vegetation around the perimeter of 

impoundments to reduce breeding habitat for mosquitoes. 

 Maintain the water level below that of rooted aquatic and upland 

vegetation. Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or 

low-lying areas. 

 Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down-slope 

seepage or overflow by digging ponds in flat areas rather than 

damming natural draws for effluent water storage or lining 

constructed ponds in areas where seepage is anticipated.

 Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with 

crushed rock or use a horizontal pipe to discharge inflow directly 

into existing open water.

 Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock and construct the 

spillway with steep sides.

 Fence pond sites to restrict access by livestock and other wild 

ungulates.

 Remove or re‐inject produced water. 

 Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where 

water occurs on the surface.

GRSG-RT-DC-068-Desired Condition - In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, within the travel 

management system, greater sage-grouse experience minimal 
5

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

disturbance during breeding and nesting (March 15 to June 30), and 

wintering (December 1 to March 15) periods.

GRSG-RT-ST-073-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, prohibit public access on 

temporary energy development roads, unless consistent with all other 

terms and conditions included in this forest plan amendment.

GRSG-RT-GL-074-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, new roads and road 

realignments should be designed and administered to reduce collisions 

with greater sage-grouse.

GRSG-RT-GL-075-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, road construction within 

riparian areas and mesic meadows should be restricted. If not possible 

to restrict construction within riparian areas and mesic meadows, 

roads should be designed and constructed perpendicular to ephemeral 

drainages and stream crossings, unless topography prevents doing so.

GRSG-RT-GL-077-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, dust abatement terms 

and conditions should be included in road-use permits when dust has 

the potential to impact greater sage-grouse.

GRSG-RT-GL-078-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, road and road-way 

maintenance activities should be designed and implemented to reduce 

the risk of vehicle or human‐caused wildfires and the spread of invasive 

plants. Such activities include but are not limited to the removal or 

mowing of vegetation a car-width off the edge of roads; use of weedfree earth-moving equipment, gravel, fill, or other materials; and 

blading or pulling roadsides and ditches that are infested with noxious 

weeds only if required for public safety or protection of the roadway.

GRSG-FM-GL-051-Guideline – Locating temporary wildfire 

suppression facilities (e.g., incident command posts, spike camps, 
6

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

helibases, mobile retardant plants) in priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas should be avoided. 

GRSG-FM-GL-052-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, cross‐country vehicle 

travel during fire operations should be restricted, whenever safe and 

practical to do so, as determined by fireline leadership and incident 

commanders.

GRSG-FM-GL-053-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, use fire management 

tactics and strategies that seek to minimize loss of existing sagebrush 

habitat. The safest and most practical means to do so will be 

determined by fireline leadership and incident commanders.

GRSG-FM-GL-054-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, prescribed fire 

prescriptions should minimize undesirable effects on vegetation and/or 

soils (e.g., minimize mortality of desirable perennial plant species and 

reduce risk of hydrophobicity).

GRSG-FM-GL-055-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, roads and natural fuel 

breaks should be incorporated into fuel break design to improve 

effectiveness and minimize loss of existing sagebrush habitat.

GRSG-FM-GL-056-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, all fire-associated vehicles 

and equipment should be inspected and cleaned using standardized 

protocols and procedures and approved vehicle/equipment 

decontamination systems before entering and exiting the area to 

minimize the introduction of invasive annual grasses and other invasive 

plant species and noxious weeds.

GRSG-FM-GL-057-Guideline - Unit-specific greater sage-grouse 

fire management toolboxes containing maps, lists, contact information 

for qualified resource advisors, local guidance, and relevant information 
7

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

should be developed and used.

GRSG-FM-GL-058-Guideline – Localized maps of priority and 

general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas should be 

provided to dispatch officers and extended attack incident 

commanders to use when prioritizing wildfire suppression resources 

and designing suppression tactics.

GRSG-FM-GL-059-Guideline - In or near priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, a greater sage‐

grouse resource advisor should be assigned to all extended attack 

fires.

GRSG-FM-GL-060-Guideline – On critical fire weather days, 

protection of greater sage-grouse habitat should receive high 

consideration, along with other high values, for positioning of 

resources.

GRSG-FM-GL-061-Guideline - Line officers should be involved in 

setting pre-season wildfire response priorities and, during period of 

multiple fires, prioritizing protection of priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas.

GRSG-FM-GL-062-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, consider using fire 

retardant and mechanized equipment only if it is likely to result in 

minimizing burned acreage.

GRSG-FM-GL-063-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, to minimize sagebrush 

loss, mop‐up should be conducted where the burned areas adjoin 

unburned islands, doglegs, or other habitat features, as safety and 

available resources allows.
8

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

MA 11 - Integrated vegetation management would be used to control, 

suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species 

per BLM Handbook H-1740-2. Manage weed treatments to maintain 

and improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Apply Required Design 

Features and BMPs as Conditions of Approval, such as those in 

Appendix B.

The following text would be included in FS Implementation Guidance: 

Integrated vegetation management would be used to control, suppress, 

and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species per Forest 

Service Manual 2080. Manage weed treatments to maintain and 

improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

MA 12 - Existing notices and approved plans of operations under 43 

CFR 3809 : For projects that overlap PHMAs, operators may be 

requested to submit modifications to the accepted notice or approved 

plan of operations so that the operations minimally impact PHMAs 

(core only). The Authorized Officer (AO) may convey to the operator 

suggested conservation measures, based upon the notice or plan level 

operations and the geographic area of those operations (also called the 

project area, which is defined in 43 CFR 3809.5). These suggested 

conservation measures include measures that support the overall goals 

and objectives of the priority/core population area strategy and may 

not be reasonable or applicable to the BLM’s determination of whether 

the proposed operations will cause unnecessary or undue degradation 

under 43 CFR 3809.5. The request containing the suggested 

conservation measures must make clear that the operator’s 

compliance is not mandatory.

Notices or plans of operation, or modifications thereto, submitted 

following the issuance of this guidance: As part of the 15-day 

completeness review of notices (or modifications thereto) and 30-day 

completeness review of plans of operations (or modifications thereto), 

the proposed project area(s) where exploration, development, mining, 

access and reclamation would take place should be reviewed for 

overlap of sage-grouse PHMAs in the corporate geographic 

information system (GIS) database. If there is overlap, the BLM AO 

may notify the operator of ways that they may minimize impacts to 

PHMAs (core only) and request the operator to amend its notice or 

plan to include such measures. The request to amend the submitted 

notice or plan of operations must make clear that the operator’s 

compliance is not mandatory and that including such measures is not a 

GRSG-M-LM-ST-096-Standard – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, only approve Plans of Operation with 

mitigation to protect greater sage-grouse and their habitats, consistent 

with the rights of the mining claimant as granted by the Mining Law of 

1872, as amended.

GRSG-M-LM-ST-097-Standard – The disturbance cap described in 

GRSG-TDDD-ST-023-Standard will not be applied to foreclose 

development of locatable minerals on unpatented claims located under 

the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended; the disturbance from 

locatable mining will be accounted for when determining the percent 

disturbance and whether the cap has been exceeded.
9

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

requirement for completeness of either the notice or a plan of 

operations, nor is it a condition of acceptance of the notice or 

approval of the plan of operations.

MA 13 - As new occupied sage-grouse habitat is found or occurs 

either through additional inventories or expansion into previously 

unoccupied habitat, the BLM will incorporate, through appropriate 

processes and analyses, these areas into the GHMA category and 

manage them as such, until the earliest review occurs by the SGIT. At 

that time they will be considered for PHMA status or continue to be 

managed as GHMAs, and will be added to the statewide map at that 

time.

The following text would be included in FS Implementation Guidance. 

As new occupied sage-grouse habitat is found or occurs either through 

additional inventories or expansion into previously unoccupied habitat, 

the Forest Service will incorporate these areas into priority and 

general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas through 

appropriate processes and analyses.

MA 14 - Contribute to actions that help to ground-truth the 

statewide sage-grouse seasonal habitat models for the State of 

Wyoming.

To be included in Forest Service Implementation Guidance.

MA 15 - Use the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework or best 

available assessment tool (approved by the AO) when assessing or 

evaluating sage-grouse habitats at multiple scales.

To be included in Forest Service Implementation Guidance.

MA 16 - The official Wyoming sage-grouse lek database is maintained 

by the WGFD in accordance with Appendix 4B of the Umbrella 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the WGFD and BLM 

(WGFD and BLM 1990).

The MOU states that agencies will meet at least annually to coordinate 

and review the accuracy of data, and incorporate the most up-to-date 

information.

To be included in Forest Service Implementation Guidance.

MA 17 - Many sage-grouse seasonal habitats within and outside of 

PHMAs (core only) are encumbered by valid existing rights, such as 

mineral leases or existing rights-of-way. Fluid mineral leases often will 

include less stringent lease stipulations than the timing, distance, and 

density requirements identified for consideration in this plan. The BLM 

will work with proponents holding valid existing leases that include less 

stringent lease stipulations than the timing, distance, and density 

restrictions described within this plan to ensure that measurable sagegrouse conservation objectives (such as, but not limited to, 

The direction in the Forest Service standards and guidelines will be 

applied consistent with applicable valid existing rights, laws, and 

regulations.

GRSG-M-FML-GL-086-Guideline – On existing federal leases in 

priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, when surface occupancy cannot be restricted due to valid 

existing rights or development requirements, disturbance and surface 

occupancy should be limited to areas least harmful to greater sagegrouse, based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat features.
10

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

consolidation of infrastructure to reduce habitat fragmentation and 

loss, and effective conservation of seasonal habitats and habitat 

connectivity to support management objectives set by the WGFD) are 

included in all project proposals.

MA 18 - PHMAs would be designated as OHV Limited Areas. The 

OHV limitation would ultimately be to “Designated Routes” as 

determined through a subsequent implementation/activity level Travel 

Management Plan. In the interim, motorized use on existing routes may 

occur; however, no new routes may be created without specific 

authorization.

Standard operating procedure.

MA 19 - Complete activity-level travel plans within five years of the 

record of decision (ROD) for this planning effort. During activity level 

planning, where appropriate, designate routes in PHMAs with current 

administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative access only. 

Existing plans should be assessed for consistency with sage-grouse 

conservation objectives.

Motorized travel plans have been completed for National Forest 

System Lands. Existing plans will be assessed periodically for 

consistency with greater sage-grouse habitat needs.

MA 20 - Construct roads needed for production activities to 

minimum design standards within PHMAs, in compliance with the 

Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) process.

Standard operating procedure.

MA 21 - Field office staff will work with project proponents (including 

those within the BLM) and the WGFD to site their projects in 

locations that meet the purpose and need for their project, utilize the 

DDCT, and have been determined to contain the least sensitive 

habitats.

Standard operating procedure.

MA 22 - Evaluate opportunities to coordinate management plans and 

strategies on multiple allotments where coordination under a single 

management plan/strategy would result in enhancing Greater SageGrouse populations or its habitat, as determined in coordination with 

the state wildlife agency and with project proponents, partners, and 

stakeholders.

No similar management direction.

MA 23 - Management Action 23 has been moved to Management 

Action 137.

Management Action 23 has been moved to Management Action 137.

MA 24 - Management Action 24 has been moved to Management 

Action 137.

Management Action 24 has been moved to Management Action 138.
11

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

MA 25 - All existing LUP decisions will be retained unless vacated or 

modified by decisions in these LUP amendments. Where more 

restrictive land use allocations or decisions are made in existing RMPs, 

those more restrictive land use allocations or decisions will remain in 

effect and will not be amended by these LUP amendments.

To be included in Forest Service Implementation Guidance or the 

Record of Decision.

MA 26 - Fire and fuels management actions would be designed to 

contribute to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat 

that support Greater Sage-Grouse populations (including large 

contiguous blocks of sagebrush).

GRSG-FM-DC-046-Desired Condition - In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, the extent and 

spread of wildfire resulting in loss of sagebrush is minimized, 

considering firefighter and public safety and other high priority values.

MA 27 - BLM planning units (Districts), in coordination with the 

USFWS and relevant state agencies, would complete and continue to 

update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire & Invasive Species 

Habitat Assessments to prioritize at-risk habitats, and identify fuels 

management, preparedness, suppression and restoration priorities 

necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations. These assessments and subsequent 

assessment updates would also be a coordinated effort with an 

interdisciplinary team (IDT) to take into account other Greater SageGrouse priorities identified in this plan. Appendix J describes a minimal 

framework example and suggested approach for this assessment.

Implementation actions will be tiered to the Local (District) Greater 

Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire & Invasive Species Assessment using 

the best available science related to the conservation of Greater SageGrouse.

In coordination with USFWS and relevant state agencies, the BLM 

planning units (Districts) will identify annual treatment needs for 

wildfire and invasive species management as identified in local unit level 

Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments. Annual 

treatment needs will be coordinated across state/regional scales and 

across jurisdictional boundaries for long-term conservation of Greater 

Sage-Grouse.

These landscape assessment implementation efforts will be reviewed 

annually with appropriate USFWS and state agency personnel.

No similar management direction.
12

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

MA 28 - Implement a coordinated inter-agency approach to fire 

restrictions based upon National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) 

thresholds (fuel conditions, drought conditions, and predicted weather 

patterns) for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

Standard operating procedure.

MA 29 - Within acceptable risk levels, utilize a full range of fire 

management strategies and tactics, including the management of 

wildfires to achieve resource objectives across the range of sagegrouse habitat consistent with land use plan direction.

Standard operating procedure.

MA 29a - In order to avoid surface-disturbing activities in PHMAs, 

priority will be given to development of oil and gas and other mineral 

resources outside of PHMAs, subject to applicable stipulations. When 

authorizing development of oil and gas and other mineral resources in 

PHMAs, subject to applicable stipulations for the conservation of 

Greater Sage-Grouse, priority will be given to development in nonhabitat areas first and then in the least suitable habitat for Greater 

Sage-Grouse.

GRSG-M-FML-ST-084-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when authorizing 

development of fluid mineral resources, work with the operator to 

minimize impacts to greater sage-grouse and their habitat, such as 

locating facilities in non-habitat areas first and then in the least suitable 

habitat.

Lands and Realty Management

Rights-of-Way (e.g., Power lines, Transmission, Wind Energy Projects)

MA 30 - Specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all 

RMPs are amended as follows:

PHMAs would be managed as right-of-way (ROW) avoidance areas for 

new ROW or Special Use Authorization (SUA) permits (Map 2-13).

Within PHMAs where new ROWs/SUAs are necessary, new 

ROWs/SUAs would be located within designated RMP corridors or 

adjacent to existing ROWs/SUAs where technically feasible. Subject to 

valid existing rights including non-federal land inholdings, required new 

ROWs/SUAs would be located adjacent to existing ROWs/SUAs or 

where it best minimizes sage-grouse impacts.

For values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect:

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-025-Standard – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, restrict issuance of new special use 

authorizations for infrastructure, such as high-voltage transmission 

lines, major pipelines hydropower, distribution lines, and cellular 

towers (Map 2-13). Exceptions must be limited and based on rationale 

(e.g., monitoring, modeling, or best available science) that explicitly 

demonstrates that adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse will be 

avoided with the exception. Existing authorized uses will continue to 

be recognized.

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-026-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize 

temporary lands special use permits (i.e., facilities or activities) that 

result in loss of habitat or would have long-term (i.e., greater than 5 

years) negative impact on greater sage-grouse or their habitats.
13

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Portions of PHMAs would be managed as ROW exclusion areas (Map 

2-9) in accordance with existing RMP decisions for resource values 

other than Greater Sage-Grouse.

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-030-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, locate upgrades to 

existing transmission lines within the existing designated corridors or 

rights-of-way unless an alternate route would benefit greater sagegrouse or their habitats.

MA 31 - Specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all 

RMPs are amended as follows:

Within GHMAs where new ROWs/SUAs are necessary, new 

ROWs/SUAs would be co-located within existing ROWs/SUAs where 

technically feasible.

Appropriate sage-grouse seasonal timing constraints would be applied.

For values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect:

Portions of GHMAs would be managed as ROW avoidance areas (Map 

2-9) in accordance with existing RMP decisions for resource values 

other than Greater Sage-Grouse.

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-030-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, locate upgrades to 

existing transmission lines within the existing designated corridors or 

rights-of-way unless an alternate route would benefit greater sagegrouse or their habitats.

MA 32 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

New Transmission Lines (greater than 115 kV):

New transmission lines greater than 115 kV in PHMA (core only) 

would be allowed only (1) within the 2-mile wide transmission line 

route through PHMA (core only) population areas in south-central and 

southwestern Wyoming (see Map 2-15 from Executive Order (EO) 

2011-5); (2) when located within 0.5 miles or less of an existing 115 kV 

or greater transmission line or; or (3) in designated RMP corridors 

authorized for above-ground transmission lines. Transmission lines 

routed using one or more of the three criteria listed above will not be 

counted against the DDCT 5% disturbance cap.

New transmission lines greater than 115 kV proposed outside of these 

areas would be considered where it can be demonstrated that declines 

in sage-grouse populations could be avoided through project design 

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-028-Standard – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, new power transmission projects must 

be located within the 2-mile wide transmission line route in southcentral and southwestern Wyoming (see Map 2-15) or as close as 

technically feasible (i.e., within 0.5 mile) on either side of existing 115 kV 

or larger transmission lines or corridors creating a route no wider than 

1 mile. These projects will not be counted against the 5% disturbance 

cap (Wyoming Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool Manual).

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-029-Standard - In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, new power distribution lines must not 

be located within 0.6 miles from the perimeter of occupied greater 

sage-grouse leks. Effective mitigation to protect greater sage-grouse is 

required. See Standards and Guidelines in the Timing, Distance, 

Density, and Disturbance section and see GRSG-INFRA-GL-024-

Guideline.
14

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

and/or mitigation. These projects will be subject to the density and 

disturbance restrictions for PHMA.

Construction of new transmission lines will adhere to the restrictions 

associated with conducting activities within PHMAs.

Review of transmission line proposals would incorporate the 

Framework for Sage-grouse Impacts Analysis for Interstate 

Transmission Lines and other appropriate documents consistent with 

the three routing criteria described above. 

New projects within PHMAs that may require future utility lines, 

including distribution and transmission lines or pipelines, would include 

the proposed utility lines in their DDCT as part of the proposed 

disturbance. Lines permitted but not located in the above mentioned 

routes or a designated corridor will be counted towards the 5% 

disturbance calculation (line disturbance is equal to the anticipated 

construction footprint or construction ROW width multiplied by 

length and includes all access roads, staging areas, and other surface 

disturbance associated with construction outside of the construction 

ROW).

New Electric Distribution Lines (less than 115 kV):

New electric distribution lines would be buried where feasible and 

economically feasible. If not economically feasible, distribution lines 

may be authorized when effectively designed/mitigated to protect 

Greater Sage-Grouse and the Authorized Officer determines that 

overhead installation is the action alternative with the fewest adverse 

impacts while still meeting the project need. Agricultural and 

residential lines will be considered to be adequately mitigated for 

Greater Sage-Grouse if constructed at least 0.6 mile from the lek 

perimeter with appropriate timing constraints and constructed to the 

latest APLIC standards. These ROW authorizations will be subject to 

approval by the State Director.

Priority Transmission Lines:

GRSG-LR-SUA-GL-032-Guideline – In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, outside of existing 

designated corridors and rights-of-way, new transmission lines and 

pipelines should be buried to limit disturbance to the smallest footprint 

unless explicit rationale is provided that the biological impacts to 

greater sage-grouse are being avoided. If new transmission lines and 

pipelines are not buried, locate them adjacent to existing transmission 

lines and pipelines.
15

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

PHMAs are designated as avoidance areas for high voltage transmission 

line and pipeline ROWs, except for the transmission projects 

specifically identified below. All authorizations in these areas, other 

than the excepted projects, must comply with the conservation 

measures outlined in this proposed plan, including the Required Design 

Features (RDF) and avoidance criteria presented in Appendix B of this 

document. The BLM is currently processing an application for Gateway 

South, Gateway West and TransWest Express and the NEPA review 

for these projects is well underway. The BLM is analyzing Greater 

Sage-Grouse mitigation measures through the project’s NEPA review 

process.

Pipelines:

New pipelines through PHMAs would be allowed: (1) within an RMP 

corridor currently authorized for that use or designated through 

future RMP amendments; or (2) constructed in or adjacent to existing 

utilities (buried and above-ground) or roads. Pipelines constructed in 

RMP corridors or adjacent to existing utilities or roads will require 

completion of a DDCT analysis for baseline data collection but the 

project is not required to meet the threshold of 5%. However, within 

6 months of the completion of construction, the project proponent 

will provide the AO with as-built drawings so that total disturbance 

within core area can be calculated annually. 

