o	 63,195.32 acres of PHMA-core on the Bridger-Teton National Forest 

Final EIS	 Chapter 2 

CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT EIS AND FINAL EIS 

As a result of public comments, best science, cooperating agency coordination, and internal review of the 

Draft Land Use Plan (LUP) Amendments/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Bureau of Land 

Management’s (BLM) and Forest Service’s Preferred Alternative, identified as Alternative E in the Draft 

LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, has been modified and is now the Proposed LUP Amendments for managing 

BLM-administered lands and National Forest System lands within the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 

planning area. The Proposed LUP Amendments focus on addressing public comments, while continuing to 

meet the BLM’s and Forest Service’s legal and regulatory mandates. 

Changes to the alternatives between the Draft EIS and Final EIS: 

As a result of public comments, best science, cooperating agency coordination, and internal review of the 

Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, the BLM and Forest Service have developed the Proposed LUP 

Amendments/Final EIS for managing BLM-administered and National Forest System lands in the 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse sub-region. The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS focuses on 

addressing public comments, while continuing to meet the BLM’s and Forest Service’s legal and regulatory 

mandates. The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS is a variation of the Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative E) and is within the range of alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS. Changes made to the 

Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS from the Preferred Alternative (Alternative E) in the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS are the following: 

	 Allocations for Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) and General Habitat Management 

Areas (GHMA)—allocations in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS provide more 

opportunities for uses in GHMAs, while still maintaining conservation management by establishing 

screening criteria for project/activity review in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. In the Proposed LUP 

Amendments (previously identified as Alternative E in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS), the 

following areas that were identified as general habitat in Alternatives B, C, and D are managed like 

PHMA-core or PHMA-connectivity: 

o	 32,756.82 acres of PHMA-connectivity on the Bridger-Teton National Forest 

o	 54,252.59 acres of PHMA-core on the Thunder Basin National Grasslands 

o	 3,335.85 acres that were identified as core habitat in Alternatives B, C, and D are managed 

as Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA) on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. 

	 SFAs—These areas have been identified in the Proposed LUP Amendments based on 

recommendations in a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) memorandum, and are proposed 

to be managed as PHMAs with the following additional management: Portions are recommended 

for withdrawal from locatable mineral location and entry; and prioritized for management and 

conservation actions including, but not limited to review of livestock grazing permits/leases. 

Alternative E (now the Proposed LUP Amendments) identified areas recommended for withdrawal, 

and/or prioritization for grazing, and analyzed the impacts of those decisions. See Draft EIS, Table 

2-4. As such, the management of these areas as SFAs and the impacts of the associated management 

decisions were addressed in the Draft EIS and is qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives 

analyzed. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-1 
Chapter 2	 Final EIS 

o	 The BLM will manage these areas, totaling approximately 1,915,990 acres within the 

Wyoming sub-region, as SFAs, because of the importance of these areas to the 

conservation of the species range-wide. Specifically, SFAs include characteristics such as 

existing high-quality sagebrush habitat; highest breeding densities; have been identified as 

essential to conservation and persistence of the species; represent a preponderance of 

current federal ownership and in some cases are adjacent to protected areas that serve to 

anchor the conservation importance of the landscape. In light of the landscape-level 

approach to sage-grouse conservation provided through this planning effort and as defined 

by the characteristics set forth above, as well as additional considerations, including 

potential for impacts from climate change, fire and invasive species, these areas have been 

identified as SFAs (see Management Actions 128, 137 and 138, and planning criteria in 

Chapter 1). 

o	 As noted in the Draft EIS, one of the goals/objectives of this planning effort is to protect 

both the habitat and the species (see Management Goal 1 and Management Objectives 2 

through 6). The habitat in the SFAs exhibits areas of high-quality sagebrush habitat, areas 

with highest breeding densities, and areas identified as essential to conservation and 

persistence of the species. 

	 In November 2014, the USGS released their Report on Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for 

Greater Sage-Grouse – A Review (Mainer et al. 2014). The purpose of this report is to provide a 

reference for land managers and others who are working to develop biologically relevant and 

socioeconomically practical buffer distances around sage-grouse habitats. The Proposed LUP 

Amendments, in accordance with the State of Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy, impose restrictions 

targeted to the individual threats to breeding and nesting activity in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

In light of the USGS report, the USFWS has indicated that the Core Area Strategy’s overlapping 

and reinforcing mechanisms gives the USFWS confidence that the lek-buffer distances in the 

State’s Core Area Strategy will be protective of breeding sage-grouse for habitat within the State 

of Wyoming. The buffers in the Proposed LUP Amendments (consistent with the State’s Core 

Areas Strategy) were designed based on recommendations from biologists in the USFWS, BLM, 

and WGFD, and based on WAFWA standards. Thus, the findings of the Buffer Study have not 

been incorporated into the Proposed LUP Amendments. Adaptive Management—Identification of 

hard and soft adaptive management triggers for population and habitat and identified appropriate 

management responses. 