The following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

No new corridor designations would be made in Bates Hole. When 

placement of a major ROW facility within a designated corridor is not 

possible, and for smaller ROW and other linear facilities, placement 

would be adjacent to existing facilities or disturbances. Cross-country 

placement of ROW and other linear facilities would be allowed only 

when placement in a designated corridor or adjacent to an existing 

facility is not practical or feasible. The extent of all surface disturbances 
16

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

would be minimized.

No new corridors would be established in the Sand Hills Management 

Area (MA); ROWs would be allowed when management objectives for 

the area can still be achieved.

All currently designated corridors would be maintained All special 

restrictions that apply to types of use/facilities on the corridors would 

be removed, except as noted for the Oregon Trail Road ROW 

Corridor, Segment A. The corridors include 351,020 acres, of which 

94,580 acres are federal surface. The widths/size of designated 

corridors would not change. Special restrictions applying to types of 

use/facilities on the corridors would be removed on a case-by-case 

basis. Existing corridors include:

1. Oregon Trail Road Corridor, Segment A

2. Oregon Trail Road Corridor, Segment B

3. Oregon Trail Road Corridor, Segment C

4. Poison Spider/Gas Hills Road Corridor

5. Highway 20-26 Corridor

6. Wyoming Highway 259/U.S. 87 Corridor

7. Wyoming Highway 387 Corridor

8. Lost Cabin-Arminto Road Corridor

9. RMP Change No. 2012-03: included the

10. West wide Energy Corridor

11. Cabin Creek Corridor

12. Existing Oregon Trail Road ROW Corridor, Segment A

Oregon Trail Road ROW Corridor, Segment A allows additional 

ROW facilities provided they are subsurface, surface, or low profile 

developments. ROW facilities that introduce visual intrusions on the 

skyline along the corridor would not be allowed. Special restrictions 

applying to types of use/facilities on the corridors would be removed 

on a case-by-case basis, and a new corridor, to be called the Cabin 

Creek Corridor, would be designated.
17

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Future Corridor Adjustments and New Corridor Designations:

Future corridor adjustments and new corridor designations would be 

made only when facility placement within an existing designated 

corridor is incompatible, unfeasible, or impractical and when the 

environmental consequences can be adequately mitigated. Problems of 

technical compatibility between facilities and spacing of facilities in 

corridors would be solved on a case-by-case basis. Special restrictions 

applying to types of use/facilities on the corridors would be removed 

on a case-by-case basis.

South Bighorns/Red Wall Management Area:

No corridors would be designated; however, ROWs would be allowed 

on a case-by-case basis when management objectives for the area 

could still be achieved.

Kemmerer RMP:

Utility corridors would be designated, based on use (i.e., power lines, 

pipelines, and fiber optic lines).

Preferred utility corridors would be 2 miles wide (width would be 

determined based on resource values) and designated as follows, but 

variances would be allowed based on application where conflicts with 

other resources were minimal or could be mitigated through 

resource-specific stipulations:

High-voltage power line corridors would be established north of and 

parallel to I-80, and along Wyoming State Highway 89 from the 

junction of I-80 and the Wyoming state line.

Fiber optic and low-voltage power line corridors would be located 

along currently established road systems (e.g., interstate or state 

highways and paved county roads).

Newcastle RMP:

Utility/transportation systems would be located adjacent to existing 
18

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

utility/transportation systems whenever practical. Areas to be avoided 

for new facility placement and routes would be identified on a case-bycase basis, rather than attempting to establish utility corridors.

Pinedale RMP:

Utility facilities would be restricted to existing routes and designated 

corridors where practicable, including environmental and 

socioeconomic considerations. Corridor routes include U.S. Highways 

189 and 191 and State Highways 189, 191, 350, 351, 352, 353, and 354. 

New corridors could be established as oil and gas fields are developed.

Rawlins RMP:

All BLM-administered public lands, except wilderness study areas 

(WSA) and some SD/MAs (including areas of critical environmental 

concern (ACEC)/Special Interest Areas (SIA)), would be open to 

consideration for placement of utility ROW systems. Each utility ROW 

would be located adjacent to existing facilities, when possible. Areas 

with important or sensitive resource values would be avoided.

Existing major transportation and utility ROW routes would be 

designated corridors. However, major transportation routes within the 

planning area that are located east of the Carbon County-Albany 

County line would not be considered for ROW corridor designation 

because of the scattered public landownership pattern in the area. All 

corridors would be designated for power lines (above ground and 

buried), telephone lines, and fiber optic lines.

Specific proposals would require site-specific environmental analysis 

and compliance with established permitting processes.

Activities generally excluded from ROW corridors include mineral 

materials disposal, range and wildlife habitat improvements involving 

surface disturbance and facility construction, campgrounds, and public 

recreation facilities and other facilities that would attract public use.

ROW facilities would not be placed adjacent to each other if issues 
19

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

with safety or incompatibility or resource conflicts were identified. The 

designated width, allowable uses, and excluded uses for each corridor 

may be modified during implementation of the Approved RMP.

Green River RMP:

Areas designated as utility windows would be preferred locations for 

future grants. Five windows have been identified: 2 east-west, 3 northsouth. Other areas would be considered for rights-of-way on a caseby-case basis. Windows 0.5 mile in width have been identified for the 

placement of utilities. The northern east-west window would be for 

underground facilities only, and the southern east-west window would 

be for both above and below ground facilities. A 0.5 mile wide northsouth window on the west side of Flaming Gorge, a window south 

along Highway 430, and a north-south window along the east side of 

Flaming Gorge have been identified for above and below ground 

utilities.

Jack Morrow Hills (JMH) Coordinated Activity Plan (CAP):

The planning area, with the exception of defined exclusion and 

avoidance areas, would be open to considering grants of rights-of-way 

if area objectives could be met. Exclusion areas are closed to rights-ofway. Avoidance and special management areas not identified as 

exclusion areas would be open to consideration only after site-specific 

analysis demonstrates area objectives could be met (see glossary) in 

Greater Sage-Grouse potential nesting habitat.

MA 34 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

Maintenance/replacement of existing structures would be allowed 

subject to valid and existing rights. Upgrades would be considered, 

subject to mandatory RDFs (Appendix B).

Existing guy wires should be removed or appropriately marked with 

bird flight diverters to make them more visible to sage-grouse in flight. 

Power lines (distribution and transmission) will be designed to 

GRSG-INFRA-GL-024-Guideline - In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, when constructing new infrastructure 

and during maintenance, replacement, and upgrades to existing 

infrastructure, impacts to greater sage-grouse and their habitats should 

be mitigated.

 Existing guy wires should be removed or appropriately marked 

with bird flight diverters to make them more visible to greater 

sage-grouse in flight. Authorization of new infrastructure with guy 

wires should be restricted.
20

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC 

standards.

Outside of PHMAs the following RMP decisions remain in 

effect:

Kemmerer RMP:

New utility lines would be buried or BLM-approved anti-perch devices 

would be installed on all new utility lines within sagebrush and/or 

semiarid shrub-dominated habitats, unless NEPA analysis shows little 

or no impact without burial or modification.

 Power lines (distribution and transmission) should be designed to 

minimize wildlife related impacts and constructed to the latest 

APLIC standards.

 When possible, perch deterrents should be installed on existing 

and new overhead facilities. Tanks and other above ground 

facilities should be equipped with structures or devices that 

discourage nesting and perching of raptors and corvids.

 Permanent structures should be designed or sited to minimize 

impacts to greater sage-grouse, with emphasis on locating and 

operating facilities that create movement (e.g., pump jacks) or 

attract frequent human use and vehicular traffic (e.g., fluid storage 

tanks) in a manner that will minimize disturbance of greater sagegrouse or interference with habitat use.

 Liquid gathering facilities should be placed outside priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas. To reduce truck 

traffic and perching and nesting of ravens and raptors, tanks should 

not be placed at well locations.

MA 35 - Within PHMA where existing authorizations, ROWs, or 

SUAs have had some level of development (e.g., road, fence, and well) 

and are expired and are no longer in use, the site would be reclaimed 

by removing these features and restoring the habitat. Power lines 

(distribution and transmission) will be designed to minimize wildlife 

related impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC standards.

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-027-Standard - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when a lands special use 

authorization is revoked or terminated and no future use is 

contemplated, require the authorization holder to remove overhead 

lines and other infrastructure in compliance with 36 CFR 251.60(i).

Renewable Energy

MA 36 - Within PHMAs, all RMPs are amended as follows:

Wind energy development would be avoided in PHMAs (Map 2-33), 

and not allowed unless it can be sufficiently demonstrated that the 

development activity would not result in declines of PHMA 

populations. Sufficient demonstration of “no declines” should be 

coordinated with the WGFD and USFWS.

For values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect:

Areas that are currently unavailable (Map 2-29) due to the need to 

GRSG-WS-GL-036-Guideline – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, restrict authorization of wind utilityscale and/or commercial energy development except for on-site power 

generation associated with existing industrial infrastructure (e.g., mine 

site).
21

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

protect sensitive resources would remain unavailable to wind energy 

development1.

MA 38 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse , all RMPs are amended as follows:

The use of guy wires for meteorological towers (MET) tower supports 

would be avoided within PHMAs. All existing and any new unavoidable 

guy wires should be marked with recommended bird deterrent 

devices.

The siting of new temporary MET towers within PHMAs would be 

avoided within 2 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks, unless they are 

out of the direct line of sight of the occupied lek.

Outside of PHMA the following RMP decisions remain in 

effect:

Kemmerer RMP:

New MET towers would be avoided within 1 mile of occupied 

sagebrush obligate habitats, unless anti-perch devices are installed. MET 

towers relying on guy wires for support would be prohibited in these 

habitats. Exceptions could be made if NEPA analysis shows little or no 

impact to sagebrush obligate species.

Rawlins RMP:

MET towers would be authorized on a case-by-case basis from 0.25 

mile to 1 mile of an occupied Greater Sage-Grouse and sharp-tailed 

grouse lek.

GRSG-LR-SUA-GL-031-Guideline - Authorization of new 

temporary MET towers should be restricted in priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas within 2 miles of occupied 

greater sage-grouse leks, unless they are out of direct line of sight of 

an occupied lek.

Land Tenure Adjustments (Acquisitions, Land Exchanges, Transfers and Sales)

MA 40 - Within PHMAs and GHMA, specific to management 

for Greater Sage-Grouse , all RMPs are amended as follows:

Lands classified as PHMAs for Greater Sage-Grouse would be retained 

in federal management unless: (1) the agency can demonstrate that 

disposal of the lands will provide a net conservation gain to the 

Greater Sage-Grouse or (2) the agency can demonstrate that the 

GRSG-LR-LOA-ST-033-Standard – In priority and general 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not approve 

landownership adjustments unless the action results in a net 

conservation gain to greater sage-grouse or it will not directly or 

indirectly adversely impact greater sage-grouse conservation.
22

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

disposal of the lands will have no direct or indirect adverse impact on 

conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse.

Exceptions would be considered where there is mixed ownership and 

land exchanges would allow for additional or more contiguous federal 

ownership patterns within PHMAs.

For PHMAs with minority federal ownership, an additional, effective 

mitigation agreement would be included for any disposal of federal 

land. As a final preservation measure, consideration should be given to 

pursuing a permanent conservation easement.

For lands in GHMAs that are identified for disposal, the BLM will only 

dispose of such lands consistent with the goals and objectives of this 

plan, including, but not limited to, the LUP goal to conserve, recover, 

and enhance sage-grouse habitat on a landscape scale.

For values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification 

described above:

Casper RMP:

224,830 acres of public lands are identified as potentially suitable for 

disposal. At the implementation stage, site-specific analysis with public 

participation will be conducted. Based on the analysis and public 

comments received, a determination will be made on whether disposal 

of the parcel is in the public’s best interest. If it is not in the public’s 

best interest, the parcel will be retained in public ownership.

Restricted Disposal – dispose of 5,450 acres on a restricted basis.

Allow land-use authorizations under FLPMA Section 302(b) leases and 

permits to meet public demand.

Evaluate on a case-by-case basis as proposals are presented. Potential 

lease and permit areas may include, but are not limited to the 

following:
23

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

 Areas where there are documented or existing trespass facilities 

that can be resolved by an authorization under this section

 Areas along major highways where developments may facilitate 

public needs

 Areas in or adjacent to residential, agricultural, commercial, or

industrial developments.

The BLM will pursue acquisition of lands and interest in lands in the 

South Bighorns/Red Wall area.

MA 41 - Within PHMAs and GHMA, specific to management 

for Greater Sage-Grouse , all RMPs are amended as follows:

Areas where acquisitions (including subsurface mineral rights) or 

conservation easements would benefit sage-grouse habitat would be 

identified.

Outside of PHMA and GHMA, and/or for values other than 

Greater Sage-Grouse, the following RMP decisions remain in 

effect with the modification described above:

Casper RMP:

The BLM would pursue acquisition of lands and interest in lands in the 

Bolton Creek Drainage and Bates Creek areas.

GRSG-LR-LOA-GL-034-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas with minority Federal 

ownership, consider landownership adjustments to achieve a 

landownership pattern (e.g., consolidation, reducing fragmentation) 

that supports improved greater sage-grouse population trends and 

habitats.

MA 42 - Sage-grouse habitat requirements would be utilized to 

prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition within PHMAs.

GRSG-LR-LOA-GL-034-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas with minority Federal 

ownership, consider landownership adjustments to achieve a 

landownership pattern (e.g., consolidation, reducing fragmentation) 

that supports improved greater sage-grouse population trends and 

habitats.

MA 43 - Within PHMAs, non-mineral withdrawals would be evaluated 

to determine if the withdrawal action is consistent with sage-grouse 

conservation.

GRSG-LR-LW-GL-035-Guideline – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, use land withdrawals as a tool, where 

appropriate, to prevent activities that will be detrimental to greater 

sage-grouse or their habitats.
24

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Livestock Grazing Management

MA 44 - The BLM policy in WO-IM-2009-007 and BLM Handbook H4180-1 would be used to evaluate land health standards achievement in 

PHMAs (core only) and, where not achieved, to determine if existing 

grazing management practices or levels of grazing use on public lands 

are significant factors in failing to achieve the standards and conform 

with the guidelines, which through this process will identify appropriate 

actions to address non-achievement and non-conformance.

When determining appropriate actions to address non-achievement of 

land health standards and non-conformance with the guidelines due to 

existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing use, 

management actions including but not limited to the following would 

be considered singly or in combination:

1. Season or timing of use

2. Numbers of livestock (includes temporary non-use or livestock 

removal)

3. Distribution of livestock use

4. Intensity of use 

5. Kind of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horses, llamas, alpacas and 

goats)

6. Class of livestock (e.g., yearlings versus cow calf pairs)

7. Range improvements.

Refer to the document, “Grazing Influence, Management, and 

Objective Development in Wyoming's Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat” 

(Cagney et al. 2010) for guidance when considering appropriate 

management actions to achieve conformance.

GRSG-LG-DC-037-Desired Condition – In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, livestock grazing 

is managed to ensure adequate nesting cover and does not conflict 

with the attainment of other vegetation attributes (Table 1).

GRSG-LG-GL-038-Guideline - Grazing guidelines in table 2 should 

be applied in each of the seasonal habitats in table 2. If values in table 2 

cannot be achieved based upon a site-specific analysis using Ecological 

Site Descriptions, long-term ecological site capability analysis, or other 

similar analysis, adjust grazing management to move towards desired 

habitat conditions in table 1 consistent with the ecological site 

capability. Do not use drought and degraded habitat condition to 

adjust values. Grazing guidelines in table 2 would not apply to isolated 

parcels of National Forest System lands that have less than 200 acres 

of greater sage-grouse habitat.

See Table 2. Grazing Guidelines for Greater Sage-grouse Seasonal 

Habitat.

GRSG-LG-GL-039-Guideline – On the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland, if 90% or more of the allotment falls within nesting or 

brood rearing habitat, 25% of the allotment would be exempted from 

the breeding/nesting residual perennial grass height guidelines in table 

2.

GRSG-LG-GL-045-Guideline – On the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland, where general habitat management areas overlap with 

Management Area 8.4 (Mineral Production), Management Area 3.63 

(Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat), or other designated 

areas for short-grass species, livestock grazing should be managed to 

meet the objectives for that Management Area.
25

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

MA 45 - Within PHMAs the BLM would work cooperatively with 

permittees, lessees, and other landowners to develop voluntary grazing 

management strategies that integrate both public and private lands into 

single management units to improve sage-grouse habitat.

Standard operating procedure.

Livestock Grazing Permit Monitoring

MA 46 - The following RMP decisions remain in effect:

Casper RMP:

Grazing leases would be adjusted where an evaluation of monitoring, 

field observations, or other data indicate changes, and either increases 

or decreases, in forage allocation are needed or when necessary or 

required by other applicable law or regulation.

Kemmerer RMP:

Vegetative communities would be managed in accordance with 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Appropriate livestock grazing management actions would be developed 

and integrated to address rangeland health standards, improve forage 

for livestock, and enhance rangeland health.

Newcastle RMP:

Any adjustments in livestock grazing use would be made as a result of 

monitoring and consultation with grazing permittees. Monitoring 

studies would be conducted using the current BLM-approved 

methodology.

Pinedale RMP:

Monitoring of the range and the vegetation resource would be 

conducted at a level sufficient to detect changes in grazing use, trend, 

and range conditions. Monitoring would be tied to land health 

standards and indicators that help determine change in status and 

progress toward meeting objectives. Data would be used to direct and 

support grazing management decisions consistent with national policy.

GRSG-LG-DC-037-Desired Condition – In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, livestock grazing 

is managed to ensure adequate nesting cover and does not conflict 

with the attainment of other vegetation attributes (table 1).
26

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Rawlins RMP:

Livestock grazing would be managed to meet the Wyoming Standards 

for Healthy Rangelands.

Green River RMP/JMH CAP:

The kinds and seasons of livestock grazing use would continue to be 

licensed until monitoring, negotiation, consultation, or a change in 

resources conditions indicate that a modification is needed. Monitoring 

would be continued or initiated following adjustments in grazing use to 

assure that grazing and other management objectives are being met.

Permit Renewals

MA 48 - Within PHMAs, all BLM use authorizations will contain terms 

and conditions regarding the actions needed to meet or progress 

toward meeting the habitat objectives. If monitoring data show the 

habitat objectives have not been met nor progress being made towards 

meeting them, there will be an evaluation and a determination made as 

to the cause. If it is determined that the authorized use is a cause, the 

use will be adjusted by the response specified in the instrument that 

authorized the use.

The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing 

permits/leases that includes lands within SFAs and PHMAs will include 

specific management thresholds based on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

objectives (Tables 2-2 and 2-3), Land Health Standards (43 CFR 

4180.2) and ecological site potential, and one or more defined 

responses that will allow the authorizing officer to make adjustments 

to livestock grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA analysis.

Direction concerning modifying AMPs to include GRSG requirements 

is expected to be included in the Record of Decision.

MA 49 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

BLM monitoring would be used to evaluate progress toward achieving 

land health standards within PHMAs and, where not achieved, to 

determine if existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing 

use on public lands are significant factors in failing to meet, maintain or 

Standard operating procedure.
27

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

make progress towards achieving the standards and conform with the 

guidelines, which through this process will identify appropriate actions 

to address non-achievement and non-conformance.

Allotments within SFAs, followed by those within PHMAs, and focusing 

on those containing riparian areas, including wet meadows, will be 

prioritized for field checks to help ensure compliance with the terms 

and conditions of the grazing permits. Field checks could include 

monitoring for actual use, utilization, and use supervision.

The BLM will prioritize (1) the review of grazing permits/leases, in 

particular to determine if modification is necessary prior to renewal, 

and (2) the processing of grazing permits/leases in SFAs followed by 

PHMAs outside of the SFAs. In setting workload priorities, precedence 

will be given to existing permits/leases in these areas not meeting Land 

Health Standards, with focus on those containing riparian areas, 

including wet meadows. The BLM may use other criteria for 

prioritization to respond to urgent natural resource concerns (e.g., 

fire) and legal obligations.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

Conversions in kinds of livestock and changes in season of use would 

be considered on a case-by-case basis through an environmental 

analysis. Such changes will be consistent with rangeland health 

objectives. Grazing leases will be adjusted to accurately reflect the kind 

of livestock use on public land in all allotments.

Kemmerer RMP:

Current amounts, kinds, and seasons of livestock grazing uses would 

be authorized until rangeland health standards assessment results and 

(or) monitoring indicates a grazing use adjustment is necessary, or that 

a kind and (or) class of livestock or season of use modification can be 
28

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

accommodated.

Newcastle RMP:

Any adjustments in livestock grazing use would be made as a result of 

monitoring and consultation with grazing permittees. Monitoring 

studies would be conducted using the current BLM-approved

methodology.

Pinedale RMP:

Conversions from one type of livestock to another would be evaluated 

on a case-by-case basis, including an environmental analysis, and would 

be authorized in conformance with the goals and objectives of the 

RMP.

Rawlins RMP:

The current amounts, kinds, and seasons of livestock grazing use 

would be authorized until monitoring, field observations, ecological site 

inventory, or other data acceptable to BLM indicates a grazing use 

adjustment is needed, as appropriate. Requests for changes in seasonof use or kind-of-livestock would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. Any decision regarding changes in grazing use would include 

cooperation, consultation, and coordination with the grazing 

permittees and the interested public.

Green River RMP:

The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997a) would 

apply to all resource uses on BLM-administered lands. These standards 

are the minimal acceptable conditions that address the health, 

productivity, and sustainability of the rangeland. The standards describe 

healthy rangelands rather than rangeland by-products.

Achievement of a standard is determined through observing, 

measuring, and monitoring appropriate indicators. An indicator is a 

component of a system whose characteristics (e.g., presence, absence, 

quantity, and distribution) can be observed, measured, or monitored 
29

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

based on sound scientific principles. The standards will direct the 

management of public lands and focus the implementation of this 

activity plan toward the maintenance or attainment of healthy 

rangelands.

MA 50 - Within PHMAs, at the time a permittee or lessee voluntarily 

relinquishes a permit or lease (see Grazing Relinquishment in the 

Glossary), the BLM will consider whether the public lands where that 

permitted use was authorized should remain available for livestock 

grazing or be used for other resource management objectives, such as 

reserve common allotments or fire breaks.

GRSG-LG-GL-040-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when livestock grazing 

permits and/or grazing preference are voluntarily relinquished, 

consider closure of grazing allotments, pastures, or portions of 

pastures, or managing the allotment as a forage reserve where removal 

of livestock grazing would enhance the ability to achieve desired 

habitat conditions (Table 1).

MA 52 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

When periods of drought occur, where appropriate, the AO would 

evaluate strategies to address drought through coordination with 

grazing permittee/lessee and annual billings processes.

In cooperation with livestock grazing permittees/lessees, drought 

contingency plans would be developed at the appropriate landscape 

unit that provide for a consistent/appropriate BLM response. 

Contingency plans should establish strategies for addressing ongoing 

drought and post-drought recovery.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

Other management considerations for use of stock driveway 

withdrawals (SDW) would include providing emergency use for relief 

from fire, drought, or other natural causes or to meet management 

objectives in adjoining allotments that require rest. These other uses 

would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and may occur any time 

during the year provided the AO has determined adequate forage is 

available and it does not interfere with regular trail use. The decision 

Standard operating procedure.
30

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

determining there is adequate forage would be documented and filed 

in the appropriate SDW file. Consultation and coordination with 

livestock owners who regularly use the respective SDW would be 

made prior to authorizing this type of use. This use would be 

authorized in accordance with federal grazing regulations.(also see 

Management Action 54 )

A drought contingency plan would be developed to maintain adequate 

habitat components for viable fish, wildlife, and Special Status Species 

populations.

Range Development Projects

MA 53 - Specific to management for all Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat, all RMPs are amended as follows:

In GHMAs and PHMAs, existing range improvements (e.g., fences, 

livestock/wildlife watering facilities) would continue to be evaluated 

and modified when necessary.

The potential risk to Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitats from 

existing structural range improvements would be evaluated. The 

potential for modification of those structural range improvements 

identified as posing a risk would be addressed.

Supplements and supplemental feeding would continue to be 

authorized where appropriate.

Outside of PHMA and GHMA, and/or for values other than 

Greater Sage-Grouse, the following RMP decisions remain in 

effect with the modification described above:

Casper RMP:

Identified hazard fences would be modified and new fences would be 

constructed in accordance with the BLM Fencing Handbook 1741-1. 

Decision 4010.

Placement of salt, mineral, or forage supplements for livestock would 

not be allowed within 0.25 mile of water, wetlands, and riparian areas, 

GRSG-LG-043-Guideline - Collision risk associated with existing 

fences within 1.2 miles of leks should be minimized through removal or 

modification (e.g. marking, laydown fences, or other design features).

GRSG-LG-GL-044-Guideline – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, new permanent livestock facilities, 

except fences, should not be constructed within 0.6 miles from the 

perimeter of occupied leks. In general habitat management areas, new 

permanent livestock facilities should not be constructed within 0.25 

miles of occupied leks.
31

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

unless written analysis shows that watershed, riparian, wetland, 

wildlife, and vegetative values would not be adversely impacted. Forage 

supplements would be required to be “certified weed-free.”

Kemmerer RMP:

BLM fencing standards would be applied to newly constructed fences 

on BLM-administered lands within the planning area.

Existing fences would be eliminated or modified to reduce conflicts on 

a case-by-case basis.

Livestock salt or mineral supplements would be located a minimum of 

0.25 mile away from water sources, riparian areas, and aspen stands. 

Buffers would be based on resource concerns on a case-by-case basis.

Newcastle RMP:

Fence construction would be required to meet current BLM fence 

standards.

Fences on BLM-administered public land surface that cause 

documented wildlife conflicts would be removed, reconstructed, or 

modified, as appropriate or necessary, to eliminate or reduce the 

conflict.

Construction of fences that interfere with movements of big game 

species in crucial big game winter range would not be allowed on BLMadministered public land surface.

Pinedale RMP:

Mineral supplement blocks would be placed in locations that promote 

proper grazing distribution and prevent inappropriate livestock use on 

riparian habitat; for example, by locating supplements on ridgetops 

and/or approximately 0.25 mile from riparian habitat. Placement of 

supplements near water sources, such as wells and reservoirs, would 

consider rangeland objectives, such as grazing distribution, wildlife 

habitat requirements, and reclamation success. Mineral supplement 
32

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

blocks would not be placed within 0.25 mile of an occupied sagegrouse lek. Mineral supplement blocks would not be placed within 0.25 

mile of known Special Status Plant Species locations.

Rawlins RMP:

New fence construction would be authorized according to BLM 

standards unless modified following consultation with affected parties. 

Existing fences would be modified according to current BLM standards 

and according to wildlife and livestock management needs.

Green River RMP/JMH CAP:

Where documented wildlife conflicts with fencing on public lands 

occur, fences would be modified, reconstructed, or, if necessary, 

removed. Herding control of livestock would be encouraged as an 

alternative to fencing. Fence construction would be in accordance with 

BLM design standards and located so as not to overly impede wildlife 

movement. Consideration would also be given to Special Status 

Species and wild horse movement.

Green River RMP:

Livestock water developments and range improvements would be 

considered to maintain or improve resource conditions, enhance 

livestock distribution, or both. Compatibility with special status plant

species would be required. Water developments and/or range 

improvements proposed in sensitive areas would be considered only if 

wildlife habitat and resource conditions are maintained or improved 

and no significant or irreversible adverse effects would occur.

Salt or nutritional supplements would be prohibited within 500 feet of 

riparian habitat and National Historic and Scenic Trails unless analysis 

shows that these resources would not be adversely affected. These 

supplements also would be prohibited on areas inhabited by special 

status plant species. Placement of supplements at least 500 feet away 

from wells, troughs, and other human-made water sources would be 
33

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

encouraged to better distribute livestock.

JMH CAP:

Livestock water developments and range improvements would be 

considered to maintain or improve resource conditions, enhance 

livestock distribution, or both. Compatibility with special status plant 

species would be required. Water developments and/or range 

improvements proposed in sensitive areas would be considered only if 

wildlife habitat and resource conditions were maintained or improved 

and no significant or irreversible adverse effects would occur.

Salt or nutritional supplements would be prohibited within 500 feet of 

riparian habitat and National Historic and Scenic Trails unless analysis 

shows that these resources would not be adversely affected. These 

supplements also would be prohibited on areas inhabited by special 

status plant species. Placement of supplements at least 500 feet away 

from wells, troughs, and other human-made water sources would be 

encouraged to better distribute livestock.

Livestock Trailing

MA 54 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse , all RMPs are amended as follows:

Livestock trailing that is authorized would include a trailing plan to 

utilize non-habitat to the extent possible, include specific routes and 

timeframes for trailing, utilize existing trails, and avoid stopovers on 

occupied leks, as appropriate.

The following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

The revocation of withdrawals for those trails that are no longer active 

would be reviewed and recommended and these lands would be 

incorporated into adjacent allotments (46,050 acres). Grazing leases 

would be offered to the respective grazing lessees. All remaining SDW 

GRSG-LG-GL-041-Guideline – Bedding sheep and locating camps 

within 0.6 mi from the perimeter of a lek during lekking (March 1 to 

May 15) should be restricted.

GRSG-LG-GL-042-Guideline – Trailing livestock should be routed 

through non-habitat or in areas that will minimize impacts to greater 

sage-grouse and their habitats. Specific routes and timeframes should 

be identified, existing trails should be used, and stopovers on occupied 

leks should be avoided
34

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

lands for trail use (55,680 acres) would be retained.

Kemmerer RMP:

Current livestock trails would be retained. Livestock trailing use would 

occur within 0.5 mile of the mapped centerline.

Pinedale RMP:

Adequate stock trails would be maintained to support livestock trailing 

needs.

Riparian Area Management

MA 55 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

Grazing between riparian habitats and upland habitats would be 

balanced to promote the production and availability of beneficial forbs 

to Greater Sage-Grouse for use during nesting and brood-rearing. 

Grazing in meadows, mesic habitats, and riparian pastures also would 

be balanced to promote the production and availability of beneficial 

grasses and forbs for use during late brood-rearing within PHMAs, 

while maintaining upland conditions and functions.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

Lotic and lentic wetland/riparian areas would be managed toward 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC).

The BLM would manage toward PFC and identified Desired Plant 

Community (DPC) on 350 miles of lotic and adjacent riparian habitat 

and 10,000 acres of lentic habitat to meet fish, wildlife, and Special 

Status Species habitat requirements.

Kemmerer RMP:

GRSG-GRSGH-DC-002-Desired Condition – In greater sagegrouse habitat management areas, including all seasonal habitats, 70% 

of lands capable of producing sagebrush have 10 to 30% sagebrush 

canopy cover and less than 10% conifer canopy cover. In addition, 

within breeding and nesting habitat, sufficient herbaceous vegetation 

structure and height provides overhead and lateral concealment for 

nesting and early brood rearing life stages. Within brood rearing 

habitat, wet meadows and riparian areas sustain a rich diversity of 

perennial forb species relative to site potential. Within winter habitat, 

sufficient sagebrush height and density provides food and cover for 

greater sage-grouse during this seasonal period. Specific desired 

conditions for greater sage-grouse based on seasonal habitat 

requirements are in table 1..
35

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Livestock conversions would be allowed in allotments with riparian 

concerns only when a plan is approved to address riparian issues. 

Management actions and range improvements proposed to address 

riparian issues would have to be implemented prior to authorizing the 

conversion. Livestock conversions may be approved only after 

completion of a suitability study for the conversion. The conversion 

may be authorized if it is determined that riparian habitats will be 

maintained or improved by the conversion.

Pinedale RMP:

Meet the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health and maintain or 

enhance wetland and riparian vegetation to achieve Proper Functioning 

Condition.

Grazing systems will be designed to maintain or improve watershed 

and range condition; for example, through changing seasons of use, 

implementing rotational or other grazing management systems, or 

developing infrastructure for livestock management.

In allotments with riparian habitat, grazing management actions will be 

designed to maintain or achieve proper functioning condition.

Green River RMP:

Range improvements will be directed at resolving or reducing resource 

concerns, improvement of wetland/riparian areas, and overall 

improvement of vegetation/ground cover. New range improvements 

may be implemented in “I” and “M” category allotments. Maintenance 

of range improvements will be required in accordance with the BLM 

Rangeland Improvement Policy.

JMH CAP:

Implementation of grazing management systems will assist in improving 

or maintaining the desired range condition. Approved AMPs, or other 

activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent to an AMP, 

for each of the designated grazing allotments will provide the necessary 
36

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

guidance for achieving grazing management objectives.

Appropriate actions for improving degraded rangeland and riparian 

habitat (i.e., meeting Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 

1997a)) could include, but will not be limited to, reduction of 

permitted animal unit months (AUM), modified turnout dates, livestock 

water developments, range improvements, modified grazing periods, 

growing season rest, riparian pastures, exclosures, implementation of 

forage utilization levels, and livestock conversions. These 

improvements will be considered individually using the method 

outlined in Appendix 2 of the JMH CAP ROD to ensure conformance 

with management objectives for the planning area and other resource 

values.

MA 56 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

Range improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a 

way that contributes to rangeland health and maintains and/or 

improves Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Green River RMP:

Water sources may be developed in crucial wildlife winter ranges only 

when consistent with wildlife habitat needs. Such sources will be 

designed to benefit livestock, wild horses, and wildlife. Alternative 

water supplies or facilities for livestock may be provided to relieve 

livestock grazing pressure along stream bottoms and improve livestock 

distribution.

JMH CAP:

Livestock water developments and range improvements will be 

considered to maintain or improve resource conditions, enhance 

livestock distribution, or both. Compatibility with special status plant 

GRSG-LG-043-Guideline - Collision risk associated with existing 

fences within 1.2 miles of leks should be minimized through removal or 

modification (e.g. marking, laydown fences, or other design features).

GRSG-LG-GL-044-Guideline – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, new permanent livestock facilities, 

except fences, should not be constructed within 0.6 miles from the 

perimeter of occupied leks. In general habitat management areas, new 

permanent livestock facilities should not be constructed within 0.25 

miles of occupied leks.
37

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

species will be required. Water developments and/or range 

improvements proposed in sensitive areas (Map 4) will be considered 

only if wildlife habitat and resource conditions are maintained or 

improved and no significant or irreversible adverse effects will occur.

MA 57 - Existing water developments associated with springs and 

seeps would be evaluated and associated pipelines/structures to those 

developments having a negative effect on PHMAs would be modified.

To be included in the Record of Decision.

Minerals Management

Exceptions to lease stipulations, Conditions of Approval, and terms and conditions

MA 58 - Exceptions waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, 

COAs, and terms and conditions (T&C), etc. for sage-grouse would 

continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis consistent with 

approved LUPs and other BLM policy and regulations as they relate to 

exceptions within PHMAs and GHMAs.

Footnote 3: 3On a case-by-case basis, and only when it can be 

demonstrated that the activity will not cause declines in greater sagegrouse populations, allow exceptions, modifications, and waivers. The 

authorized officer may grant an exception if a review determines that 

the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair the function 

or utility of the site for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat, lifehistory, or behavioral needs of greater sage-grouse.

Fluid Minerals Unleased Estate

MA 60 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse , all RMPs are amended as follows:

The BLM would allow oil and gas leasing consistent and subject to the 

leasing stipulations analyzed in the timing, distance, disturbance, and 

density restrictions sections (Map 2-8)(see Appendix E – Fluid Mineral 

Stipulations).

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Fluid mineral leasing would be allowed in PHMAs (core only), except in 

areas that are closed to leasing due to the need to protect other 

sensitive resources (Map 2-4).

GRSG-M-FMUL-ST-079-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, new oil and gas leases 

may be offered consistent and subject to the leasing stipulations in the 

timing, distance, density, and disturbance direction in section GRSGTDDD.
38

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

MA 61 - A minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal 

mineral estate would be applied within PHMAs.

Preliminary parcels reviewed for possible offering in a lease sale should 

comply with this minimum lease size. Expressions of interest that are 

less than this minimum lease size would be evaluated and modified by 

the BLM to meet the minimum lease size, where possible, prior to 

review for possible offering in a lease sale.

To be included in the Record of Decision.

MA 62 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse , all RMPs are amended as follows:

Geophysical exploration projects that are designed to minimize habitat 

fragmentation within PHMAs would be allowed, except where 

prohibited or restricted by existing LUP decisions, and in conformance 

with timing and distances stipulations (see actions 129 through 134).

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

The blocks of public land identified as mapped in the Casper Field 

Office GIS database will be managed to retain intact blocks of native 

vegetation (192,550 acres, of which 131,880 acres are BLMadministered surface). In these areas, the following restrictions apply:

1. These blocks are (1) unavailable for oil and gas leasing and (2) a 

geophysical operation on public surface for the life of the plan. 

Activities for existing oil and gas leases are managed intensively 

(see Appendix U of the Casper RMP). Existing leases will be 

allowed to expire and not be renewed.

2. Within these blocks, a withdrawal from the operation of the 

public land laws, including the mining laws will be pursued.

3. These blocks are closed to mineral material disposal. Existing 

permits will be allowed to expire without renewal or expansion.

4. These blocks are not open to wind/renewable energy 

GRSG-M-FMUL-ST-080-Standard – In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, require geophysical 

exploration projects to be designed to minimize greater sage-grouse 

habitat fragmentation.
39

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

development.

5. These blocks remain open to livestock grazing.

6. All allowed surface-disturbing activities within the designated 

blocks are subject to a Controlled Surface Use (CSU) restriction, 

minimizing surface disturbance to meet management objectives. 

Decision 4024

The North Platte River Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) 

will continue to be open to oil and gas leasing and geophysical 

operations. Decision 7039

The area is unavailable for oil and gas leasing and geophysical 

exploration is not allowed. Decision 7047

The MA is unavailable for new oil and gas leasing. No geophysical 

operations will be allowed on public surface.

Activities on existing leases will be managed intensively to meet the 

objectives of the MA (see Appendix U of the Casper RMP– Intensive 

Management). To minimize surface-disturbing activities, oil and gas 

exploration and development will use directional drilling techniques 

and well twinning whenever practicable. Decision 7059

The Red Wall/Gray Wall complex is located entirely within the South 

Bighorns/Red Wall MA and is unavailable for new oil and gas leasing. 

No geophysical operations will be allowed on public surface. Activities 

on existing leases will be intensively managed to meet the objectives of 

the MA (see Appendix U of the Casper RMP– Intensive Management). 

To minimize surface-disturbing activities, oil and gas exploration and 

development will use directional drilling techniques and well twinning 

whenever practicable. Decision 7063

Those lands currently open to oil and gas leasing will continue to be 

open to geophysical operations. Those lands open to oil and gas 

leasing, but subject to a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) restriction, may 

be open to geophysical operations should site specific NEPA analysis 

disclose a finding of no significant impact. No geophysical operations 
40

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

are allowed in areas closed for oil and gas leasing. Decision 2019

Kemmerer RMP:

Allow for geophysical exploration on lands throughout the planning 

area subject to identified conditions of approval.

Newcastle RMP:

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities associated with all types of 

minerals exploration and development and with geophysical 

exploration will be subject to appropriate mitigation measures 

determined through, but not limited to, use of the Wyoming BLM 

Mitigation Guidelines.

Pinedale RMP:

Vehicle-based geophysical activities will be assessed on a case-by-case 

basis.

The use of surface and/or above-ground (Poulter shot) explosive 

charges for geophysical exploration will be assessed case by case.

Geophysical projects, including projects proposed in areas with an 

NSO restriction, will be analyzed and mitigation developed on a caseby-case basis.

Geophysical activities that are considered casual use actions are 

allowed within 0.25 mile of active sage-grouse leks provided that:

 Operations are conducted on designated roads and trails.

 Operations during the breeding season (March 1 through May 15) 

are conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

 A 150-foot wide strip of undisturbed sagebrush is maintained 

around the perimeter of the lek for hiding and escape cover.

Rawlins RMP:

All lands open to oil and gas leasing consideration will also be open to 

geophysical exploration, subject to appropriate resource surveys, 
41

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

surface protection measures, adequate bonding, and adherence to 

State of Wyoming standards for geophysical operations.

Vehicular use for “necessary tasks” (as defined in the glossary), such as 

geophysical exploration including project survey and layout, will be

permitted except where specifically prohibited (e.g., some SD/MAs).

Green River RMP:

Geophysical exploration (vehicles and detonation) activities will be 

prohibited within 0.5 mile of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature. Areas of 

sensitive heritage resources and geologic features, such as Boars Tusk, 

White Mountain Petroglyphs, special status plant species, WSAs, and 

historic trails, will remain closed. Receiver lines may be laid using foot 

traffic within these areas. Exceptions to these restrictions may be 

granted on a case-by-case basis subject to appropriate site-specific 

analysis and mitigation requirements.

The remainder of the planning area will be open to geophysical 

exploration, with application of appropriate mitigation. Rights-of-way 

limitations in the planning area apply to on- and off-road vehicle traffic 

used for geophysical activities. Exploration activities will be allowed in 

sensitive resource areas only if they can be performed with acceptable 

mitigation of impacts.