	 Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS identified that the BLM and Forest Service would further develop the 

adaptive management approach by identifying hard and soft triggers and responses. All of the 

adaptive management responses were analyzed within the management actions common to all 

alternatives except the "no action" alternative. 

	 Monitoring and Disturbance—The monitoring framework was further refined in the Final EIS, and 

further clarification as to how disturbance cap calculations would be measured were developed for 

the Final EIS. During the public comment period, the BLM received comments on how monitoring 

and disturbance cap calculations would occur at implementation. The Draft EIS outlined the major 

components of the monitoring strategy, as well as provided a table portraying a list of 

anthropogenic disturbances that would count against the disturbance cap. A BLM disturbance and 

monitoring sub-team further enhanced the Appendix D in the Final EIS. 

	 Mitigation Strategy; Net Conservation Gain—The Proposed LUP Amendments provide for a net 

conservation gain standard of mitigation when BLM or Forest Service authorizes activities in 

PHMAs. This strategy is in response to the overall landscape-scale goal which is to enhance, 

conserve, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. All of the action alternatives provided 

management actions to meet the landscape-scale goal (see Goal #1 and Management Action 40). 

2-2 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

Final EIS	 Chapter 2 

	 Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone Cumulative 

Effects Analysis on Greater Sage-Grouse—A quantitative cumulative effects analysis for Greater 

Sage-Grouse was included in the Final EIS. This analysis was completed to analyze the effects of 

management actions on Greater Sage-Grouse at a biologically significant scale which as 

determined to be at the WAFWA Management Zone. The Draft EIS, in Chapter 4, included a 

qualitative analysis and identified that a quantitative analysis would be completed for the Final EIS 

at the WAFWA Management Zone. 

	 Forest Service Plan Amendment—Chapter 2 separates the Forest Service Proposed LUP 

Amendments and the BLM Proposed LUP Amendments. This is because the Forest Service has 

different guidance for writing planning language; however, the actions are basically the same for 

both the BLM and Forest Service under the Proposed LUP Amendments. 

	 Public Comment on Draft EIS—Updated the Final EIS based on public comment received on the 

Draft EIS (see Appendix O, Response to Public Comments Report). 

NEPA requires agencies to prepare a supplement to the Draft EIS if (1) the agency makes substantial 

changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (2) if there are significant 

new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action 

or its impacts. A supplement is not necessary if a newly formulated alternative is a minor variation of one 

of the alternatives and is qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS. 

The Proposed LUP Amendments include components of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS. Taken 

together, these components present a suite of management decisions that present a minor variation of the 

Preferred Alternative identified in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS and are qualitatively within the 

spectrum of alternatives analyzed. 

As such, the BLM has determined that the Proposed LUP Amendments is a minor variation of the Preferred 

Alternative and that the impacts of the Proposed LUP Amendments would not affect the human 

environment in a substantial manner or to a significant extent not already considered in the EIS. The impacts 

disclosed in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS are similar or identical to those described Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS. 

2.2 INTRODUCTION 

The Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments/Final EIS complies with NEPA, which directs the BLM and 

Forest Service to “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action 

in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources...” 

(NEPA Section 102[2][e]). At the heart of the alternative development process is the required development 

of a reasonable range of alternatives. Public and internal (within BLM and Forest Service) scoping (see 

Section 1.8, Planning Issues) identified issues that present opportunities for alternative courses of action, 

while the purpose and need for action described in Section 1.4, Purpose and Need for the Land Use Plan 

Amendments, provides sideboards for determining “reasonableness.” 

This chapter introduces and details the Proposed LUP Amendments. The Proposed LUP Amendments are 

a mix of management actions selected from the range of alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS and is based on best science, public scoping comments, public comments on the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS and internal agency discussion. The alternatives that were in the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS are also included in this chapter. These include the No Action Alternative, which 

would continue the existing policies of the BLM and Forest Service; three action alternatives; two proposed 

LUP amendments; and the alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-3 
The identification of the Preferred Alternative in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS did not constitute 

a commitment or decision in principle, and there is no requirement to select the Preferred Alternative or 

any of the separate alternatives presented in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS as the Proposed LUP 

Amendments. The BLM and Forest Service have the discretion to select any of the alternatives as their 

Preferred Alternative in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The agencies also have the discretion to 

modify the Preferred Alternative between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS into the Proposed LUP 

Amendments. The modifications are allowable as long as the actions presented in the Proposed LUP 

Amendments were within the range of alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS. The various parts of the 

separate alternatives that were analyzed in the Draft EIS can be “mixed and matched” to develop an 

alternative – known as the Proposed LUP Amendments – in the Final EIS, as long as the reasons for doing 

so are explained (40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 1506.2(b)). 

Management actions and allowable uses are designed to achieve objectives. Management actions are 

measures that guide day-to-day and future activities. Allowable uses delineate which uses are permitted, 

restricted, or prohibited, and may include stipulations or restrictions. Allowable uses also identify lands 

where specific uses are excluded to protect resource values, or where certain lands are open or closed in 

response to legislative, regulatory, or policy requirements. Implementation decisions are site-specific onthe-ground actions and are typically not addressed in LUPs. 

Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.3 INTRODUCTION TO DRAFT ALTERNATIVES 

LUP decisions consist of identifying and clearly defining goals and objectives (desired outcomes) for 

resources and resource uses, followed by developing allowable uses and management actions necessary for 

achieving the goals and objectives. These critical determinations guide future land management actions and 

subsequent site-specific implementation actions to meet multiple use and sustained yield mandates while 

sustaining land health. 

2.3.1 Components of Alternatives 

Goals are broad statements of desired (LUP-wide and resource- or resource-use-specific) outcomes and are 

not quantifiable or measurable. Objectives are specific measurable desired conditions or outcomes intended 

to meet goals. Goals and objectives can vary across alternatives, resulting in different allowable uses and 

management actions for some resources and resource uses. Forest Service objectives are also time specific. 

On National Forest System lands, forest plans guide management activities and contain desired conditions 

and objectives as well as standards and guidelines that provide direction for project planning and design. 

Desired conditions are descriptions of specific social, economic, and/or ecological characteristics of the 

planning area, or a portion of the planning area, toward which management of the land and resources should 

be directed. Standards are mandatory constraints on project and activity decisionmaking. Not meeting a 

standard would require a site-specific forest plan amendment. A guideline is a constraint on project and 

activity decision-making that allows for departure from its terms, so long as the purpose of the guideline is 

met. 

2.3.2 Purpose of Alternatives Development 

Land use planning and NEPA regulations require the BLM and Forest Service to formulate a reasonable 

range of alternatives. Alternative development is guided by established planning criteria (as outlined for 

the BLM at 43 CFR 1610) (see Chapter 1). 

2-4 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Final EIS Chapter 2 

The NEPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 1501.2(c) state that federal agencies shall: “Study, develop, and 

describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves 

unresolved conflict concerning alternatives uses of available resources....” 

The basic goal of alternative development is to produce distinct potential management scenarios that: 

 Address the identified major planning issues 

 Explore opportunities to enhance management of resources and resource uses 

 Resolve conflicts among resources and resource uses 

 Meet the purpose of and need for the LUP or LUP Amendments. 

Pursuit of this goal provides the BLM, Forest Service, and the public with an appreciation for the diverse 

ways in which conflicts regarding resources and resource uses might be resolved, and offers the decisionmaker a reasonable range of alternatives from which to make an informed decision. The components and 

broad aim of each alternative considered for the Casper, Green River (covering the Rock Springs Field 

Office), Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, and Rawlins Resource Management Plans (RMP); and the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF), Medicine Bow National Forest (MBNF), and Thunder Basin 

National Grassland (TBNG) Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) are discussed below. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR THE WYOMING 

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS 

The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments planning team employed the BLM 

planning process (outlined in Section 1.5., Readers Guide to the EIS Process) to develop a reasonable range 

of alternatives for the LUP Amendments/EIS. The BLM and Forest Service complied with NEPA and the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 1500 in the 

development of alternatives for this Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS, including seeking public input 

and analyzing reasonable alternatives. Where necessary to meet the planning criteria, to address issues and 

comments from cooperating agencies and the public, or to provide a reasonable range of alternatives, the 

alternatives include management options for the planning area that would modify or amend decisions made 

in the applicable LUP. Since this LUP Amendments/Final EIS will specifically address Greater SageGrouse conservation, many decisions within existing LUPs that do not impact Greater Sage-Grouse are 

acceptable and reasonable; in these instances, there is no need to develop alternative management 

prescriptions. 

Public input received during the scoping process was considered to identify significant issues deserving of 

detailed study to help identify alternatives. The planning team developed planning issues to be addressed 

in the LUP Amendments/EIS, based on broad concerns or controversies related to conditions, trends, needs, 

and existing and potential uses of planning area lands and resources. All comments were reviewed to 

determine whether they identified significant issues or unresolved conflicts. 

2.4.1 Develop a Reasonable Range of Alternatives 

Based on scoping and collaboration efforts, the BLM and Forest Service finalized their planning criteria 

and identified 25 key planning criteria to help frame the alternatives development process. Following the 

close of the public scoping period in March 2012, the BLM and the Forest Service began the alternatives 

development process. Between November 2010 and January 2013, the planning team (BLM, Forest Service, 

and cooperating agencies) met to develop management goals and to identify objectives and actions to 

address the goals. The various groups met numerous times throughout this period to refine their work. As 

outcomes of this process, the planning team: 

2-5 
Chapter 2	 Final EIS 

	 Customized the goals, objectives, and actions from the National Technical Team (NTT)-based 

	 Developed one No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four preliminary action alternatives. The 

first action alternative (Alternative B) is based on A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse

Conservation Measures (NTT 2011). 

	 Alternative C is based on a proposed alternatives submitted by conservation groups. 

alternative (Alternative B) to develop a third action alternative (Alternative D) that strives for 

balance among competing interests. 

	 Incorporated proposed Greater Sage-Grouse protection measures recommended by state 

governments as a fifth alternative (Alternative E). 