JMH CAP:

Geophysical exploration (vehicles and detonation) activities will be 

prohibited within 0.5 mile of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature. Areas of 

sensitive heritage resources and geologic features, such as Boars Tusk, 

White Mountain Petroglyphs, special status plant species, WSAs, and 

historic trails, will remain closed. Receiver lines may be laid using foot 

traffic within these areas. Exceptions to these restrictions may be 

granted on a case-by-case basis subject to appropriate site-specific 

analysis and mitigation requirements.

The remainder of the planning area will be open to geophysical 

exploration, with application of appropriate mitigation. Rights-of-way 
42

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

limitations in the planning area apply to on- and off-road vehicle traffic 

used for geophysical activities. Exploration activities will be allowed in 

sensitive resource areas only if they can be performed with acceptable 

mitigation of impacts.

Fluid Minerals Leased Estate

MA 63 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

In cases where federal oil and gas leases have been issued with 

stipulations varying from those in Appendix E for the protection of 

sage-grouse or their habitats, as provided in the applicable LUP 

decision, as revised or amended, their inclusion as APD COAs would 

be considered when approving exploration and development activities 

through completion of the environmental record of review (43 CFR 

3162.5 and 36 CFR 228.108), including appropriate documentation of 

compliance with NEPA.

Overall consideration shall be given to minimizing the impact to sagegrouse through a project design that avoids, minimizes, reduces, 

rectifies, and/or adequately compensates for direct and indirect 

impacts to PHMAs or use and includes applicable and technical COAs. 

Selection and application of these measures shall be based on current 

science and research on the effects to important breeding, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and wintering areas. For proposed operations in 

PHMAs, the Surface Use Plan of Operations (see 43CFR 3162.3-1(f)) 

shall address, at a minimum, the anticipated noise, density and amount 

of disturbance, mechanical movement (e.g., pump jacks), permanent 

and temporary facilities, traffic, phases of development over time, 

offsite mitigation, and expected periods of use associated with the 

proposed project. Seasonal habitats or project features related to 

potential sage-grouse impacts that are not addressed in the Surface 

Use Plan of Operations based on site-specific or project-specific 

considerations shall be noted in the project file, along with a rationale 

for not including them.

GRSG-M-FML-ST-081-Standard – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas when approving the Surface Use Plan 

of Operation portion of the Application for Permit to Drill on existing 

leases that are not yet developed, require that leaseholders avoid and 

minimize surface disturbances and disruptive activities consistent with 

the rights granted in the lease.

GRSG-M-FML-ST-083-Standard – Locate compressor stations on 

portions of a lease that are non-habitat and are not used by greater 

sage-grouse, and if there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative 

effects on greater sage-grouse or their habitat. If this is not possible, 

work with the operator to use mufflers, sound insulation, or other 

features to reduce noise consistent with GRSG-TDDD-ST-015-

Standard.

GRSG-M-FML-GL-085-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas on existing leases, 

operators should be encouraged to reduce disturbance to greater 

sage-grouse habitat. At the time of approval of the Surface Use Plan of 

Operation portion of the Application for Permit to Drill, terms and 

conditions should be included to reduce disturbance to greater sagegrouse habitat, where appropriate and feasible and consistent with the 

rights granted to the lessee.

GRSG-M-FML-GL-086-Guideline – On existing federal leases in 

priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, when surface occupancy cannot be restricted due to valid 

existing rights or development requirements, disturbance and surface 

occupancy should be limited to areas least harmful to greater sagegrouse, based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat features.
43

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

In this process the BLM would evaluate, among other things:

1. Whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” (43 CFR 

3101.1-2) and consistent with valid existing rights

2. Whether the action is in conformance with the approved LUP; 

and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.

The BLM would work with project proponents in these situations to 

promote measurable sage-grouse conservation objectives such as, but 

not limited to, consolidation of project related infrastructure to reduce 

habitat fragmentation and loss and to promote effective conservation 

of seasonal habitats and PHMAs (connectivity only) that support 

population management objectives set by the state.

The BLM would continue to work with project proponents and the 

WGFD to site their projects in locations that meet the purpose and 

need for their project, but have been determined to contain the least 

sensitive habitats (based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat 

features) and resources whether inside or outside of PHMAs (utilizing 

DDCT analysis process). Valid existing rights would be recognized and 

respected.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Kemmerer RMP:

Choose and implement appropriate mitigation in a timely manner to 

minimize decreases in habitat function.

Utilize appropriate voluntary offsite compensatory mitigation to 

reduce impacts. This would be necessary if (1) all onsite mitigation has 

been accomplished and adverse effects have not been mitigated; or (2) 

if onsite mitigation is not feasible.

Pinedale RMP:

Offsite mitigation proposed by oil and gas or other operators could be 
44

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

considered and analyzed in future environmental documents as 

mitigation for proposed activities within the planning area. Proposed 

offsite mitigation will be described and analyzed for effectiveness in 

detail on a project-specific basis. Offsite mitigation would conform to 

requirements in the Pinedale RMP regarding the order of use of

mitigation methods, stipulations applied to offsite mitigation measures, 

and priority order for mitigating resource impacts onsite or offsite.

Green River RMP:

Development actions will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to 

identify mitigation needs to meet RMP objectives, provide for resource 

protection, and provide for logical development. Limitations on the 

amount, sequence, timing, or level of development may occur. This 

may result in transportation planning and in limitations in the number 

of roads and drill pads, or deferring development in some areas until 

other areas have been restored to previous uses.

JMH CAP:

COAs attached to an APD will be based on site-specific NEPA or 

other analysis and will establish specific, necessary mitigation measures 

not covered by stipulations for resource and environmental 

protection. Some areas will need more intensive mitigation measures 

to protect sensitive resources and provide for public health and safety. 

These intensive mitigation measures or COAs will mostly apply to 

areas with overlapping sensitive resources (e.g., Areas 2 and 3). 

Examples of intensive mitigation that can apply to all activities based on 

site-specific analysis include offsite placement of facilities, remote 

control monitoring, restricted or prohibited surface use including road 

construction, multiple wells from a single pad, central tank 

batteries/facilities, and pipelines and power lines concentrated in 

specific areas. In addition, refer to Section 3.12.3 for additional 

mitigation measures that may apply as part of the transportation plan.
45

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

MA 64 - Within PHMAs, field offices would work with project 

proponents (including those within BLM) to site their projects in 

locations that minimize impacts to sensitive resources.

GRSG-M-FML-ST-081-Standard – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas when approving the Surface Use Plan 

of Operation portion of the Application for Permit to Drill on existing 

leases that are not yet developed, require that leaseholders avoid and 

minimize surface disturbances and disruptive activities consistent with 

the rights granted in the lease.

MA 66 - Master Development Plans would be considered and 

encouraged for projects involving multiple proposed disturbances 

within PHMAs.

The Forest Service will work with the BLM to complete Master 

Development Plans.

MA 67 - Within PHMAs, unitization would be encouraged as a means 

of minimizing adverse impacts to sage-grouse to reduce fragmentation 

and surface disturbing and disruptive activities. Require unitization 

when deemed necessary for proper development and operation of an 

area or to facilitate more orderly (e.g., phased and/or clustered) 

development as a means of minimizing adverse impacts to resources, 

including Greater Sage-Grouse, so long as the unitization plan 

adequately protects the rights of all parties, including the United States.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-092-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, to keep habitat 

disturbance at a minimum, a phased development approach should be 

applied to fluid mineral operations, wherever possible, consistent with 

the rights granted under the lease. Disturbed areas should be 

reclaimed as soon as they are no longer needed for mineral 

operations.

MA 68 - The BLM should closely examine the applicability of 

categorical exclusions in PHMAs and GHMAs. If extraordinary 

circumstances review is applicable, the BLM should determine whether 

those circumstances exist. For proposed actions in PHMAs, determine 

whether a categorical exclusion is applicable and if so, closely examine 

the extraordinary circumstances, if applicable, to determine whether 

one or more exists that would require preparation of a NEPA analysis. 

If a categorical exclusion applies, and no extraordinary circumstances 

exist, determine whether preparing a NEPA analysis would help inform 

decisionmaking.

The Forest Service NEPA guidance for categorical exclusions is found 

in the Forest Service handbook at 1909.15 Chapter 30.

MA 69 - Federal Regulations, 43 CFR 3104.1 requires that a bond be 

furnished before any drilling or surface disturbance activities begin. The 

lessee, sublessee or the operator must furnish a surety or personal 

bond in the amount of at least $10,000 to ensure compliance with all 

the lease terms, including protection of the environment. With the 

consent of the surety and principal, the operator may use the bond of 

another party, such as the lessee. Each time there is a new operator, 

GRSG-M-FML-ST-082-Standard – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, when facilities are no longer needed 

or leases are relinquished, require reclamation plans to include terms 

and conditions to restore habitat to desired conditions as described in 

table 1.
46

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

that operator must notify the BLM that he/she is the responsible 

operator, giving the particulars of the bond under which he/she will 

operate. The BLM can require an increase in a bond amount any time 

conditions warrant such an increase.

Per 36 CFR 228.109, as part of the review of a proposed surface use 

plan of operations, the authorized forest officer shall consider the 

estimated cost to the Forest Service to reclaim those areas that would 

be disturbed by operations and to restore any lands or surface waters 

adversely affected by the lease operations after the abandonment or 

cessation of operations on the lease. If at any time prior to or during 

the conduct of operations, the authorized forest officer determines the 

financial instrument held by the Bureau of Land Management is not 

adequate to ensure complete and timely reclamation and restoration, 

the authorized forest officer shall give the operator the option of 

either increasing the financial instrument held by the Bureau of Land 

Management or filing a separate instrument with the Forest Service in 

the amount deemed adequate by the authorized forest officer to 

ensure reclamation and restoration. The authorized forest officer shall 

consider the costs of the operator's proposed reclamation program 

and the need for additional measures to be taken when estimating the 

cost to the Forest Service to reclaim the disturbed area.

A reclamation bond would be required on all projects that is 

commensurate with the scope, scale, size of the project within PHMAs. 

Partial bonding may be appropriate depending on these factors.

MA 70 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

Produced water from coalbed natural gas (CBNG) wells will be treated 

and disposed of in collaboration and consistent with the requirements 

of the state, and required design features specified in Management 

Action 10 (see Appendix B).

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

No similar management direction.
47

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

modification described above:

Pinedale RMP:

Produced water from CBNG wells will be treated and disposed of in 

collaboration and consistent with the requirements of the state.

MA 71 - Specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse , 

within PHMA (core only), all RMPs are amended as follows:

Where the federal government owns the mineral estate, and the 

surface is in non-federal ownership, apply the same stipulations, COAs, 

and/or conservation measures and RDFs applied if the mineral estate is 

developed on BLM-administered lands in that management area, to the 

maximum extent permissible under existing authorities, and in 

coordination with the landowner.

Within PHMAs (non-core only) and outside of PHMA and/or 

for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification 

described above:

Pinedale RMP:

BLM-permitted actions on split estate lands are subject to the same 

stipulations as leased federal mineral estate on federal surface lands, 

provided the stipulations do not adversely affect the surface owner’s 

land use or actions. Exceptions to surface development restrictions 

could be granted if requested or agreed to by the surface owner.

The Forest Service has no jurisdiction over mineral estate when they 

are not the surface owner. The BLM is solely responsible for mineral 

estate under non-federal surface ownership.

MA 72 - Within PHMAs where the federal government owns the 

surface and the mineral estate is in non-federal ownership, apply 

appropriate surface use COAs, stipulations, and mineral RDFs through 

ROW grants or other surface management instruments, to the 

maximum extent permissible under existing authorities, in 

coordination with the mineral estate owner/lessee.

GRSG-M-FML-GL-087-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, where the Federal 

government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in non-Federal 

ownership coordinate with the mineral estate owner/lessee to apply 

appropriate stipulations, conditions of approval, conservation measures 

and required design features to the appropriate surface management 

instruments to the maximum extent permissible under existing 

authorities.
48

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

See MA 10. Similar actions are found in Appendix B – Required 

Design Features.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-088-Guideline – In priority and important 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize 

employee camps.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-089-Guideline – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, closed‐loop systems should be used 

for drilling operations with no reserve pits, where feasible.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-090-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, during drilling operations, 

soil compaction should be minimized and soil structure should be 

maintained using the best available techniques to improve vegetation 

reestablishment.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-091-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, dams, impoundments and 

ponds for mineral development should be constructed to reduce 

potential for West Nile virus. Examples of methods to accomplish this 

include:

 Increase the depth of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of 

water than is discharged. 

 Build steep shorelines (greater than 2 feet) to reduce shallow 

water and aquatic vegetation around the perimeter of 

impoundments to reduce breeding habitat for mosquitoes. 

 Maintain the water level below that of rooted aquatic and upland 

vegetation. Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or 

low-lying areas. 

 Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down-slope 

seepage or overflow by digging ponds in flat areas rather than 

damming natural draws for effluent water storage or lining 

constructed ponds in areas where seepage is anticipated.

 Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with 

crushed rock or use a horizontal pipe to discharge inflow directly 

into existing open water.

 Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock and construct the 
49

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

spillway with steep sides.

 Fence pond sites to restrict access by livestock and other wild 

ungulates.

 Remove or re‐inject produced water. 

 Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where 

water occurs on the surface.

Solid Leasable Minerals

MA 75 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

At the time an application for a new coal lease or lease modification is 

submitted to the BLM, the BLM will determine whether the lease 

application area is "unsuitable" for all or certain coal mining methods 

pursuant to 43 CFR 3461.5. PHMA is essential habitat for maintaining 

Greater Sage-Grouse for purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at 

43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1).

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

If coal development potential is shown to exist, all BLM-administered 

lands outside the Coal Development Potential Area (CDPA) will be 

considered for coal leasing, unless specifically closed to mineral leasing. 

The coal-screening process will be completed on all newly identified 

lands having coal development potential.

All BLM-administered lands within the CDPA identified in the 2001 

Buffalo RMP maintenance action are acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing. The only exceptions are those lands 

determined unacceptable within the area. The coal unsuitability criteria 

are re-evaluated whenever new coal lease applications are received.

Kemmerer RMP:

GRSG-M-CM-ST-093-Standard – Apply all restrictions listed in the 

Timing, Distance, Density and Disturbance section to coal exploration 

and new coal lease projects.

GRSG-M-CM-ST-094-Standard – Priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas are essential habitat for maintaining 

greater sage-grouse for purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at 

43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1).

GRSG-M-CM-GL-095-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when coal leases are 

subject to readjustment, additional requirements should be included in 

the readjusted lease to protect and reduce threats to conserve, 

enhance, and restore greater sage-grouse and their habitat for longterm viability.
50

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Process new coal lease applications by using the coal screening 

process. The coal screening process results will determine which lands 

may be available for further consideration for coal leasing and 

development. Appropriate NEPA analysis would be required prior to 

leasing. Federal land within the proposed Haystack project area is 

determined acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing and 

development. No coal LBAs will be considered for Rock Creek/Tunp 

and Bear River Divide management areas.

Pinedale RMP:

Decisions on lands acceptable for leasing consideration for coal 

development will be made after an application is received and the coal 

screening process is conducted.

Rawlins RMP:

Federal coal lease applications will be accepted only on those federal 

coal lands with development potential identified as suitable for further 

leasing consideration after application of the coal unsuitability criteria 

(the above-mentioned approximately 51,250 acres and 2,318.7 million 

tons of surface minable federal coal).

Green River RMP/JMH CAP:

Federal coal lands within the Coal Occurrence and Development 

Potential area (about 422,000 acres) are open to further consideration 

for coal leasing and development (i.e., new competitive leasing, 

emergency leasing, lease modifications, and exchange proposals, under 

the Federal Coal Management Program) with appropriate and 

necessary conditions and requirements for protection of other land 

and resource values and uses.

MA 76 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

Upon receipt of a coal lease application proposing underground mining 

methods that include surface operations and impacts within PHMAs, 

Criterion 15 would be applied and the area would be identified as 

No similar management direction.
51

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

suitable for further coal leasing consideration after consultation with 

the state and, where applicable, surface management agency to 

determine that all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining will not 

have a significant long-term impact on sage-grouse. Stipulated methods 

may include, but not limited to, underground mining methods with no 

placement of surface facilities.

Unsuitability is not applied to underground operations without surface 

impacts (43 CFR 3461.1) This would be consistent with Instruction 

Memorandum (IM) WY WY-2012-019 says that the BLM will assess 

potential impacts to sage-grouse through the NEPA process, and that 

the state regulatory agency would apply this mitigation, as well as 

protective measures consistent with the state policy for solid leasable 

mining action at the permitting stage.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

If coal development potential is shown to exist, all BLM-administered 

lands outside the CDPA will be considered for coal leasing, unless 

specifically closed to mineral leasing. The coal-screening process will be 

completed on all newly identified lands having coal development 

potential.

All BLM-administered lands within the CDPA identified in the 2001 

Buffalo RMP maintenance action are acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing. The only exceptions are those lands 

determined unacceptable within the area. The coal unsuitability criteria 

are re-evaluated whenever new coal lease applications are received.

Kemmerer RMP:

Process new coal lease applications by using the coal screening 

process. The coal screening process results will determine which lands 

may be available for further consideration for coal leasing and 
52

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

development. Appropriate NEPA analysis would be required prior to 

leasing. Federal land within the proposed Haystack project area is 

determined acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing and 

development. No coal LBAs will be considered for Rock Creek/Tunp 

and Bear River Divide management areas.

Pinedale RMP:

Decisions on lands acceptable for leasing consideration for coal 

development will be made after an application is received and the coal 

screening process is conducted.

Rawlins RMP:

Federal coal lease applications will be accepted only on those federal 

coal lands with development potential identified as suitable for further 

leasing consideration after application of the coal unsuitability criteria 

(the above-mentioned approximately 51,250 acres and 2,318.7 million 

tons of surface minable federal coal).

Green River RMP/JMH CAP:

Federal coal lands within the Coal Occurrence and Development 

Potential area (about 422,000 acres) are open to further consideration 

for coal leasing and development (i.e., new competitive leasing, 

emergency leasing, lease modifications, and exchange proposals, under 

the Federal Coal Management Program) with appropriate and 

necessary conditions and requirements for protection of other land 

and resource values and uses.

MA 77 - Coal exploration activities could be allowed in PHMAs if they 

can be completed in compliance to surface occupancy and disturbance 

and density stipulations analyzed through the DDCT process.

GRSG-M-CM-ST-093-Standard – Apply all restrictions listed in the 

Timing, Distance, Density and Disturbance section to coal exploration 

and new coal lease projects.
53

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Solid Leasable Minerals (Other than Coal and Oil Shale)

MA 78 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

All non-energy leasable mineral activities would be considered in 

PHMAs, provided that the activities can be completed in compliance to 

surface occupancy and disturbance and density stipulations (Map 2-28) 

analyzed through the DDCT process.

Exploration licenses and prospecting permits would be considered 

with appropriate mitigating measures.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Portions of PHMAs would be unavailable for leasing (Map 2-24) in 

accordance with existing RMP decisions for resource values other than 

Greater Sage-Grouse.

Kemmerer RMP:

Sodium: All public lands (outside of the Raymond Mountain WSA and 

exceptions identified below) within the planning area are available for 

sodium leasing consideration. Exploration for sodium will be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. Limited surface occupancy criteria 

contained in the Sodium Mineral Development Environmental 

Assessment will be applied on a case-by-case basis. No new sodium 

leases or exploration licenses may be issued on lands within the 

Raymond Mountain WSA. No new sodium exploration and leasing will 

be considered for Rock Creek/Tunp and Bear River Divide 

management areas.

Phosphate: All public lands (outside of the Raymond Mountain WSA 

and exceptions identified below) within the planning area are available 

for phosphate leasing consideration. Exploration for phosphate will be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. No new phosphate exploration and 

GRSG-M-NEL-GL-098-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, at the time of issuance of 

prospecting permits, exploration licenses and leases, or readjustment 

of leases for non-energy leasable minerals, the Forest Service should 

provide recommendations to the Bureau of Land Management for the 

protection of greater sage-grouse and their habitats.

GRSG-M-NEL-GL-099-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, the Forest Service should 

recommend to the Bureau of Land Management that expansion or 

readjustment of existing leases avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects 

to greater sage-grouse and their habitat.
54

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

leasing will be considered for Rock Creek/Tunp and Bear River Divide 

management areas.

Pinedale RMP:

Should interest in other leasable minerals materialize in the future, 

leasing will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the RMP will be 

amended as appropriate and necessary. The same surface disturbance 

restrictions will be used in analyzing leasing proposals and determining 

the issuance of any leases (for example, geothermal steam, coal, 

sodium, oil shale, and phosphate).

Green River RMP/JMH CAP:

The known sodium leasing area is open to exploration and 

consideration for leasing and developments, but is closed to 

prospecting permits.

The remainder of the planning area is open to sodium prospecting 

except for areas that are closed to mineral leasing, surface mining, or 

mechanical prospecting type activities (areas closed to drilling, off road 

vehicle use, and explosive charges).