Each of the preliminary action alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS was designed to: 

	 Address the 26 planning issues (identified in Section 1.8.1) 

	 Fulfill the purpose and need for the LUP Amendments (outlined in Section 1.4, Purpose and Need 

for the Land Use Plan Amendments) 

	 Meet the multiple use mandates of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) 

(43 CFR 1716), MUSYA and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). 

2.4.2 Resulting Range of Alternatives in the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS 

The four resulting action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D and E) in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS offer a range of management approaches to maintain or increase Greater Sage-Grouse abundance and 

distribution of Greater Sage-Grouse by conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon 

which Greater Sage-Grouse populations depend in collaboration with other conservation partners. While 

the goal is the same across all the alternatives, each alternative contains a discrete set of objectives and 

management actions constituting separate LUP Amendments. The goal is met in varying degrees, with the 

potential for different long-range outcomes and conditions. 

The relative emphasis given to particular resources and resource uses differs as well, including allowable 

uses, restoration measures, and specific direction pertaining to individual resource programs. When 

resources or resource uses are mandated by law or are not tied to planning issues, there are typically few or 

no distinctions among alternatives. 

The meaningful differences among the alternatives are described in Section 2.9, Comparison of Proposed 

LUP Amendments and Draft Alternatives. Section 2.10, Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives, also 

provides a complete description of the proposed decisions for each alternative, including the project goal 

and objectives, management actions, and allowable uses for individual resource programs. Maps and figures 

provide a visual representation of differences between alternatives. In some instances, varying levels of 

management overlap a single area, or polygon, due to management prescriptions from different resource 

programs. In instances where varying levels of management prescriptions overlap a single polygon, the 

stricter of the management prescriptions would apply. 

2-6 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

Final EIS Chapter 2 

2.5 BLM AND FOREST SERVICE RESOURCE PROGRAMS FOR 

ADDRESSING GREATER SAGE-GROUSE THREATS 

The direction for managing Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in this document is focused on responding to the 

threats identified by the USFWS in their 2010 warranted but precluded finding on listing the Greater SageGrouse, as well as their Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report. The USFWS threats do not 

necessarily align with BLM or Forest Service resource program areas, and are often integrated into several 

different resource program areas. Table 2-1, USFWS Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and Their Habitat, 

Applicable BLM and Forest Service Proposed LUP Amendments Resource Program Areas Addressing 

These Threats, provides a cross-walk between each of the 2010 warranted but precluded finding and COT 

identified threats and the BLM and Forest Service program areas addressing these threats, with references 

to specific sections of the LUP amendments. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-7 
-

Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Table 2-1. USFWS Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and Their Habitat, Applicable BLM and Forest Service Proposed Land 

Use Plan Resource Program Areas Addressing These Threats 

USFWS Identified Threats to 

Greater Sage-Grouse and Its 

Habitat (2010 warranted but 

precluded finding) 

COT Report-Identified Threats to 

Greater Sage-Grouse and Its 

Habitat (2013) 

Applicable BLM and Forest Service Proposed Land Use Plan 

Resource Program Addressing Threat 

Wildland Fire Fire BLM: Wildland Fire Management 

Forest Service: Fire Management 

Invasive Species Non-native, Invasive Plants Species BLM: Vegetation Management, Range Management, Wildland Fire 

Management, and Recreation Forest Service: Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat, Fire Management, and Roads and Transportation 

Oil and Gas For wind energy development, see Infrastructure – power lines/pipelines, roads (below) 

Energy Development BLM: Lands and Realty and Fluid Minerals 

Forest Service: Lands and Realty and Fluid Minerals 

Prescribed Fire Sagebrush Removal BLM: Vegetation Management and Wildland Fire Management 

Forest Service: Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat and Fire Management 

Grazing Grazing BLM: Range Management, Wild Horse and Burro Management, Special Status 

Species, and Vegetation Management Forest Service: Livestock Grazing 

See Grazing Management (above) Range Management Structures BLM: Range Management 

Forest Service: Livestock Grazing 

No similar threat identified Free-Roaming Equid Management BLM: Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Forest Service: There is no Free Roaming Equid Management Direction in the Forest Service plan amendments. 

Conifer Encroachment Pinyon and/or Juniper Expansion BLM: Wildland Fire Management and Vegetation Management 

Forest Service: Fire Management and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Agriculture & Urbanization 

Agricultural Conversion and Ex-Urban Development 

BLM: Lands and Realty Forest Service: Lands and Realty/Land Ownership Adjustments 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-8 
-

Final EIS Chapter 2 

USFWS Identified Threats to 

Greater Sage-Grouse and Its 

Habitat (2010 warranted but 

precluded finding) 

COT Report-Identified Threats to 

Greater Sage-Grouse and Its 

Habitat (2013) 

Applicable BLM and Forest Service Proposed Land Use Plan 

Resource Program Addressing Threat 

Hard Rock Mining Mining BLM: Lands and Realty, Locatable Minerals, Salable Minerals, and Non-energy 

Leasable Minerals Forest Service: Coal Mines, Locatable Minerals, Non-energy Leasable Minerals, and Mineral Materials 

See Infrastructure, Roads Recreation BLM: Recreation and Trails and Travel Management 

Forest Service: Recreation and Roads/Transportation 

Infrastructure  Power lines/pipelines  Roads  Communication sites  Railroads Range improvements (see below) 

Infrastructure BLM: Lands and Realty and Trails and Travel Management 

Forest Service: Infrastructure, Lands and Realty and Roads/Transportation 

Infrastructure – Range Improvements Range Management Structures BLM: Range Management 

Forest Service: Livestock Grazing 

Water Developments No similar threat identified All applicable programs 

Climate Change No similar threat identified There is no BLM or Forest Service resource program in the Proposed LUP 

Amendments addressing this threat. 

Weather No similar threat identified There is no BLM or Forest Service resource program in the Proposed LUP 

Amendments addressing this threat. 

Predation No similar threat identified BLM: All applicable programs 

Forest Service: Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat, Land and Realty, Minerals, and Predators 

Disease No similar threat identified BLM: All applicable programs 

Forest Service: Minerals/Fluid Mineral Operations 

Hunting No similar threat identified There is no BLM or Forest Service resource program in the Proposed LUP 

Amendments addressing this threat. 

Contaminants No similar threat identified BLM: Public Health and Safety 

Forest Service: Fluid Minerals 

Source: USFWS 2010, 2013 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-9 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.6 PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS/PROPOSED 

MANAGEMENT OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT 

2.6.1 Development of the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments for 

Greater Sage-Grouse Management 

The BLM and Forest Service modified the Preferred Alternative, identified as Alternative E in the Draft 

LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, which is now considered the Proposed LUP Amendments for managing 

BLM-administered and National Forest System lands within the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse planning 

area. The modifications are based on public comments received on the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, 

internal BLM and Forest Service review, new information and best available science, the need for 

clarification in the plans, and ongoing coordination with stakeholders across the range of the Greater SageGrouse. As a result, the Proposed LUP Amendments provide consistent Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

management across the range, prioritize development outside of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, and focus on 

a landscape-scale approach to conserving Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

Since release of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, the BLM and Forest Service have continued to 

work closely with a broad range of governmental partners, including Governors, State Fish and Game 

agencies, the USFWS, Indian tribes, county commissioners and many others. Through this cooperation, the 

BLM and Forest Service have developed Proposed LUP Amendments that take into account state, tribal, 

and local plans, policies, and strategies in accordance with applicable law, and contribute to the long-term 

conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse. The BLM and Forest Service also received many substantive 

public comments on the Draft LUP Amendments (Appendix O), which greatly informed the BLM/Forest 

Service’s development of the Proposed LUP Amendments. 

The BLM/Forest Service’s Proposed LUP Amendments consider documents related to the conservation of 

Greater Sage-Grouse that have been released since the publication of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS. For example, these Proposed LUP Amendments consider the USFWS’ October 27th, 2014 

memorandum Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendations to Refine Land Use Allocations in 

Highly Important Landscapes and the USGS’ November 21st, 2014 report Conservation Buffer Distance 

Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse—A Review (USGS 2014). Based on these documents, the BLM and 

Forest Service are proposing to designate SFAs to further protect highly valuable habitat and are proposing 

disturbance limits, excluded activities, and a sophisticated mapping utility to monitor the amount and 

density of disturbance when authorizing activities near leks. The BLM and Forest Service also updated the 

Proposed LUP Amendments to reflect new Greater Sage-Grouse state conservation strategies, including 

recent state executive orders. The objectives of these documents are consistent with the State of Wyoming’s 

Core Area Strategy, which is designed to protect Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat within core areas 

using a suite of tools and mechanisms that work in concert to conserve sage-grouse by reducing habitat loss 

and fragmentation through lek buffers, disturbance limits, excluding activities, and a sophisticated mapping 

utility to monitor the amount and density of disturbance. 

The BLM and Forest Service have refined the Proposed LUP Amendments to provide a layered 

management approach that offers the highest level of protection for Greater Sage-Grouse in the most 

valuable habitat. Land use allocations in the Proposed LUP Amendments would limit or eliminate new 

surface disturbance in PHMAs, while minimizing disturbance in GHMAs. In addition to establishing 

protective land use allocations, the Proposed LUP Amendments would implement a suite of management 

tools such as disturbance limits (management action 127 and GRSG-TDDD-ST-009), Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat objectives and monitoring (Tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-5 and Appendix D), Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

desired conditions (GRSG-GRSGH-DC-001 and 002), mitigation approaches (management action 128, 

GRSG-TDDD-GL-002, and Appendix D), adaptive management triggers and responses (management 

2-10 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

 

Chapter 2 Final EIS 

actions 137 and 138, GRSG-GRSGH-ST-002, GRSG-GRSGH-ST-003, and Appendix D), and lek bufferdistances (management actions 129 through 134 and GRSG-TDDD-ST-001 through 007) throughout the 

range. These overlapping and reinforcing conservation measures will work in concert to improve Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat condition and provide clarity and consistency on how the BLM and Forest Service 

will manage activities in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

For the sake of clarity, BLM and Forest Service decisions have been separated into two sections (described 

in Section 2.6.3 and 2.6.4, respectively) in the Proposed LUP Amendments. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-11 
 

Chapter 2	 Final EIS 

2.6.3 BLM Proposed LUP Amendments 

Management Goals 

1.	 Conserve, recover, and enhance sage-grouse habitat on a landscape scale consistent with local, state, 

and federal management plans and policies, as practical, while providing for multiple use of BLMadministered lands and National Forest System lands. 