Sodium (trona) leasing will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and 

is subject to the same conditional requirements as oil and gas and coal, 

and the general management direction applied in this RMP.

Locatable Mineral Activities

MA 79 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

252,160 acres within SFAs (see management action 139 for 

identification of SFAs) would be recommended for withdrawal from 

the General Mining Act of 1872, subject to valid existing rights. 

894,060 acres would be considered for recommendation for 

withdrawal from mineral entry, based on risk to sage-grouse and its 

habitat from conflicting locatable mineral location and entry. A total of 

approximately 20,357,630 acres are open to locatable mineral location 

GRSG-M-LM-ST-096-Standard – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, only approve Plans of Operation with 

mitigation to protect greater sage-grouse and their habitats, consistent 

with the rights of the mining claimant as granted by the Mining Law of 

1872, as amended.

GRSG-M-LM-ST-097-Standard – The disturbance cap described in 

GRSG-TDDD-ST-023-Standard will not be applied to foreclose 

development of locatable minerals on unpatented claims located under 

the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended; the disturbance from 
55

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

and entry (Map 2-23).Operators may be requested to submit 

modifications to the accepted notice or approved plan of operations so 

that the operations minimally impact PHMAs. The AO may convey to 

the operator suggested conservation measures, based upon the notice 

or plan level operations and the geographic area of those operations 

[also called the project area which is defined in 43 CFR 3809.5 and 36 

CFR 228.3.

These suggested conservation measures include measures that support 

the overall goals and objectives of the core population area strategy, 

though measures listed for protection of sage-grouse breeding, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and wintering may not be reasonable or applicable to 

the BLM’s determination of whether the proposed operations will 

cause unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.5 and 36 

CFR 228.3. The request containing the suggested conservation 

measures must make clear that the operator’s compliance is not 

mandatory.

Notices or Plans of Operation, or modifications thereto, submitted 

following the issuance of this guidance: As part of the 15 day 

completeness review of notices [or modifications thereto] and 30 day 

completeness review of plans of operations [or modifications thereto], 

the proposed project area(s) where exploration, development, mining, 

access and reclamation would take place should be reviewed for 

overlap of PHMAs in the corporate GIS database. If there is overlap, 

the BLM AO may notify the operator of ways that they may minimize 

impacts to PHMAs and request the operator to amend its notice or 

plan to include such measures. The request to amend the submitted 

notice or plan of operations must make clear that the operator’s 

compliance is not mandatory and that including such measures is not a 

requirement for completeness of either the notice or a plan of 

operations, nor is it a condition of acceptance of the notice or 

approval of the plan of operations.

For values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect:

locatable mining will be accounted for when determining the percent 

disturbance and whether the cap has been exceeded.
56

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

1,785,230 acres are withdrawn from mineral entry for the protection 

of sensitive resources (see Map 2-19).

Salable Minerals

MA 80 - PHMAs would be open to mineral material exploration, sales, 

and free use permits, except in areas that are unavailable due to the 

need to protect other resource values (Map 2-14).

All salable mineral activities within PHMAs would be considered, 

provided they can be completed in compliance within surface 

occupancy, seasonal restrictions, and disturbance and density 

stipulations (Map 2-18 and Management Actions 126,127,129 

through134) analyzed through the DDCT process.

GRSG-M-MM-ST-100-Standard – Apply all restrictions listed in the 

Timing, Distance, Density and Disturbance section to authorizations 

for mineral material sales and free use.

MA 81 - Within PHMAs closure and restoration of salable mineral pits 

no longer in use would be considered to meet sage-grouse habitat 

conservation objectives. Emphasis would be given to 

reclamation/restoration of PHMAs as a viable long term goal to 

improve sage-grouse habitat.

GRSG-M-MM-ST-101-Standard - Permits for mineral material 

operations in priority, sagebrush focal, or general sage-grouse habitat 

management areas, must include appropriate requirements for 

reclamation of the site to restore, enhance, or maintain desired habitat 

conditions (table 1).

Recreation and Visitor Services

Outdoor Recreation Management

MA 82 - Specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse or 

PHMA, all RMPs are amended as follows:

BLM Special Recreation Permits (SRP) would be allowed in PHMAs, 

unless negative impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately mitigated.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

The entire planning area will remain open to dispersed recreation. The 

camping limit on public lands is set by BLM policy and is currently 

limited to 14 days. Emphasis will be placed on providing interpretive 

and information signs and materials for public land visitors, maintaining 

GRSG-R-DC-064-Desired Condition – In priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, recreation activities are 

balanced with the ability of the land to support them, while meeting 

greater sage-grouse seasonal habitat desired conditions (table 1) and 

creating minimal user conflicts. 

GRSG-R-ST-065-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize 

temporary recreation uses (i.e., facilities or activities) that result in loss 

of habitat or would have long-term (i.e., greater than 5 years) negative 

impact on greater sage-grouse or their habitats.

GRSG-R-GL-066-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas habitat management 

areas, terms and conditions that protect and restore greater sage-
57

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

existing facilities to a high standard consistent with the recreational 

setting, and limiting development of additional facilities to those areas 

where public recreational use of surrounding public lands requires. 

Work with state, local groups, and adjacent landowners will be 

conducted to identify and develop recreational trails, both motorized 

and non-motorized, when the opportunities presents themselves. SRPs 

will be allowed for commercial, noncommercial, and competitive 

events on a case-by-case basis. Cooperation will be maintained with a 

variety of user groups, especially in the local area, to provide diverse 

recreational opportunities for enjoyment of public lands. BLM will 

pursue acquisition of lands and interest in lands in the Rattlesnake 

Range and Pine Ridge areas, as well as promote and support 

recreation-based tourism.

Kemmerer RMP:

Allow dispersed recreation and permit special recreational activities 

(e.g., outfitting and guiding permits and off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

events permitted on an annual basis after evaluation).

Green River RMP:

Special recreation permits will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Appropriate mitigation will be included in special recreation permits, 

commercial recreation uses, and major competitive recreation events 

to provide resource protection and public safety.

JMH CAP:

Special recreation use permits for managed activities that occur in the 

JMH CAP planning area will be reviewed and subject to 

recommendations made by the Rock Springs Field Office. This will 

allow the Rock Springs Field Office to track the amount, location, and 

timing of organized activity occurring within the planning area to 

monitor resource pressure. The permit evaluation process will 

consider the nature of the event, potential impacts to resources, 

conflicts with other events, and impacts to the quality of other visitors’ 

grouse habitats within the permit area should be included in new 

recreation special use authorizations. During renewal, amendment, or 

reauthorization, terms and conditions in existing permits and operating 

plans should be modified to protect and/or restore greater sagegrouse habitat.
58

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

experiences. Mitigation measures necessary to protect the resources 

will be included in any permit issued. A plan of operation will be 

required for all commercial recreational operators and outfitters. The 

plan will describe the type, extent, and location of the recreation use 

and the mechanisms by which the operator/outfitter will prevent 

impacts to environmental resources. Any requests in special recreation 

use permit applications to remove natural resources will be evaluated 

on a case-by-case basis after an environmental analysis process.

MA 82a - In PHMAs, do not construct new recreation facilities (e.g., 

campgrounds, trails, trailheads, staging areas) unless the development 

would have a net conservation gain to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

(such as concentrating recreation, diverting use away from critical 

areas, etc.), or unless the development is required for visitor health 

and safety or resource protection.

GRSG-R-GL-067-Guideline – In priority habitat management areas 

and sagebrush focal areas, new recreational facilities or expansion of 

existing recreational facilities (e.g., roads, trails, campgrounds), 

including special use authorizations for facilities and activities, should 

not be approved unless the development results in a net conservation 

gain to greater sage-grouse and/or their habitats or the development is 

required for visitor safety.

Special Designations and Other Management Areas

MA 84 - New sage-grouse conservation ACECs would not be 

designated.

No similar management direction. ACECs are not a land designation 

on National Forest System lands.

Travel Management

MA 86 - Specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all 

RMPs are amended as follows:

1. Within PHMAs, designate the non-sand dune portions of the 

following OHV Open Areas as OHV Limited Area. The OHV 

limitation would ultimately be to “Designated Routes” as 

determined through a subsequent implementation/activity level 

Travel Management Plan. In the interim, motorized use on 

existing routes may occur; however, no new routes may be 

created without specific authorization: Rawlins Field Office: Dune 

Pond Cooperative Management Area.

2. Rock Springs Field Office: Portion of the Greater Sand Dunes 

Recreation Area.

There are no “open” OHV areas on National Forest System Lands 

included in this LUP amendment.
59

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

The following RMP decisions remain in effect:

The Casper Field Office Poison Spider OHV Park (290 acres) would 

remain as an “open” OHV area.

MA 87 - Within PHMAs and GHMAs, all motorized use (of which 

OHVs are a subset) would be limited to designated routes. Route 

designations will occur in subsequent implementation/activity level 

Travel Management Plans. In the interim motorized use on existing 

routes may occur; however, no new routes may be created without 

specific authorization. In PHMAs and GHMAs, temporary closures will 

be considered in accordance with 43 CFR subpart 8364 (Closures and 

Restrictions); 43 CFR subpart 8351 (Designated National Area); 43 

CFR subpart 6302 (Use of Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and 

Penalties); 43 CFR subpart 8341 (Conditions of Use).

Temporary closure or restriction orders under these authorities are 

enacted at the discretion of the Authorized Officer to resolve 

management conflicts and protect persons, property, and public lands 

and resources. Where an Authorized Officer determines that offhighway vehicles are causing or will cause considerable adverse effects 

upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, 

historical resources, threatened or endangered species, wilderness 

suitability, other authorized uses, or other resources, the affected 

areas shall be immediately closed to the type(s) of vehicle causing the 

adverse effect until the adverse effects are eliminated and measures 

implemented to prevent recurrence. (43 CFR 8341.2) A closure or 

restriction order should be considered only after other management 

strategies and alternatives have been explored. The duration of 

temporary closure or restriction orders should be limited to 24 

months or less; however, certain situations may require longer 

closures and/or iterative temporary closures. This may include closure 

of routes or areas.

Standard operating procedure.
60

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

MA 88 - New primary and secondary roads would be avoided within 

1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs.

All new roads would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within PHMAs.

GRSG-RT-ST-069-Standard - Restrict construction of new 

category level 4 and 5 roads within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of 

occupied greater sage-grouse leks within priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas unless construction allows 

decommissioning of an existing route that negatively affects greater 

sage-grouse.

GRSG-RT-ST-070-Standard – Do not allow any category of road 

construction within 0.6 miles from the perimeter of occupied leks in 

priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas or 0.25 

miles from the perimeter of occupied leks in general habitat 

management areas as described in GRSG-TDDD-ST-013 and 014-

Standards.

MA 89 - Within PHMAs, no upgrading of existing routes that would 

change route category or capacity would be allowed unless the 

upgrading would have minimal impact on sage-grouse in PHMAs, was 

necessary for motorist safety, or eliminated the need to construct a 

new road.

GRSG-RT-ST-071-Standard - In priority habitat management areas 

and sagebrush focal areas, do not allow upgrades to existing routes 

that would change route category (level 1 through 5) or capacity 

unless the upgrading would have minimal impact on greater sagegrouse, is necessary for motorist safety, or eliminates the need to 

construct a new road.

MA 90 - In PHMAs, existing roads or realignments would be used to 

access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing 

rights could not be accessed via existing roads, any new road would be 

constructed to the absolute minimum standard necessary, and the 

surface disturbance would be added to the total disturbance in the 

PHMA.

GRSG-RT-ST-072-Standard - If necessary to construct new roads 

and trails in priority or sagebrush focal areas for one of the reasons 

listed in GRSG-RT-ST-071-Standard or to access valid existing rights, 

limit construction to the minimum standard, length, and number and 

avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts. See the Density Disturbance 

Calculation information referenced in Appendix I.

MA 91 - Specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse or 

PHMA, all RMPs are amended as follows:

For roads, primitive roads and trails not designated in travel 

management plans within PHMAs, natural reclamation of roads and 

trails would be allowed in appropriate situations where additional 

resource damage is not foreseeable.

This would include primitive route/roads that were not designated in 

wilderness study areas and within lands with wilderness characteristics 

that have been selected to be managed to retain those characteristics 

No similar management direction.
61

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

for protection.

In PHMAs, locate new roads that will have relatively high levels of 

activity (accessing multiple wells, housing development) greater than 

1.9 miles from the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks. 

Locate new other roads used to provide facility site access and 

maintenance >0.6 miles from the perimeter of occupied Greater SageGrouse leks.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Kemmerer RMP:

Roads and two-track routes determined to be unauthorized or 

redundant and unnecessary for resource management purposes will be 

reclaimed to achieve surrounding native conditions.

Rawlins RMP:

Roads or trails that are eroding beyond a reasonable level will be fixed 

or closed.

JMH CAP:

Transportation planning will provide for access to achieve multiple-use 

goals while providing maximum protection for crucial habitats and 

sensitive resources and will consider:

Closing and rehabilitating unused roads and trails and those causing 

resource damage. This will be subject to county review of existing 

rights-of-way needs.

MA 92 - Within PHMAs, when reseeding roads and trails, appropriate 

seed mixtures would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush 

would be considered.

GRSG-RT-GL-076-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when decommissioning 

roads and unauthorized routes, restoration activity should be designed 

to move habitat towards desired conditions (table 1).
62

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

See MA 10. Similar actions are found in Appendix B – Required 

Design Features.

GRSG-RT-DC-068-Desired Condition - In priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, within the travel 

management system, greater sage-grouse experience minimal 

disturbance during breeding and nesting (March 15 to June 30), and 

wintering (December 1 to March 15) periods.

GRSG-RT-ST-073-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, prohibit public access on 

temporary energy development roads, unless consistent with all other 

terms and conditions included in this forest plan amendment.

GRSG-RT-GL-074-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, new roads and road 

realignments should be designed and administered to reduce collisions 

with greater sage-grouse.

GRSG-RT-GL-075-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, road construction within 

riparian areas and mesic meadows should be restricted. If not possible 

to restrict construction within riparian areas and mesic meadows, 

roads should be designed and constructed perpendicular to ephemeral 

drainages and stream crossings, unless topography prevents doing so.

GRSG-RT-GL-077-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, dust abatement terms 

and conditions should be included in road-use permits when dust has 

the potential to impact greater sage-grouse.

GRSG-RT-GL-078-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, road and road-way 

maintenance activities should be designed and implemented to reduce 

the risk of vehicle or human‐caused wildfires and the spread of invasive 

plants. Such activities include but are not limited to the removal or 

mowing of vegetation a car-width off the edge of roads; use of weedfree earth-moving equipment, gravel, fill, or other materials; and 

blading or pulling roadsides and ditches that are infested with noxious 
63

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

weeds only if required for public safety or protection of the roadway.

Vegetation Management

MA 93 - Within PHMAs and GHMAs, the BLM would manage for 

vegetation composition and structure that reflects ESD or other 

methods that reference site potential or comparable standard to 

achieve sage-grouse and other resource objectives.

GRSG-GRSGH-DC-001-Desired Condition – The landscape for 

greater sage-grouse encompasses large contiguous areas of native 

vegetation, approximately 6 to 62 square miles in area, to provide for 

multiple aspects of species life requirements. Within these landscapes, 

a variety of sagebrush-community compositions exist without invasive 

species, which have variations in subspecies composition, co-dominant 

vegetation, shrub cover, herbaceous cover, and stand structure, to 

meet seasonal requirements for food, cover, and nesting for greater 

sage-grouse.

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-012-Guideline - When breeding and nesting 

habitat overlaps with other seasonal habitats, habitat should be 

managed for breeding and nesting desired conditions (table 1).

GRSG-LG-GL-038-Guideline - Grazing guidelines in table 2 should 

be applied in each of the seasonal habitats in table 2. If values in table 2 

cannot be achieved based upon a site-specific analysis using Ecological 

Site Descriptions, long-term ecological site capability analysis, or other 

similar analysis, adjust grazing management to move towards desired 

habitat conditions in table 1 consistent with the ecological site 

capability. Do not use drought and degraded habitat condition to 

adjust values. Grazing guidelines in table 2 would not apply to isolated 

parcels of National Forest System lands that have less than 200 acres 

of greater sage-grouse habitat. 

See Table 2. Grazing Guidelines for Greater Sage-grouse Seasonal 

Habitat.

GRSG-LG-GL-039-Guideline – On the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland, if 90% or more of the allotment falls within nesting or 

brood rearing habitat, 25% of the allotment would be exempted from 

the breeding/nesting residual perennial grass height guidelines in table 

2.
64

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

GRSG-LG-GL-045-Guideline – On the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland, where general habitat management areas overlap with 

Management Area 8.4 (Mineral Production), Management Area 3.63 

(Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat), or other designated 

areas for short-grass species, livestock grazing should be managed to 

meet the objectives for that Management Area.

MA 94 - Within PHMAs in northeast Wyoming (as mapped in WY EO 

2011-5), vegetation treatments in nesting and wintering habitat that 

would reduce sagebrush canopy to less than 15% would not be 

conducted.

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-007-Guideline – Within priority habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas in northeast Wyoming, 

vegetation treatments in nesting and wintering habitat that would 

reduce sagebrush canopy to less than 15% should be restricted.

MA 95 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater 

Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within PHMAs, refer to 

Appendix A, WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit SageGrouse (WGFD 2011, as updated) and BLM Washington Office 

Instruction Memorandum 2013-128 (Sage-grouse Conservation 

Related to Wildland Fire and Fuels Management).

These recommended protocols would be used in determining whether 

proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that would contribute 

toward the 5% threshold within PHMA maintenance. Additionally, 

these protocols would be used to determine whether the proposed 

treatment configuration would be expected to have neutral or 

beneficial impacts for PHMA (core only) populations or if they 

represent additional habitat loss or fragmentation.

Treatments to enhance sagebrush/grasslands habitat for sage-grouse 

would be evaluated based upon habitat quality and the functionality/use 

of treated habitats post-treatment.

The BLM would work collaboratively with partners at the state and 

local level to maintain and enhance sage-grouse habitats.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-006-Guideline – Sagebrush removal in priority 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas and in wintering 

habitat should be avoided unless necessary to support attainment of 

desired habitat conditions (table 1).
65

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

modification described above:

Green River RMP:

Prescribed burns generally will be conducted in areas having greater 

than 35% sagebrush composition, 20% desirable grass composition, and 

greater than 10 inches of precipitation. Other vegetation manipulation 

methods will be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on 

objectives and cost benefits.

Casper RMP:

Decision 4053: The areas (Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek) 

will have priority for vegetative treatments to improve sage-grouse 

habitats and for vegetation monitoring to ensure residual herbaceous 

vegetation is maintained for nesting cover on public lands.

MA 96 - For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within PHMAs, refer 

to Appendix A, WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit 

Sage-Grouse (WGFD 2011, as updated). These recommended 

protocols, subject to seasonal conditions of approval, would be used in 

determining whether proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” 

that would contribute toward the 5% threshold for habitat 

maintenance.

Additionally, these protocols would be used to determine whether the 

proposed treatment configuration would be expected to have neutral 

or beneficial impacts for PHMA (core only) populations or if they 

represent additional habitat loss or fragmentation.

Treatments to enhance sagebrush/grasslands habitat for sage-grouse 

would be evaluated based upon habitat quality and the functionality/use 

of treated habitats post-treatment.

The BLM would work collaboratively with partners at the state and 

local level to maintain and enhance sage-grouse habitats.

Seasonal restriction would be applied, as needed, for implementing 

fuels management treatments according to the type of seasonal habitat 

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-006-Guideline – Sagebrush removal in priority 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas and in wintering 

habitat should be avoided unless necessary to support attainment of 

desired habitat conditions (table 1).
66

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

present.

MA 97 - Within PHMA grazing would be deferred on treated areas 

for two full growing seasons unless vegetation objectives or vegetation 

recovery indicates a shorter or longer rest period is necessary based 

on vegetation monitoring results.

To be included in Forest Service Implementation Guidance.

MA 98 - For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within PHMAs, refer 

to Appendix A, WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit 

Sage-Grouse (WGFD 2011, as updated).

To be included in Forest Service Implementation Guidance.

Vegetation Reclamation

MA 99 - Reclamation of surface disturbances in PHMAs would be 

consistent with the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a), 

vegetation objectives (Table 2-2 and 2-3) and Appendix C.

A monitoring plan would be developed for each restoration or 

reclamation project and reporting progress and changes in resource 

condition.

GRSG-GRSGH-ST-003-Standard – Design habitat restoration 

projects to move towards the desired conditions in table 1 and 

incorporate the concepts outlined in Appendix C - Reclamation Plan 

and Appendix D - Monitoring Framework.

MA 100 - Areas for vegetation restoration and/or restoration criteria 

that include state sage-grouse conservation plans and appropriate local 

information would be identified. The use of native plants and seeds for 

restoration would be required unless the probability for success is low 

(non-native plants and seeds may be used as long as they meet sagegrouse habitat objectives), and restoration management would be 

designed to obtain long-term persistence based on ESD.

Reestablishment of sagebrush cover and desirable understory plants 

would be the highest priority for restoration efforts.

Landscape patterns that most benefit sage-grouse would be restored 

and created, considering potential changes in climate.

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-011-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, native plant species 

should be used, when possible, to restore, enhance, or maintain 

desired conditions (table 1).

MA 101 - Within PHMAs, implementation of restoration projects 

would be prioritized based on environmental variables that improve 

chances for project success in areas most likely to benefit sage-grouse.

Restoration would be prioritized in seasonal habitats that are thought 

to be limiting sage-grouse distribution and/or abundance

To be included in Forest Service Implementation Guidance.
67

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

MA 102 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

Where probability of success or native seed availability is low or where 

there is a specific identified purpose that cannot be met with natives, 

non-native seeds could be used provided they meet sage-grouse 

habitat conservation and vegetation (see Tables 2-2 and 2-3) 

objectives.

The use of native seeds for fuels management treatment would be 

prioritized based on availability, adaptation (site potential), and 

probability of success. Where probability of success or native seed 

availability is low, non-native seeds may be used to meet Greater SageGrouse habitat objectives to trend toward restoring the fire regime. 

When reseeding, use fire resistant native and non-native species, as 

appropriate, to provide for fuel breaks.

Native seed allocation would be prioritized for use in sage-grouse 

habitat.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Kemmerer RMP:

Require the use of certified weed-free seed and mulch for 

rehabilitation projects.

Pinedale RMP:

Disturbed areas will be reclaimed to native site plant composition. If 

reclamation of original plant composition is impossible or not 

desirable, reclamation will achieve a native plant community that meets 

the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health.

GRSG-FM-GL-050-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when reseeding in fuel 

breaks, fire resistant native plant species should be used if available, or 

consider using fire resistance non-native species, if analysis 

demonstrates that non-native plants will not damage greater sagegrouse habitat in the long-term.

MA 103 - Post emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ES&R) and 

burn area emergency rehabilitation BAER management would be 

designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native 

Standard operating procedure.
68

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

plants. This may require temporary or long-term changes in livestock 

grazing, wild horse, and travel management, etc., to achieve and 

maintain the desired condition of ES&R and BAER projects to benefit 

sage-grouse (Eiswerth and Shonkwiler 2006).

MA 104 - The role of existing seedings that are currently composed 

of primarily introduced perennial grasses in and adjacent to PHMAs 

would be evaluated to determine if they should be restored to 

sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for sage-grouse. If these seedings 

are part of an AMP or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing 

the rest of the PHMAs (core only), no restoration would be necessary.

The compatibility of these seedings for sage-grouse habitat or as a 

component of a grazing system would be assessed during the land 

health assessments (Davies et al. 2011).

To be included in Forest Service Implementation Guidance.

MA 105 - Priority would be given for implementing specific sagegrouse habitat restoration projects in areas invaded by annual grasses 

first to sites that are adjacent to or surrounded by PHMAs. Areas 

invaded by annual grasses would be second priority for restoration 

when the sites are not adjacent to PHMAs, but are within 2 miles of 

PHMAs. The third priority for areas invaded by annual grasses habitat 

restoration projects would be sites beyond 2 miles of PHMAs. The 

intent would be to focus restoration outward from existing, intact 

habitat.

To be included in FS Implementation Guidance.

MA 106 - In fire prone areas where sagebrush seed is required for 

sage-grouse habitat restoration, the BLM would consider establishing 

seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production and are a 

priority for protection from outside disturbances.

No similar management direction.

MA 107 - Vegetation treatment proposals must include evaluation of 

soils, precipitation, invasive/exotic plants, as well as the current 

condition of PHMAs.

Avoid aerial pesticide/herbicide spraying in favor of ground applications 

to minimize drift into non-target areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

unless benefits of treatments are likely to outweigh impacts.

No similar management direction.
69

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Grasshopper/Mormon Cricket Control and Management

MA 108 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

The BLM could implement treatments within PHMAs where outbreaks 

of grasshopper or Mormon cricket populations are expected to rise 

above economic levels. Treatments must be conducted only following 

reduced agent-area treatments (RAATS) protocols. The BLM would 

work collaboratively with partners at the federal, state, and local levels, 

including the Wyoming Weed and Pest Districts within the counties 

where the treatment is to occur, to maintain and enhance sage-grouse 

habitats in a manner consistent with the core population area strategy 

for conservation.

The BLM would be directed to utilize the Wyoming Grasshopper and 

Mormon Cricket Control website as a resource for updated 

information when conducting analysis of grasshopper and Mormon 

cricket control in sage-grouse habitats.

Avoid aerial pesticide/herbicide spraying in favor of ground applications 

to minimize drift into non-target areas in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

unless benefits of treatments are likely to outweigh impacts.

Outside of PHMA/or and for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

Work with Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to 

control outbreaks of grasshoppers and Mormon crickets on public 

lands in the planning area in accordance with the MOU between U.S. 

Department of the Interior and APHIS.

No similar management direction.
70

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Wild Horse Management

MA 109 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

Within PHMAs, the BLM would review and consider amending BLM 

Herd Management Area Plans (HMAP) to incorporate sage-grouse 

habitat objectives and management considerations for all BLM herd 

management areas (HMA).

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Green River RMP/JMH CAP:

Specific habitat objectives for herd management areas would be 

developed. Consideration will be given to desired plant communities, 

wildlife, watershed, livestock grazing, and other resource needs.

No similar management direction – no wild horse herd management 

areas on National Forest System Lands in the planning area.

MA 110 - PHMA (core only) management objectives would be 

considered when evaluating appropriate management levels (AML).

No similar management direction – no wild horse herd management 

areas on National Forest System Lands in the planning area.

MA 111 - PHMA (core only) management objectives would be 

considered when conducting land health assessments in BLM HMAs.

No similar management direction – no wild horse herd management 

areas on National Forest System Lands in the planning area.

MA 112 - When conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse 

management activities, water developments or other rangeland 

improvements for wild horses in PHMAs, the direct and indirect 

effects to sage-grouse populations and habitat would be addressed. 

Water developments or rangeland improvements would be 

implemented using the criteria identified for domestic livestock 

identified above in PHMAs.

No similar management direction – no wild horse herd management 

areas on National Forest System Lands in the planning area.

MA 113 - Coordinate with other resources (Range, Wildlife, and 

Riparian) to conduct land health assessments within all BLM HMAs.

No similar management direction – no wild horse herd management 

areas on National Forest System Lands in the planning area.
71

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Wildland Fire and Fuels Management

MA 114 - In PHMAs, fuels treatments would be designed and 

implemented with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

ecosystems and enhancing and protecting future sagebrush ecosystems 

(refer to WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sagegrouse [WGFD 2011, as updated]) and Appendix A.

These recommended protocols would be used in determining whether 

proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that will contribute 

toward the 5% threshold for habitat maintenance.

Fuel treatments would be designed through an interdisciplinary 

process to expand, enhance, maintain, and protect Greater SageGrouse habitat. Green strips (using native fire resistant/resilient 

species) and/or fuel breaks would be used, where appropriate, to 

protect seeding efforts from subsequent fire events.

In coordination with the USFWS and relevant state agencies, BLM 

planning units (Districts) with large blocks of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat would develop, using the assessment process described in 

Appendix J, a fuels management strategy which considers an up-to-date 

fuels profile, land use plan direction, current and potential habitat 

fragmentation, sagebrush and sage-grouse ecological factors, and active 

vegetation management steps to provide critical breaks in fuel 

continuity, where appropriate. When developing this strategy, planning 

units would consider the risk of increased habitat fragmentation from a 

proposed action versus the risk of large scale fragmentation posed by 

wildfires if the action is not taken.

Utilizing an interdisciplinary approach, a full range of fuel reduction 

techniques would be available. Fuel reduction techniques such as 

grazing, prescribed fire, chemical, biological, and mechanical treatments 

would be acceptable.

Upon project completion, fuels projects would be monitored and 

managed to ensure long-term success, including persistence of seeded 

GRSG-FM-ST-047-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when prescribed fire is 

used for fuels management or vegetation treatments, design the burn 

to move towards desired habitat conditions (table 1). Restrict 

prescribed fire in areas of Wyoming big sagebrush, other xeric 

sagebrush species, where cheatgrass or other fire-invasive species 

occur, and/or within areas of less than 12-inch precipitation zones 

unless necessary to facilitate site preparation for restoration of greater 

sage-grouse habitat consistent with desired conditions in table 1.

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-010-Guideline - To facilitate safe and effective 

fire management actions, in priority and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, fuel treatments in high-risk areas (i.e., 

areas likely to experience wildfire at an intensity level that might result 

in movement away from the greater sage-grouse desired conditions in 

table 1) should be designed to reduce the spread and/or intensity of 

wildfire or the susceptibility of greater sage-grouse values to move 

away from desired conditions (table 1).
72

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

species and/or other treatment components. Invasive vegetation posttreatment would be controlled.

Wildfire prevention plans would be developed that explain the 

resource value of sage-grouse habitat and include fire prevention 

messages and actions to reduce human-caused ignitions.

MA 115 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

Burned areas that are within PHMAs would be restored.

Wildfire burns will be treated as disturbed if sagebrush is reduced 

below 5% unless there is an implementation plan outlining restoration 

efforts and 3 years of data showing a trend back to suitable habitat. 

The BLM could bring in burned area rehabilitation (BAR) and BAER 

teams who would work collaboratively with partners at the federal, 

state, and local level to rehabilitate and restore sage-grouse habitats in 

a manner consistent with the core habitat population area strategy for 

conservation. DDCT reviews would be conducted in coordination 

with the WGFD Habitat Protection Program located in Cheyenne, 

Wyoming at the WGFD headquarters. Areas within PHMAs would be 

high priority for restoration of sage-grouse habitat beyond immediate 

response.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Kemmerer RMP:

Implement BLM Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation standards 

located in the Department of the Interior (DOI) Interagency Burned 

Area Emergency Response Guidebook and BLM Burned Area 

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook on wildland fires 

to protect and sustain healthy ecosystems and protect life and 

property.

Similar management direction to be included in Forest Service

Implementation Guidance.
73

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Newcastle RMP:

All wildfires will be evaluated to determine the need for rehabilitation 

or restoration measures. Restoration of burned areas will be by 

natural succession unless a special need is identified to prevent further 

resource damage.

Rawlins RMP:

Rehabilitation and restoration efforts specific to a fire event will be 

undertaken to protect and sustain ecosystems, public health and safety, 

and to help communities protect infrastructure.

MA 116 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

For fuels management, the BLM would consider multiple tools for fuels 

reduction and would analyze in NEPA compliance documentation 

before electing to implement prescribed fire in PHMAs.

If prescribed fire is used in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the NEPA 

analysis for the Burn Plan will address:

 Why alternative techniques were not selected as a viable options

 How Greater Sage-Grouse goals and objectives would be met by 

its use

 How the COT Report objectives would be addressed and met

 A risk assessment to address how potential threats to Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat would be minimized.

Prescribed fire as a vegetation or fuels treatment shall only be 

considered after the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan has addressed 

the four bullets outlined above. Prescribed fire could be used to meet 

specific fuels objectives that would protect Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat in PHMAs (e.g., creation of fuel breaks that would disrupt the 

fuel continuity across the landscape in stands where annual invasive 

grasses are a minor component in the understory, burning slash piles 

from conifer reduction treatments, used as a component with other 

GRSG-FM-ST-048-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, if it is necessary to use 

prescribed fire to facilitate site preparation for restoration of greater 

sage-grouse habitat consistent with desired conditions in table 1, the 

associated NEPA analysis must identify how the project would move 

towards greater sage-grouse desired conditions, why alternative 

techniques were not selected, and how potential threats to greater 

sage-grouse habitat would be minimized.

GRSG-FM-ST-049-Standard – On the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland, where general habitat management areas overlap with 

Management Area 3.63 (Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat), 

or other designated areas for short-grass species, allow prescribed fire 

to meet objectives for that Management Area.
74

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

treatment methods to combat annual grasses and restore native plant 

communities).

Prescribed fire in known winter range shall only be considered after 

the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan has addressed the four bullets 

outlined above. Any prescribed fire in winter habitat would need to be 

designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around and/or in the 

winter range and designed to protect winter range habitat quality. 

Refer to Appendix A, WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to 

Benefit Sage-grouse (WGFD 2011, as updated) and BLM Washington 

Office Instruction Memorandum 2013-128. If prescribed fire activities 

are not in compliance with these protocols, the treatment would be 

considered a PHMA disturbance.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

Use prescribed burning to achieve measurable 5th-order watershed 

objectives from (1) other resources, including, but not limited to, 

forestry, wildlife, range, vegetation, and watershed; (2) the reduction of 

hazardous fuels; and (3) the introduction of fire into fire-adapted 

ecosystems.

Green River RMP/JMH CAP:

Prescribed fire will generally be the preferred method of vegetation 

manipulation to convert decadent stands of brushland to grasslands 

and to stimulate sprouting of old, decadent aspen stands and/or shrub 

species. Prescribed burns are preferred in areas having greater than 

35% sagebrush composition, 20% desirable grass composition, and 

greater than 10 inches of precipitation.

Rawlins RMP:

Fuel treatments, including prescribed fire, mechanical, chemical, and 
75

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

biological treatments will be used for fuels reduction and to meet 

other multiple-use resource objectives, including returning fire to its 

natural role in the ecosystem. Wildland urban interfaces (WUI) and 

communities at risk will receive priority for fuels reduction.

MA 117 - Within PHMAs, post fuels management projects would be 

designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment 

native plants (while controlling for erosion and treating infestation of 

invasive plant species), to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat.

GRSG-FM-ST-048-Standard – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, if it is necessary to use 

prescribed fire to facilitate site preparation for restoration of greater 

sage-grouse habitat consistent with desired conditions in table 1, the 

associated NEPA analysis must identify how the project would move 

towards greater sage-grouse desired conditions, why alternative 

techniques were not selected, and how potential threats to greater 

sage-grouse habitat would be minimized.

MA 118 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats. Prioritize 

treatments closest to occupied sage-grouse habitats and near occupied 

leks, and where juniper encroachment is phase 1 or phase 2. Use of 

site-specific analysis and principles like those included in the FIAT 

report (Chambers et. al., 2014) and other ongoing modeling efforts to 

address conifer encroachment will help refine the location for specific 

priority areas to be treated.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

Treat woodland encroachment in grassland, sagebrush, aspen, and 

other vegetative communities where it is determined to be detrimental 

to other resource values or uses.

Manage 630,180 acres of sagebrush communities toward DPC.

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-008- Guideline – When removing conifers that 

are encroaching into greater sage-grouse habitat, avoid persistent 

woodlands (i.e., old growth relative to the site or more than 100 years 

old).
76

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

MA 119 - The following RMP decisions remain in effect for 

both PHMAs and GHMAs:

Pinedale RMP:

In the WUI or industrial interface, fuels reduction methods best suited 

to the area will be used to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire to these 

areas.

Casper RMP:

Use prescribed burning to achieve measurable 5th-order watershed 

objectives from (1) other resources, including, but not limited to, 

forestry, wildlife, range, vegetation, and watershed; (2) the reduction of 

hazardous fuels; and (3) the introduction of fire into fire-adapted 

ecosystems.

Utilize an integrated management technique approach (defined as 

prescribed fire, mechanical, chemical, or biological, followed by desired 

reseeding) to reduce fuels to protect high priority areas or resource 

values defined as, but not limited to the following:

 Urban and industrial interface areas

 Developed recreation areas

 Commercial timber areas

 Wildlife habitats

 Range-improvement facilities

 Communication sites

 Municipal watersheds. Decision 3008 Fuels Management.

Rawlins RMP:

A high priority for fire management activities will be given to areas 

identified as communities at risk, industrial interface areas, and areas 

containing resource values considered high priority within the RMP 

planning area.

JMH CAP:

No similar management direction.
77

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Appropriate management response to protect the basin big 

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea plant communities will be applied.

Wildland and prescribed fires will be managed in all vegetation types to 

maintain or improve biological diversity and the overall health of the 

public lands. In particular, plant species and age class diversity will be a 

priority; thus, appropriate management response (AMR) for all 

wildland fires will be identified and implemented depending on the 

resources and management objectives for the area.

Suppression techniques and hazardous fuels reduction activities will be 

identified to reduce wildland fire severity and occurrence on portions 

of the landscape where fire could cause undesirable changes in plant 

community composition and structure. A site-specific analysis will be 

prepared for sensitive resource areas, such as special status plant 

species sites, heritage sites, historic trails, and ACECs, to determine 

the type of fire suppression activity that will be acceptable. Fire 

equipment and fire suppression techniques, such as vegetation clearing, 

will be limited to existing roads and trails in special status plant species 

habitat. As appropriate, the Fire Management Plan will be updated to 

reflect the appropriate suppression activity in sensitive resource areas.

MA 124 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

Fire fighter and public safety would be the highest priority. Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat (PHMA) would be prioritized commensurate with 

property values and other important habitat to be protected, with the 

goal to restore, enhance, and maintain areas suitable for Greater SageGrouse. Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. (GHMA) would be prioritized 

commensurate with local fire plans, property values and other 

important habitat to be protected, with the goal to restore, enhance, 

and maintain areas suitable for Greater Sage-Grouse.

Within PHMAs (and Priority Areas for Conservation (PAC), if so 

determined by individual LUP efforts) would be the highest priority for 

conservation and protection during fire operations and fuels 

No similar management direction.
78

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

management decisionmaking. The PHMAs (and PACs, if so determined 

by individual LUP efforts) would be viewed as more valuable than 

GHMAs when priorities are established. When suppression resources 

are widely available, maximum efforts would be placed on limiting fire 

growth in GHMA polygons as well. These priority areas will be further 

refined following completion of the Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape 

Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessments described in 

Appendix J.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

Appropriate management response will be used on all wildfires in the 

planning area.

Full protection strategies and tactics will be used in the following areas:

1. WUI

2. Wildland industrial interface

3. Developed recreation sites

4. Developed electronics sites of all types.

In all other areas AMR strategies and tactics will be determined by (but 

not limited to) the following:

1. Firefighter and public safety

2. Resource values at risk

3. Proximity to private land

4. Firefighting resource availability.

Tactical constraints follow:

1. The use of retardant within 300 feet of surface water (standing 

or running) is prohibited.

2. No trees are to be cut during suppression activities within 200 
79

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

yards of an identified bald eagle roost.

No heavy equipment will be used within the following areas, except 

when human safety is at risk:

1. Areas of cultural resource sensitivity

2. Riparian/wetland habitats

3. Big game crucial winter range habitats

4. Greater Sage-Grouse leks

5. Areas of highly erosive soils.

In areas not identified as full protection, heavy equipment usage will be 

limited to existing roads and trails or immediately adjacent to them. 

Kemmerer RMP:

In areas of high-density urban and (or) industrial interface with 

intermingled BLM-administered lands, suppression objectives will 

follow the AMR in an approved fire management plan for the planning 

area to provide first for human health and safety, while minimizing loss 

of property and threats to other surface owners. Generally, wildland 

fires are suppressed in these areas. In areas of low-density urban and 

(or) industrial interface where BLM-administered lands occur in large 

contiguous blocks, fire suppression objectives will follow the AMR in 

an approved fire management plan for the planning area to provide 

first for human health and safety, while allowing for achievement of 

resource objectives.

Newcastle RMP:

Full suppression will be used on fires endangering human life or that 

spread to within 0.25 mile of state or private lands, structures and 

facilities, oil and gas fields, important riparian habitat, or other sensitive 

resources.

All wildfires will be evaluated to determine the need for rehabilitation 

or restoration measures. Restoration of burned areas will be by 

natural succession unless a special need is identified to prevent further 
80

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

resource damage.

Pinedale RMP:

Wildland fire mitigation and fuels activities will be managed to provide 

for firefighter and public safety as a first priority. Public lands within 

intermixed landownership areas will be managed in association with 

the adjoining and nearby private and state lands.

Areas of mixed landownership, communities at risk as identified in the 

Federal Register, Volume 66, Number 160, 2001 (Antelope Run, 

Beaver Creek area, Boulder, Cottonwood Creek, Daniel, Forty Rod, 

Hoback Ranches, New Fork, Pinedale, Pocket Creek, and Upper 

Green); urban and industrial interface areas; and areas containing highpriority resource values have high priority for response to wildland 

fires and/or for fuels reduction and mitigation. Wildland fire 

suppression activities will be based on the AMR.