Management Objectives 

1.	 In cooperation with State of Wyoming and its agencies, local governments, private landowners, local 

sage-grouse working groups, partners and stakeholders, develop site-specific conservation strategies 

to maintain or enhance sage-grouse habitats and habitat connectivity. 

2.	 Enhance quality/suitable habitat to support the expansion of sage-grouse populations on federallyadministered lands within the planning areas. 

3.	 Manage sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintain habitat connectivity to support population 

objectives set by the State of Wyoming in cooperation with the agencies. 

4.	 Identify and prioritize opportunities for habitat enhancement and conservation within sage-grouse core 

habitat areas based on threats and the ability to manage sage-grouse habitat. 

5.	 Restore native (or desirable) plants and create landscape patterns which most benefit sage-grouse. 

6.	 Develop specific objectives to conserve, enhance or restore sage-grouse priority habitat based on 

Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD) (Forest Service may use other methods) and BLM land health 

evaluations (including within wetland and riparian areas) taking into account site history (historic 

treatments or habitat manipulations) that have changed the soil chemistry possibly altering the ESD. If 

an effective grazing system that meets sage-grouse habitat requirements is not already in place, analyze 

at least one alternative that conserves, restores, or enhances sage-grouse habitat in the NEPA document 

prepared for grazing management (Doherty et al. 2011b, Williams et al. 2011). 

7.	 Establish measurable objectives related to sage-grouse habitat from baseline monitoring data, ESDs 

(Forest Service may use other methods), or land health assessments/evaluations. 

8.	 Manage for vegetation composition and structure consistent with ecological site potential (Forest 

Service may use other methods) to achieve sage-grouse seasonal habitat objectives. 

9.	 Incorporate available site information collected using the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 

or similar methods to evaluate existing resource conditions and to develop any necessary resource 

solutions in cooperation with State of Wyoming and its agencies, the local governments, private 

landowners, project proponents, partners, and stakeholders. 

10. Incorporate management practices that will provide for maintenance and/or enhancement of sagegrouse habitats, including specific attention to maintenance of desired understories of sagebrush plant 

communities. When developing objectives for residual cover and species diversity, identify the 

ecological site types within the planning area and refer to the appropriate ESDs (Forest Service may 

use other methods). 

2-12 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

 

Chapter 2	 Final EIS 

11. In determining appropriate management actions that will be considered, refer to the document, 

“Grazing Influence, Management, and Objective Development in Wyoming's Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat” (Cagney et al. 2010) for guidance. 

12. Identify PHMAs and GHMAs for each WAFWA MZ across the current geographic range of Greater 

Sage-Grouse that are large enough to stabilize populations in the short term and enhance populations 

over the long term. Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in this planning area overlaps 2 WAFWA MZs: (1) 

MZ I-Great Plains and (2) MZ II-Wyoming Basin. 

13. Protect PHMAs and GHMAs from anthropogenic disturbance that will reduce distribution or 

abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse. 

14. Priority will be given to leasing and development of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, 

outside of PHMA and GHMA. When analyzing leasing and authorizing development of fluid mineral 

resources, including geothermal, in PHMA and GHMA, and subject to applicable stipulations for the 

conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse, priority will be given to development in non-habitat areas first 

and then in the least suitable habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. The implementation of these priorities 

will be subject to valid existing rights and any applicable law or regulation, including, but not limited 

to, 30 U.S.C. 226(p) and 43 C.F.R. 3162.3-1(h). 

Where a proposed fluid mineral development project on an existing lease could adversely affect Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations or habitat, the BLM will work with the lessees, operators, or other project 

proponents to avoid, reduce and mitigate adverse impacts to the extent compatible with lessees' rights 

to drill and produce fluid mineral resources. The BLM will work with the lessee, operator, or project 

proponent in developing an application for permit to drill (APD) for the lease to avoid and minimize 

impacts to sage-grouse or its habitat and will ensure that the best information about the Greater SageGrouse and its habitat informs and helps to guide development of such federal leases. 

15. In all SFAs and PHMAs, the desired condition is to maintain a minimum of 70 percent of lands capable 

of producing sagebrush with 10 to 30% sagebrush canopy cover. The attributes necessary to sustain 

these habitats are described in Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (BLM Tech Ref 1734-6). 

16. The habitat objectives will be part of the sage-grouse habitat assessment to be used during land health 

evaluations (see Monitoring Framework, Appendix D). These habitat objectives are not obtainable on 

every acre within the designated Greater Sage-Grouse habitat management areas. Therefore, the 

determination on whether the objectives have been met will be based on the specific site's ecological 

ability to meet the desired condition identified in the table. 