Rawlins RMP:

A high priority for fire management activities will be given to areas 

identified as communities at risk, industrial interface areas, and areas 

containing resource values considered high priority within the RMP 

planning area.

Green River RMP:

Wildfire suppression will emphasize AMR. Immediate control actions 

will be used only in cases of arson, direct threat to public safety, or a 

strong potential threaten structural property.

Fire suppression actions will be based on achieving the most efficient 

control and allowing historical acres burned to increase. Activity plans 

will be developed for designated fire management areas defining 

specific parameters for all fire occurrences.

JMH CAP:

Appropriate management response to protect the basin big 
81

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea plant communities will be applied.

Wildland and prescribed fires will be managed in all vegetation types to 

maintain or improve biological diversity and the overall health of the 

public lands. In particular, plant species and age class diversity will be a 

priority; thus, AMR for all wildland fires will be identified and 

implemented depending on the resources and management objectives 

for the area.

Suppression techniques and hazardous fuels reduction activities will be 

identified to reduce wildland fire severity and occurrence on portions 

of the landscape where fire could cause undesirable changes in plant 

community composition and structure. A site-specific analysis will be 

prepared for sensitive resource areas, such as special status plant 

species sites, heritage sites, historic trails, and ACECs, to determine 

the type of fire suppression activity that will be acceptable. Fire 

equipment and fire suppression techniques, such as vegetation clearing, 

will be limited to existing roads and trails in special status plant species 

habitat. As appropriate, the Fire Management Plan will be updated to 

reflect the appropriate suppression activity in sensitive resource areas.

See MA 10. Similar actions are found in Appendix B – Required 

Design Features.

GRSG-FM-GL-051-Guideline – Locating temporary wildfire 

suppression facilities (e.g., incident command posts, spike camps, 

helibases, mobile retardant plants) in priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas should be avoided. 

GRSG-FM-GL-052-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, cross‐country vehicle 

travel during fire operations should be restricted, whenever safe and 

practical to do so, as determined by fireline leadership and incident 

commanders.

GRSG-FM-GL-053-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, use fire management 

tactics and strategies that seek to minimize loss of existing sagebrush 

habitat. The safest and most practical means to do so will be 
82

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

determined by fireline leadership and incident commanders.

GRSG-FM-GL-054-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, prescribed fire 

prescriptions should minimize undesirable effects on vegetation and/or 

soils (e.g., minimize mortality of desirable perennial plant species and 

reduce risk of hydrophobicity).

GRSG-FM-GL-055-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, roads and natural fuel 

breaks should be incorporated into fuel break design to improve 

effectiveness and minimize loss of existing sagebrush habitat.

GRSG-FM-GL-056-Guideline - In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, all fire-associated vehicles 

and equipment should be inspected and cleaned using standardized 

protocols and procedures and approved vehicle/equipment 

decontamination systems before entering and exiting the area to 

minimize the introduction of invasive annual grasses and other invasive 

plant species and noxious weeds.

GRSG-FM-GL-057-Guideline - Unit-specific greater sage-grouse 

fire management toolboxes containing maps, lists, contact information 

for qualified resource advisors, local guidance, and relevant information 

should be developed and used.

GRSG-FM-GL-058-Guideline – Localized maps of priority and 

general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas should be 

provided to dispatch officers and extended attack incident 

commanders to use when prioritizing wildfire suppression resources 

and designing suppression tactics.

GRSG-FM-GL-059-Guideline - In or near priority and general 

habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, a greater sage‐

grouse resource advisor should be assigned to all extended attack 

fires.

GRSG-FM-GL-060-Guideline – On critical fire weather days, 
83

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

protection of greater sage-grouse habitat should receive high 

consideration, along with other high values, for positioning of 

resources.

GRSG-FM-GL-061-Guideline - Line officers should be involved in 

setting pre-season wildfire response priorities and, during period of 

multiple fires, prioritizing protection of priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas.

GRSG-FM-GL-062-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, consider using fire 

retardant and mechanized equipment only if it is likely to result in 

minimizing burned acreage.

GRSG-FM-GL-063-Guideline – In priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, to minimize sagebrush 

loss, mop‐up should be conducted where the burned areas adjoin 

unburned islands, doglegs, or other habitat features, as safety and 

available resources allows.

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management

Monitoring Effectiveness

MA 125 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

The BLM, in coordination with the State of Wyoming and its agencies, 

other local partners and stakeholders, would establish monitoring 

framework (Appendix D) for sage-grouse populations and habitat that 

would be incorporated into individual project approvals, including small 

and in-house projects, as appropriate and necessary.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Casper RMP:

GRSG-GRSGH-ST-003-Standard – Design habitat restoration 

projects to move towards the desired conditions in table 1 and 

incorporate the concepts outlined in Appendix C - Reclamation Plan 

and Appendix D - Monitoring Framework.
84

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek: The areas will have priority 

for vegetative treatments to improve sage-grouse habitats and for 

vegetation monitoring to ensure residual herbaceous vegetation is 

maintained for nesting cover on public lands.

Density and Disturbance

MA 126 - In PHMAs (core only), the density of disturbance of an 

energy or mining facility (Appendix D) would be limited to an average 

of one site per square mile (640 acres) within the DDCT, subject to 

valid existing rights. The one location and cumulative value of existing 

disturbances will not exceed 5 percent of suitable habitat of the DDCT 

area. Utilize the Greater Sage-Grouse density disturbance calculation 

tool as described in Appendix D.

GRSG-TDDD-GL-022-Guideline – In priority-core habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, limit the density of 

activities related to oil and gas development or mining activities to no 

more than an average of one pad or mining location per 640 acres, 

using the current Density Disturbance Calculation Tool process 

described in Appendix I or its replacement.

MA 127 - Inside PHMAs (connectivity only), all suitable habitat 

disturbed (any program area) will not exceed 5% of suitable habitat 

within the DDCT area using the DDCT process described in Appendix 

D

GRSG-TDDD-GL-023-Guideline – In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize surface disturbance 

and disruptive activities unless all existing discrete anthropogenic 

disturbances cover less than 5% of the suitable habitat in the 

surrounding area using the current Density Disturbance Calculation 

Tool process or its replacement, as described in Appendix I, and the 

new use will not cause exceedance of the 5% cap. An exception is 

described in GRSG-M-LM-ST-097-Standard.

Onsite and Offsite Mitigation

MA 128 - Within PHMAs, specific to management for 

Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows:

In undertaking BLM management actions, and, consistent with valid 

existing rights and applicable law, in authorizing third-party actions that 

result in habitat loss and degradation in PHMA, the BLM will require 

and ensure mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to the 

species including accounting for any uncertainty associated with the 

effectiveness of such mitigation. This will be achieved by avoiding, 

minimizing, and compensating for impacts by applying beneficial 

mitigation actions.

When compensatory mitigation is required, the BLM, in coordination 

GRSG-TDDD-ST-016-Standard – In-kind mitigation is preferred to 

out-of-kind mitigation. Where in-kind mitigation provides a net 

conservation gain to greater sage-grouse, or where other habitat types 

are most limiting to populations, focus mitigation on habitats that 

provide the greatest benefit to the species. When approving mitigation 

requests, use the following hierarchy:

1. Onsite (on lease).

2. Offsite within the project’s DDCT analysis area.

3. Offsite within the same priority or sagebrush focal area 

boundary.

4. Adjacent to the affected priority management areas or sagebrush 
85

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

with the State of Wyoming and its agencies and partners, will ensure 

an essential nexus and rough proportionality exists between the 

residual impacts that warrant compensatory mitigation and the 

compensatory mitigation actions, as determined by the best available 

science. This essential nexus and rough proportionality will be clearly 

described in the NEPA analysis, decision document, and land use 

authorization for a land-use authorization application.

In-kind mitigation is generally preferred to out-of-kind mitigation, 

although there may be exceptions, including where out-of-kind 

mitigation would be more effective for achieving BLM’s resource, value, 

and function goals and objectives, as long as an essential nexus is 

maintained with the land use’s impacts. Where in-kind mitigation 

provides no net benefit to sage-grouse, or where other habitat types 

are most limiting to populations, mitigation should focus on habitats 

that provide the greatest benefit to the species.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater SageGrouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Pinedale RMP:

Offsite mitigation proposed by oil and gas or other operators could be 

considered and analyzed in future environmental documents as 

possible mitigation for proposed activities within the planning area. 

Proposed offsite mitigation will be described and analyzed for 

effectiveness in detail on a project-specific basis. Planning for offsite 

mitigation will be performed in coordination with local government 

agencies. The need for offsite mitigation will be determined in 

conformance with current BLM policy, as updated.

The order of use of mitigation methods from most to least preferred 

is as follows:

1. Onsite mitigation directly resolving impacts created by the 

action.

focal area within the general habitat management area boundary.

5. Offsite within the same 2006 WAFWA Strategy determined 

Management Zone as the impact.

6. Other areas as identified by the local unit.
86

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

2. Offsite mitigation to the resources affected by the action that 

cannot be resolved onsite.

3. Offsite mitigation to similar or related resources affected by the 

action that cannot be resolved onsite.

The following stipulations apply to offsite mitigation measures:

1. Offsite mitigation will be used as a last choice when developing 

mitigation measures.

2. Offsite mitigation proposals will describe the replacement or 

substitution activities or methods that are used to address 

potential impacts on specific resources or environments or both.

3. Offsite mitigation must be as close to “in-kind” in replacement or 

substitution of resources, habitat function, or environments as 

practicable (e.g., elk habitat for elk habitat, historical properties 

for historical properties).

4. Offsite mitigation practices must last as long as the impacts are 

expected to occur.

5. Offsite mitigation practices are to be developed, conducted or 

performed, and funded by the project proponent.

6. Offsite mitigation activities must be conducted subject to BLM 

review and approval that the mitigation will actually address the 

impacts occurring on the public lands.

The priority order for mitigating resource impacts onsite or offsite is 

as follows:

1. Onsite Mitigation – Onsite (avoid, minimize, rectify, or reduce in 

time).

2. Offsite Mitigation – Local (unless greater resource benefits can 

be achieved through regional or interstate mitigation).

3. Offsite Mitigation – Regional (unless greater resource benefits 

can be achieved through interstate mitigation).

4. Offsite Mitigation – Interstate: The preferred area for conducting 

offsite mitigation is as near (local offsite mitigation) to the project 

or impacted area as possible or as scientific information and 
87

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

impact analysis suggests.

5. Offsite Mitigation – Interstate: The preferred area for conducting 

offsite mitigation is as near (local offsite mitigation) to the project 

or impacted area as possible or as scientific information and 

impact analysis suggests.

Timing and Distance Restrictions

MA 129 - Sage-grouse leks inside PHMAs:

Surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities would be prohibited 

on or within a 0.6 mile radius of the perimeter of occupied sagegrouse leks (Map 2-3).

The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if an environmental 

record of review determines that the action, as proposed or 

conditioned, would not impair the function or utility of the site for the 

current or subsequent seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral 

needs of Greater Sage-Grouse.

GRSG-TDDD-ST-013-Standard - In priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize new surface 

occupancy or surface disturbing activities on or within a 0.6 mile radius 

of the perimeter of occupied leks that are located in priority and 

sagebrush habitat management areas.

MA 130 - Sage-grouse leks outside PHMAs:

Surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities would be prohibited 

on or within a 0.25 mile radius of the perimeter of occupied sagegrouse leks (Map 2-3).

The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if an environmental 

record of review determines that the action, as proposed or 

conditioned, would not impair the function or utility of the site for the 

current or subsequent seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral 

needs of Greater Sage-Grouse.

GRSG-TDDD-ST-014-Standard – In general habitat management 

areas do not authorize new surface occupancy or surface disturbing 

activities on or within a 0.25 mile radius of the perimeter of occupied 

leks.

MA 131 - Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early broodrearing habitat inside PHMAs (core only):

Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited from 

March 15–June 30 to protect sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early 

brood rearing habitat. This timing limitation would be applied 

throughout the PHMAs (core only). Activities in unsuitable habitats 

would be evaluated under the exception, waiver, and modification 

GRSG-TDDD-GL-017-Guideline – In priority-core habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize new 

surface disturbing or disruptive activities from March 15 through June 

30. Activities that meet the exception, waiver, and modification criteria 

may be authorized. Where credible data, based upon field analysis, 

support different timeframes for the seasonal restriction, dates may be 

shifted by 14 days before or subsequent to the above dates.
88

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

criteria and could be allowed on a case by case basis.

Where credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal 

restriction, dates could be shifted by up to 14 days prior to or 

subsequent to the above dates.

MA 132 - Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early broodrearing habitat inside PHMAs (connectivity only):

Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited 

within PHMAs (connectivity only) from March 15–June 30 to protect 

breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitats within 4 miles of the 

lek or lek perimeter of any occupied sage-grouse lek within identified 

PHMAs (connectivity only). This timing limitation would be applied 

throughout the PHMAs (connectivity only). Activities in unsuitable 

habitats would be evaluated under the exception, waiver, and 

modification criteria and may be allowed on a case-by-case basis.

Where credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal 

restriction, dates could be shifted by 14 days prior or subsequent to 

the above dates.

GRSG-TDDD-GL-018-Guideline2 – Within priority-connectivity 

habitat management areas, do not authorize new surface disturbing or 

disruptive activities from March 15 through June 30 within 4 miles of a 

lek or lek perimeter of an occupied lek within priority-connectivity 

areas. Activities that meet the exception, waiver, and modification 

criteria may be authorized. Where credible data, based upon field 

analysis, support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, 

dates may be shifted by 14 days before or after the above dates.

MA 133 - Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early broodrearing habitat outside PHMAs:

Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited from 

March 15–June 30 to protect sage-grouse nesting and early brood 

rearing habitats within 2 miles of the lek or lek perimeter of any 

occupied lek located outside PHMAs.

Where credible data support different timeframes for this restriction, 

dates could be shifted by 14 days prior or subsequent to the above 

dates.

GRSG-TDDD-GL-019-Guideline2 – In general habitat management 

areas, do not authorize new surface disturbing or disruptive activities 

from March 15 to June 30 within 2 miles of the lek or lek perimeter of 

any occupied lek located inside general areas. Activities that meet the 

exception, waiver, and modification criteria may be authorized. Where 

credible data, based upon field analysis, support different timeframes 

for this restriction, dates may be shifted by 14 days before or 

subsequent to the above dates.

 

2On a case-by-case basis, and only when it can be demonstrated that the activity will not cause declines in greater sage-grouse populations, allow exceptions, 

modifications, and waivers. The authorized officer may grant an exception if a review determines that the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair 

the function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of greater sage-grouse.
89

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

MA 134 - Sage-grouse winter concentration areas:

Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities in mapped sage-grouse 

winter concentration areas, to be mapped by the WGFD, would be 

prohibited from December 1–March 14 to protect PHMA (core only) 

populations of sage-grouse that use these winter concentration 

habitats. This timing limitation would be applied to all winter 

concentration areas within PHMAs.

Activities in unsuitable habitats within PHMAs would be evaluated 

under the exception, waiver, and modification criteria and could be 

allowed on a case-by-case basis.

Protection of additional mapped winter concentration areas in GHMAs 

would be implemented where winter concentration areas are 

identified as supporting populations of sage-grouse that attend leks 

within PHMAs (core only). Appropriate seasonal timing restrictions 

and habitat protection measures would be considered and evaluated in 

all identified winter concentration areas.

GRSG-TDDD-GL-020-Guideline3 – Within mapped winter 

concentration areas in priority-core habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize new surface disturbing or 

disruptive activities from December 1 through March 14 to protect 

priority-core and sagebrush focal area greater sage-grouse populations 

that use these winter concentration habitats. Activities not located in 

suitable habitat that meet the exception, waiver, and modification 

criteria may be authorized.

GRSG-TDDD-GL-021-Guideline3 – Within mapped winter 

concentration areas in priority-connectivity and general habitat 

management areas, do not authorize new surface disturbing or 

disruptive activities from December 1 through March 14 where winter 

concentration areas are identified as supporting populations of greater 

sage-grouse that attend leks within priority-core habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas.

Predation

MA 135 - The BLM would support other agencies in their efforts to 

minimize impacts from predators.

The BLM would implement strategies and techniques in land 

management decisions that address predators shown to pose a threat 

to sage-grouse (Appendix F).

The BLM would support and encourage other agencies in their efforts 

to minimize impacts from predators on sage-grouse where needs have 

been documented.

GRSG-PR-GL-102-Guideline – Efforts by other agencies to 

minimize impacts from predators on greater sage-grouse should be 

supported and encouraged where needs have been documented.

 

3On a case-by-case basis, and only when it can be demonstrated that the activity will not cause declines in greater sage-grouse populations, allow exceptions, 

modifications, and waivers. The authorized officer may grant an exception if a review determines that the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair 

the function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of greater sage-grouse.
90

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

Noise

MA 136 - The BLM would work with proponents to limit project 

related noise where it would be expected to reduce functionality of 

habitats that support PHMA populations.

The BLM would evaluate the potential for limitation of new noise 

sources on a case-by-case basis as appropriate.

BLM’s near-term goal would be to limit noise sources that would be 

expected to negatively impact PHMA populations and to continue to 

support the establishment of ambient baseline noise levels for occupied 

PHMA leks.

As additional research and information emerges, specific new 

limitations appropriate to the type of projects being considered would 

be evaluated and appropriate limitations would be implemented where 

necessary to minimize potential for noise impacts on PHMA population 

behavioral cycles.

As new research is completed, new specific limitations would be 

coordinated with the WGFD and partners.

Noise levels at the perimeter of the lek should not exceed 10 Aweighted Decibels (dBA) above ambient noise.

GRSG-TDDD-ST-015-Standard – During lekking (March 1 to May 

15), restrict noise to 10dB above ambient (not to exceed 20-24 dB) 

measured at the perimeter of an occupied lek to lekking birds from 6 

pm to 9 am within a buffer distance of 3.1 miles4.

Adaptive Management

MA 137 - The Greater Sage-Grouse adaptive management plan 

(Appendix D) provides a means of addressing and responding to 

unintended negative impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat 

will be addressed before consequences become severe or irreversible. 

The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments will include the 

requirement for projects requiring an EIS to develop adaptive 

management strategies in support of the population management 

GRSG-GRSGH-ST-004-Standard - When 1) annual lek counts, 

wing counts, aerial surveys, habitat monitoring or Density Disturbance 

Calculation Tool evaluations show deviation from normal annual 

fluctuations in greater sage-grouse habitat or populations for two 

consecutive years that may indicate a long-term downward trend or 2) 

monitoring identifies other negative population or habitat anomalies 

for greater sage-grouse, conduct an evaluation to determine causal 

 

4

Plan buffer distances reflect lower-interpreted range from Manier, D.J., Bowen, Z.H., Brooks, M.L., Casazza, M.L., Coates, P.S., Deibert, P.A., Hanser, S.E., and

Johnson, D.H., 2014, Conservation buffer distance estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse—A review: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1239, 14 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141239.
91

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse set by the State of Wyoming. 

Wyoming ADPPs will include an adaptive management plan, as 

reviewed by the BLM WO, SOL, and USFWS, which includes: Upon 

determination that a hard trigger is tripped, the BLM and/or the Forest 

Service will immediately defer issuance of discretionary authorizations 

for new actions for a period of 90 days. In addition, within 14 days of a 

determination, the Adaptive Management Working Group will convene 

to develop an interim response strategy and initiate an assessment to 

determine the causal factors.

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when 

potential management changes are needed in order to continue 

meeting Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives. With respect 

to sage-grouse, all regulatory entities in Wyoming, including the BLM 

and Forest Service, use soft and hard triggers. Soft and hard triggers 

are focused on three metrics: 1) number of active leks, 2) acres of 

available habitat, and 3) population trends based on annual lek counts.

In making amendments to this plan, the BLM will coordinate with the 

USFWS as BLM continues to meet its objective of conserving, 

enhancing and restoring Greater Sage-Grouse habitat by reducing, 

minimizing or eliminating threats to that habitat.

Soft Triggers:

Soft triggers are indicators that management or specific activities may 

not be achieving the intended results of conservation action or that 

unanticipated changes to populations or habitats have occurred that 

have the potential to place habitats or populations at risk. The soft 

trigger is any deviation from normal trends in habitat or population in 

any given year. Metrics include, but are not limited to, annual lek 

counts, wing counts, aerial surveys, habitat monitoring, and DDCT 

evaluations. BLM and/or Forest Service field offices, with the assistance 

of their respective land and resource management plan implementation 

groups, local WGFD offices, and local sage-grouse working groups will 

evaluate the metrics with the Adaptive Management Working Group 

factors and develop an appropriate response strategy. This strategy 

may include curtailment of activities that may adversely affect greater 

sage-grouse populations or habitat.

GRSG-GRSGH-ST-005-Standard - Variability in 1) number of 

active leks, 2) acres of available greater sage-grouse habitat, or 3) 

greater sage-grouse population trends based on lek counts can provide 

catastrophic indicators that greater sage-grouse are not responding to 

conservation measures set forth in the plan or that large scale negative 

impacts to greater sage-grouse populations or habitat are occurring. If 

two of the preceding three indicators exceed 60% of normal variability 

in a year or one of the preceding three indicators exceeds 40% of 

normal variability for 3 out of any 5 years, desired conservation results 

are not being attained and within 14 days the Adaptive Management 

Working Group (i.e., representatives from the Bureau of Land, Forest 

Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and State of Wyoming) will 

convene to develop an interim response strategy and initiate an 

assessment to determine the causal factors.
92

BLM Management Actions Forest Service Plan Components

(AMWG) on an annual basis. The purpose of these strategies is to 

address localized Greater Sage-Grouse population and habitat changes 

by providing the framework in which management will change if 

monitoring identifies negative population and habitat anomalies in 

order to avoid crossing a hard trigger threshold.

Hard Triggers:

Hard triggers are indicators that management is not achieving desired 

conservation results. Hard triggers would be considered a catastrophic 

indicator that the species is not responding to conservation actions, or 

that a larger-scale impact or set of impacts is having a negative effect. 

Within the range of normal population variables, hard triggers shall be 

determined to take effect when two of the three metrics exceeds 60 

percent of normal variability for the area under management in a single 

year, or when any of the three metrics exceeds 40% of normal 

variability for a three year time period within a five-year range of 

analysis. A minimum of three consecutive years in a five-year period is 

used to determine trends (i.e., Y1-2-3, Y2-3-4, Y3-4-5).

Sagebrush Focal Areas

MA 138 - Designate SFAs as shown on Map 2-36 (1,915,990 acres). 

SFAs will be managed as PHMA, with the following additional 

management:

1) Recommended for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 

1872, subject to valid existing rights, the lands shown in Map 2-23 

(252,160 acres).2) Prioritized for management and conservation 

actions in these areas, including, but not limited to review of livestock 

grazing permits/leases (see livestock grazing section for additional 

actions).

Will be identified in the Record of Decision and on maps.

1Wind energy development is a specialized aspect of ROW authorizations. Exclusion and avoidance areas described here for wind energy development are in 

addition to the ROW actions described in actions 30 through 35.
93

Table 1

BLM Seasonal Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse Wyoming Basin Ecoregion

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 Reference

Breeding and Nesting (Seasonal Use Period March 1-June 

15) 

Doherty. 2008. Sage-grouse and Energy Development: Integrating 

Science with Conservation Planning to Reduce Impacts.

Holloran and Anderson. 2005. Spatial Distribution of Greater Sagegrouse nests in relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats.

Lek Security Proximity of trees Trees absent or 

uncommon on 

shrub/grassland 

ecological sites within 

1.8 miles (approx. 3 km) 

of occupied leks.

Baruch-Mordo, S., J. S. Evans, J. P. Severson, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, 

J. M. Kiesecker, M. J. Falkowski, C. A. Hagen, and K. P. Reese. 2013. 

Saving sage-grouse from trees.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Proximity of sagebrush 

to leks

Adjacent protective 

sagebrush cover within 

330 ft. (approx. 100 m) 

of an occupied lek

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Cover % of seasonal habitat 

meeting desired 

conditions

>80% of the nesting 

habitat meets the 

recommended 

vegetation 

characteristics, where 

appropriate (relative to 

ecological site potential, 

etc.).

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.
94

Table 1

BLM Seasonal Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse Wyoming Basin Ecoregion

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 Reference

Sagebrush cover2 5 to 25% Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Connelly, J. W., K. P. Reese, and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of 

Greater sage-grouse habitats and populations. University of Idaho 

College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80. University 

of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis 

of Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and broodrearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 13 (Supplement 1):42-50.

Sagebrush height

Arid sites3

Mesic sites4

4-31 inches (20.3-80cm)

12-31 inches (40-80cm)

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Predominant sagebrush 

shape

Predominantly spreading 

shape5

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. 

Perennial grass cover2

Arid sites3

Mesic sites4

>10%

>15%

Cool-season 

bunchgrasses preferred

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Cagney J., E. Bainter, B. Budd, T. Christiansen, V. Herren, M. Holloran, B. 
95

Table 1

BLM Seasonal Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse Wyoming Basin Ecoregion

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 Reference

Rashford, M. Smith and J. Williams. 2010. Grazing influence, objective 

development, and management in Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat. University of Wyoming College of Agriculture Extension Bulletin 

B-1203. Laramie.

Perennial grass and forb 

height

Adequate nesting cover 

of >6” or as determined 

by ESD site potential and 

local variability

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Connelly, J. W., K. P. Reese, and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of 

Greater sage-grouse habitats and populations. University of Idaho 

College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80. University 

of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, J.D. Tack, B.L Walker, J.M. Graham and J.L. 

Beck. 2014. Linking Conservation Actions to Demography: Grass Height 

Explains Variation in Greater Sage-Grouse Nest Survival. Wildlife 

Biology, 20(6): 320-325.

Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis 

of Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and broodrearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 13 (Supplement 1):42-50.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Perennial forb cover2

Arid sites3

Mesic sites4

>5%

>10%

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.
96

Table 1

BLM Seasonal Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse Wyoming Basin Ecoregion

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 Reference

Brood-Rearing/Summer1 (Seasonal Use Period June 16-October 31)

Cover % of Seasonal habitat 

meeting desired 

condition

>40% of the 

summer/brood habitat 

meets recommended 

brood habitat 

characteristics where 

appropriate (relative to 

ecological site potential, 

etc.)

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Sagebrush cover2 5-25% Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Sagebrush height 4 to 32 inches (20.3-

80cm)

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Perennial grass cover 

and forbs2

>5% arid sites

>10% mesic sites

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Riparian areas/mesic 

meadows2

Proper Functioning 

Condition

Preferred forbs are listed in Stiver et al. In press. Overall total forb cover 

may be greater than that of preferred forb cover since not all forb 

species are listed as preferred.

Upland and riparian 

perennial forb availability

Preferred forbs are 

common with several 

preferred species 

present

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.
97

Table 1

BLM Seasonal Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse Wyoming Basin Ecoregion

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 Reference

Winter1 (Seasonal Use Period November 1-February 28)

Cover and 

Food 

% of seasonal habitat 

meeting desired 

conditions

>80% of the wintering 

habitat meets winter 

habitat characteristics 

where appropriate 

(relative to ecological 

site, etc.).

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Sagebrush cover above 

snow2

>5% Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Sagebrush height above 

snow

>10 inches (>25cm) Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

1

Seasonal dates can be adjusted by local unit according to geographic region.

2Absolute cover is the actual recorded cover and can exceed 100% when recorded across all species and all layers. It is not relative cover, which is the 

proportions of each species, and equals 100%. Note that cover is reported for only those species (e.g., sagebrush, preferred forbs) that are sampled to 

determine suitability of habitat for sage-grouse. Overall cover at the site will be greater than that sampled for sage-grouse habitat, due to other species 

present.

3Arid corresponds to the 10 – 12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (Stiver et al. 

In Press).

4Mesic corresponds to the >12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata vaseyana is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (Stiver et al. In 

Press).

5Collectively the indicators for sagebrush (cover, height, and shape), perennial grass and perennial forb (cover, height and/or availability) represent the desired 

condition range for nesting/early brood rearing habitat characteristics, consistent with the breeding habitat suitability matrix identified in Stiver et al. In Press. 

Sagebrush plants that are more tree or columnar-shaped provide less protective cover near the ground than sagebrush plants with a spreading shape (Stiver et 
98

Table 1

BLM Seasonal Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse Wyoming Basin Ecoregion

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 Reference

al. In Press). Some sagebrush plants are naturally columnar (e.g., Great Basin big sagebrush), and a natural part of the plant community. However, a 

predominance of columnar shape arising from animal impacts may warrant management investigation or adjustments at site specific scales.

6

Preferred forbs are listed in Stiver et al. In Press. Overall total forb cover may be greater than that of preferred forb cover since not all forb species are listed 

as preferred.

7All Desired Conditions will be dependent upon site capability and local variation (e.g., weather patterns, localized drought, ESD state, etc.).

Table 2

BLM Seasonal Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse NE Wyoming

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 References

Breeding Habitat (Lek and Nesting/Early Brood-Rearing) Doherty. 2008. Sage-grouse and Energy Development: Integrating 

Science with Conservation Planning to Reduce Impacts.

Holloran and Anderson. 2005. Spatial Distribution of Greater SageGrouse nests in relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats.

Lek Security Proximity of trees Trees absent or 

uncommon on 

shrub/grassland 

ecological sites within 

1.86 miles (3 km) of 

occupied leks.

Baruch-Mordo, S., J. S. Evans, J. P. Severson, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, J. 

M. Kiesecker, M. J. Falkowski, C. A. Hagen, and K. P. Reese. 2013. Saving 

sage-grouse from trees.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Proximity of sagebrush 

to leks

Adjacent protective 

sagebrush cover within 

328 ft. (100 m) of an 

occupied lek

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.
99

Table 2

BLM Seasonal Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse NE Wyoming

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 References

Nesting/Early Brood-Rearing5,10,12,13,14

Cover and 

Food

Seasonal habitat extent >80% of the nesting 

habitat meets the 

recommended 

vegetation 

characteristics, where 

appropriate (relative to 

ecological site potential, 

etc.).

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Sagebrush cover2 5-25% Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Connelly, J. W., K. P. Reese, and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of 

Greater sage-grouse habitats and populations. University of Idaho 

College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80. University 

of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis 

of Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and broodrearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 13 (Supplement 1):42-50.

Sagebrush height

Arid sites3

Mesic sites4

4-31 inches (20.3-80cm)

12-31 inches (40-80cm)

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Predominant sagebrush 

shape

Predominantly spreading 

shape5

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.
100

Table 2

BLM Seasonal Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse NE Wyoming

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 References

Perennial grass cover 2

Arid sites3

Mesic sites4

>10%

>15%

Cool-season 

bunchgrasses preferred

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Cagney J., E. Bainter, B. Budd, T. Christiansen, V. Herren, M. Holloran, B. 

Rashford, M. Smith and J. Williams. 2010. Grazing influence, objective 

development, and management in Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat. University of Wyoming College of Agriculture Extension Bulletin 

B-1203. Laramie.

Perennial grass height Adequate nesting cover 

of >6” or as determined 

by ESD site potential 

and local variability

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Connelly, J. W., K. P. Reese, and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of 

Greater sage-grouse habitats and populations. University of Idaho 

College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80. University 

of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, J.D. Tack, B.L Walker, J.M. Graham and J.L. 

Beck. 2014. Linking Conservation Actions to Demography: Grass Height 

Explains Variation in Greater Sage-Grouse Nest Survival. Wildlife 

Biology, 20(6): 320-325.

Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis 

of Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and broodrearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 13 (Supplement 1):42-50.

Herman-Brunson, K.M., K.C. Jensen, N.W. Kaczor, C.C. Swanson, M.A. 

Rumble and R.W. Klaver 2009. Nesting Ecology of Greater Sage-Grouse 
101

Table 2

BLM Seasonal Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse NE Wyoming

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 References

Centrocercus urophasianus at the Eastern Edge of their Historic 

Distribution. Wildlife Biology 15: 237-246.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Perennial forb cover 2

Arid sites3

Mesic sites4

>5%

>10%

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Perennial forb 

availability

Preferred forbs are 

common with several 

species present

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Late Brood-Rearing/Summer1 (July-October)

1 (Apply to all habitat outside of nesting/breeding and winter)

Cover and 

Food

Seasonal habitat extent >40% of the 

summer/brood habitat 

meets recommended 

brood habitat 

characteristics where 

appropriate (relative to 

ecological site potential, 

etc.)

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Sagebrush cover2 5-25% Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:967-985.
102

Table 2

BLM Seasonal Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse NE Wyoming

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 References

Sagebrush height 4 to 32 inches (20.3-

80cm)

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Perennial grass cover 2, >15% Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Upland and riparian 

perennial forb 

availability2

Preferred forbs are 

common with several 

preferred species 

present,6,

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Riparian meadow habitat 

condition 

Proper Functioning 

Condition

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Winter1 November-March1 (Apply to areas of known or likely winter-use)

Cover and 

Food 

Seasonal habitat extent >80% of the wintering 

habitat meets winter 

habitat characteristics 

where appropriate 

(relative to ecological 

site, etc.).

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Sagebrush cover above 

snow2

>5% Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. 

W. Karl. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multi-
103

Table 2

BLM Seasonal Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse NE Wyoming

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 References

scale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Sagebrush height above 

snow

>10 inches (>25cm) Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

1

Seasonal dates can be adjusted by local unit according to geographic region.

2 Absolute cover is the actual recorded cover and can exceed 100% when recorded across all species and all layers. It is not relative cover, which is the 

proportions of each species, and equals 100%. Note that cover is reported for only those species (e.g., sagebrush, preferred forbs) that are sampled to 

determine suitability of habitat for sage-grouse. Overall cover at the site will be greater than that sampled for sage-grouse habitat, due to other species 

present.

3 Arid corresponds to the 10 – 12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (Stiver et al. 

In Press).

4 Mesic corresponds to the >12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata vaseyana is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (Stiver et al. In 

Press).

5Collectively the indicators for sagebrush (cover, height, and shape), perennial grass and perennial forb (cover, height and/or availability) represent the desired 

condition range for nesting/early brood rearing habitat characteristics, consistent with the breeding habitat suitability matrix identified in Stiver et al. In Press. 

Sagebrush plants that are more tree or columnar-shaped provide less protective cover near the ground than sagebrush plants with a spreading shape (Stiver et 

al. In Press). Some sagebrush plants are naturally columnar (e.g., Great Basin big sagebrush), and a natural part of the plant community. However, a 

predominance of columnar shape arising from animal impacts may warrant management investigation or adjustments at site specific scales.

6

Preferred forbs are listed in Stiver et al. In Press. Overall total forb cover may be greater than that of preferred forb cover since not all forb species are listed 

as preferred.

7All Desired Conditions will be dependent upon site capability and local variation (e.g., weather patterns, localized drought, ESD state, etc.).
104

Table 1

Forest Service Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for Greater Sage- grouse

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition

AREAS MANAGED FOR BREEDING AND NESTING 1,2,3 

(Seasonal Use Period March 15-June 30) 

Apply 5.3 miles from occupied leks. 4

Lek Security Proximity of trees,5 Trees or other tall structures are absent 

to uncommon within 1.86 miles of leks 6,7

Proximity of sagebrush to leks 6 Adjacent protective sagebrush cover 

within 328 feet of lek6

Cover Seasonal habitat extent7 (Percent of 

seasonal habitat meeting desired 

conditions.)

>80% of the breeding and nesting habitat 

Sagebrush canopy cover 6,7,8 15 to 25%

Sagebrush height7

Arid sites 7,9

Mesic sites 7,10

4 to 32 inches in black sage and 12 to 32 

inches in all other areas 

All Wyoming NFs and NGs: 16 to 32 

inches

Predominant sagebrush shape6 >50% in spreading11

Perennial grass canopy cover 6, 7

Arid sites 6,7,9

Mesic sites 6,7,10

>10%

>15%

Perennial grass height6,7,8 Provide overhead and lateral concealment 

from predators6, 15

Perennial forb canopy cover 6,7,8

Arid sites 9

Mesic sites 10

>5% 6,7

>10% 6,7

AREAS MANAGED FOR BROOD-REARING/SUMMER1

(Seasonal Use Period July 1-November 30) 

Cover Seasonal habitat extent 7 (Percent of 

seasonal habitat meeting desired 

conditions.)

>40% of the brood-rearing/summer habitat 

Sagebrush canopy cover 6,7,8 10 to 25%

Sagebrush height 7,8 4 to 32 inches in black sage and 12 to 32 

inches in all other areas

Perennial grass canopy cover and 

forbs7,8

>15%

Riparian areas/mesic meadows Proper Functioning Condition 12 

Upland and riparian perennial forb 

availability 6,7

Preferred forbs are common with several 

preferred species present 13
105

Table 1

Forest Service Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for Greater Sage- grouse

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition

WINTER1 (Seasonal Use Period December 1-March 14)

Cover and Food Seasonal habitat extent 6,7,8 (Percent of 

seasonal habitat meeting desired 

conditions.)

>80% of the winter habitat 

Sagebrush canopy cover above snow6,7,8 >10% 

Sagebrush height above snow 6,7,8 >10 inches 14

1

Seasonal dates can be adjusted; that is, start and end dates may be shifted either earlier or later, but the amount 

of days cannot be shortened or lengthened by the local unit.

2 Doherty, K. 2008. Sage-grouse and Energy Development: Integrating Science with Conservation Planning to Reduce 

Impacts. University of Montana. Missoula, MT.

3 Holloran and Anderson. 2005. Spatial Distribution of Greater Sage-grouse nests in relatively contiguous sagebrush 

habitats. Condor 107:742-752.

4 Buffer distance may be changed only if 3 out of 5 years of telemetry studies indicate the 5.3 miles is not 

appropriate.

5 Baruch-Mordo, S. J.S. Evans, J.P Severson, D.E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, M.J. Falkowski. C.A. Hagen, 

and K.P. Reese. . 2013. Saving sage-grouse from trees: A proactive solution to reducing a key threat to a candidate 

species. Biological Conservation 167: 233-241.

6 Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl, eds. [In press]. Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework: A Multiscale Assessment Tool. Technical Reference 6710-1. Bureau of Land Management 

and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Denver, Colorado.

7 Connelly, J. M. A. Schroweder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun.2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations 

and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28 (4): 967-985.

8 Connelly, J. K. Reese, and M. Schroder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater sage-grouse habitats and populations. Station 

Bulletin 80, Contribution 979. University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources Experiment Station. Moscow, ID.

9 10–12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this 

type site (Stiver et al, 2015).

10 >12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata vaseyana is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site 

(Stiver et al, 2015).

11 Sagebrush plants with a spreading shape provide more protective cover than sagebrush plants that are more

tree- or columnar shaped (Stiver et al. 2015). 

13 Existing land management plan desired conditions for riparian areas/wet meadows (spring seeps) may be used in 

place of properly functioning conditions, if appropriate for meeting greater sage-grouse habitat requirements.

13 Preferred forbs are listed in Table III-2 (Stiver et al. 2015). Overall total forb cover may be greater than that of 

preferred forb cover since not all forb species are listed as preferred in Table III-2.

14 The height of sagebrush remaining above the snow depends upon snow depth in a particular year. Intent is to 

manage for tall, healthy, sagebrush stands.

15Projects will be designed to provide overhead and lateral concealment of nests on a site specific basis.
106

Table 2

Forest Service Grazing Guidelines for Greater Sage-grouse Seasonal Habitat

Seasonal Habitat Grazing Guidelines

Areas managed for breeding 

and nesting 1 within 5.3 miles 

of occupied leks

Perennial grass height: 2

When grazing occurs during breeding and nesting season (March 15 to 

June 30) manage for upland perennial grass height of 7 inches 3,4,5,6

When grazing occurs post breeding and nesting season (July 1 to 

November 30) manage for 4 inches 4,5,8 of perennial grass height. 

Areas managed for brood 

rearing and summer habitat1 

Retain an average stubble height of 4 inches for herbaceous 

riparian/mesic meadow vegetation 7,9

Winter 1 <35% utilization of sagebrush

1 For descriptions of Seasonal Habitat and Seasonal Periods of greater sage-grouse see table 1.

2 Grass heights only apply in breeding and nesting habitat with >10% sagebrush cover to support nesting. 

3 Holloran et al. 2005. Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming. 

4 Average droop height, assuming current vegetation composition has the capability to achieve these heights. 

Heights will be measured at the end of the nesting period (Connelly et al., 2000).

5 Hagen C., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus 

nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 13(1): 42-50.

6Due to variability of annual precipitation and forage production 7”stubble height may not be possible every year, 

even in the absence of livestock grazing.

7 In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage-grouse prefer the lower vegetation (5–15 cm vs. 30–50 cm; Oakleaf 1971, 

Neel 1980, Klebenow 1982, Evans 1986) and succulent forb growth stimulated by moderate livestock grazing (Neel 

1980, Evans 1986); moderate use equates to a 10-cm residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges and 5-cm 

for Kentucky bluegrass (Mosley et al. 1997, Clary and Leininger 2000) (Crawford et al. 2004. Ecology and 

Management of sage-grouse grouse habitat).8 Stubble height to be measured at the end of the growing season. 

9 Stubble height to be measured in the meadow areas used by greater sage-grouse for brood-rearing (not on the 

hydric greenline).