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. 

This information should not be viewed as providing standards by which to judge the overall quality of 

sagebrush habitats. Instead, these sage-grouse habitat characteristics should be used as one tool for 

assessing habitats and guiding management actions. There is a tendency to review each indicator and its 

suitability category independently, but site suitability is determined by the relationship among the several 

indicator values in each matrix and the relative abundance of habitat types across the landscape. It is 

important to understand that the desired conditions described for these habitat types are based on average 

plant productivity and structural data and expert opinion relative to sage-grouse use of a subset of sagebrush 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-13 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

communities and they may not apply to all sagebrush communities in the planning area variation (Davies 

et al. 2006). These measures also do not account for inter-annual climate variation (Davies et al. 2006). 

Individual indicator values do not define site suitability and overall site suitability descriptions require an 

interpretation of the relationships between the indicators and other factors. Professional expertise and 

judgment are required. Measurement of these objectives will follow the steps described in Appendix D. 

As described above, the identified habitat objectives are averages and will vary based on the individual 

ecological sites and their potential. Ecological sites are the basic component of a land-type classification 

system that describes ecological potential and ecosystem dynamics of land areas. All land/land use types 

are identified within the ecological site system, including rangeland, pasture, and forest land. An ecological 

site is defined as a distinctive kind of land with specific soil and physical characteristics that differ from 

other kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation and its ability to 

respond similarly to management actions and natural disturbances. Lands are classified considering discrete 

physical and biotic factors. Physical factors include soils, climate, hydrology, geology, and physiographic 

features. Biotic factors include plant species occurrence, plant community compositions, annual biomass 

production, wildlife-vegetation interactions, and other factors. Ecological dynamics, primarily disturbance 

regimes, such as grazing; fire; drought; management actions; and all resulting interactions are also a primary 

factor of ecological sites. Information and data pertaining to a particular ecological site is organized into a 

reference document known as an ESD. ESDs function as a primary repository of ecological knowledge 

regarding an ecological site. ESDs are maintained on the NRCS Ecological Site Information System (ESIS), 

which is the repository for information associated with ESDs and the collection of all site data 

(https://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/Welcome/pgESDWelcome.aspx). The ESD can help interpret if a site’s 

potential is less than or greater than the identified habitat objectives. 

In addition to the references identified in the following table, the Conservation Plans developed for each of 

the Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Groups will be consulted to identify specific habitat objectives 

appropriate for site-specific conditions. The Conservation Plans, updated in March 2014, are available on 

the WGFD website at: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wildlife-1000817.aspx. 

These habitat objectives in Table 2-2 and 2-3 summarize the characteristics that research has found 

represent the seasonal habitat needs for Greater Sage-Grouse. The specific seasonal components identified 

in the table were adjusted based on local science and monitoring data to define the range of characteristics 

used in this subregion. Thus, the habitat objectives provide the broad vegetative conditions we strive to 

obtain across the landscape that indicate the seasonal habitats used by sage-grouse. These habitat indicators 

are consistent with the rangeland health indicators used by the BLM. 

The habitat objectives will be part of the sage-grouse habitat assessment to be used during land health 

evaluations (see Monitoring Framework, Appendix D). These habitat objectives are not obtainable on every 

acre within the designated Greater Sage-Grouse habitat management areas. Therefore, the determination on 

whether the objectives have been met will be based on the specific site's ecological ability to meet the 

desired condition identified in the table. 

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. 

2-14 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Table 2-2. 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 Sage-grouse 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: Multi-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. 

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: Multi-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. 

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. 

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 sagegrouse 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 brood-rearing 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: Multi-scale Habitat Assessment 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-15 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 Reference 

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: Multi-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. 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 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 sagegrouse 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 brood-rearing 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: Multi-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. 

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. 

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 

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. 

2-16 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 Reference 

where appropriate (relative to ecological site potential, etc.) 

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: Multi-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. 

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: Multi-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. 

1Seasonal 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 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-17 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 Reference 

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. 6Preferred 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 2-3. 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 Sage-Grouse 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. 

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. 

2-18 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 References 

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. 

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 B1203. Laramie. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-19 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 References 

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 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) 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-20 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition7 References 

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. 

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 availability 

2 

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: 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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-21 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

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.). Management Actions and Allowable Uses The decisions in Table 2-4 will guide the BLM’s management but will be implemented as necessary through NEPA compliance on a site-specific basis. The decisions will be applied consistent with BLM’s applicable statutory and regulatory authority. 

Table 2-4. Management Actions and Allowable Uses 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

General Management Direction for Action Alternatives 

1 Continue to support the development of statewide sage-grouse seasonal habitat models for the State of Wyoming. 

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. 

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. 

4 Include the collection of baseline data and outline post-project monitoring components into project planning, as appropriate and necessary. 

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

as necessary. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-22 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 long-term success. 

7 Ensure site-specific, measurable, conservation and mitigation objectives are included in project planning within sage-grouse habitats. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

12 

Existing notices and approved plans of operations under 43 CFR 38091: 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 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. 

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 

1 These regulations apply to the exploration and development of locatable minerals on placer claims and lode claims, as well as exploration on tunnel sites and mineral 

processing operations on mill sites The location and maintenance of claims and sites are regulated under 43 CFR Subpart 3830. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-23 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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. 

14 Contribute to actions that help to ground-truth the statewide sage-grouse seasonal habitat models for the State of Wyoming. 

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. 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. 

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 sage-grouse conservation objectives (such as, but not limited to, 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. 

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. 

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. 

20 Construct roads needed for production activities to minimum design standards within PHMAs, in compliance with the Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) process. 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. 

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 Sage-Grouse populations or its habitat, as determined in coordination with the state wildlife 

agency and with project proponents, partners, and stakeholders. 

23 Management Action 23 has been moved to Management Action 137. 24 Management Action 24 has been moved to Management Action 137. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-24 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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. 

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). 

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 Sage-Grouse 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 Sage-Grouse. 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. 

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. 

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 sage-grouse habitat consistent with land use plan direction. 

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 non-habitat areas first and then in the 

least suitable habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Lands and Realty Management 

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

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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-25 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

For values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect: 

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. 

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. 

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 aboveground 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 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: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-26 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 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 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-27 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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. 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 I80 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 utility/transportation systems whenever practical. Areas to be avoided for new 

facility placement and routes would be identified on a case-by-case 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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-28 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 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 north-south. Other areas would be considered for rights-of-way on a case-by-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 north-south window on the west side of Flaming Gorge, a window south along Highway 430, and a northsouth 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-of-way. 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. 

33 No action 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 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. 

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. 

Renewable Energy 

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: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-29 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

Areas that are currently unavailable (Map 2-29) due to the need to protect sensitive resources would remain unavailable to wind energy 

development1. 

37 No action 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. 

39 No action 

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

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 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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-30 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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: 

 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. 

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. 

42 Sage-grouse habitat requirements would be utilized to prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition within PHMAs. 

43 Within PHMAs, non-mineral withdrawals would be evaluated to determine if the withdrawal action is consistent with sage-grouse conservation. 

Livestock Grazing Management 

44 

The BLM policy in WO-IM-2009-007 and BLM Handbook H-4180-1 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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-31 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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. 

Livestock Grazing Permit Monitoring 

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. 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. 

47 No action 

Permit Renewals 

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) 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-32 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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. 

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 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 Sage-Grouse, 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 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 season-of 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: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-33 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 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. 

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. 

51 No action 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 postdrought recovery. Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, 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 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 

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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-34 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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, 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 blocks would not be placed within 0.25 mile of an occupied sage-grouse 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: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-35 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 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 

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 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 

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 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-36 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 Sage-Grouse, 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: 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 

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. 

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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-37 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, 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 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. 

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. 

Minerals Management 

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

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. 

Fluid Minerals Unleased Estate 

59 No action 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 Sage-Grouse, 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). 

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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-38 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 Sage-Grouse, 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 BLM-administered 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 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 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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-39 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 case-by-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, 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 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 

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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-40 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

Overall consideration shall be given to minimizing the impact to sage-grouse 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. 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 Sage-Grouse, 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 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 projectspecific 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 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-41 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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. 

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. 

65 No action 66 Master Development Plans would be considered and encouraged for projects involving multiple proposed disturbances within PHMAs. 

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 SageGrouse, so long as the unitization plan adequately protects the rights of all parties, including the United States. 

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. 

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, 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. 

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). 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-42 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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: Produced water from CBNG wells will be treated and disposed of in collaboration and consistent with the requirements of the state. 

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. 

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. 

73 No action 74 No action 

Solid Leasable Minerals 

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 SageGrouse 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 Sage-Grouse, 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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-43 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 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. 

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 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 Sage-Grouse, 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: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-44 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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. 

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. 

Solid Leasable Minerals (Other than Coal and Oil Shale) 

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 Sage-Grouse, 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 leasing will be considered for Rock Creek/Tunp and Bear River Divide management areas. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-45 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 

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 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: 1,785,230 acres are withdrawn from mineral entry for the protection of sensitive resources (see Map 2-19). 

Salable Minerals 

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). 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-46 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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. 

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. 

Recreation and Visitor Services 

Outdoor Recreation Management 

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 Sage-Grouse, 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 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’ 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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-47 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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. 

83 No action 

Special Designations and Other Management Areas 

84 New sage-grouse conservation ACECs would not be designated. 85 No action 

Travel Management 

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. 

The following RMP decisions remain in effect: The Casper Field Office Poison Spider OHV Park (290 acres) would remain as an “open” OHV area. 

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 off-highway 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. 

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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-48 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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. 

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. 

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 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 Sage-Grouse leks. 

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, 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-ofway needs. 

92 Within PHMAs, when reseeding roads and trails, appropriate seed mixtures would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered. 

Vegetation Management 

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. 

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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-49 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 Sage-Grouse 

(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 Sage-Grouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 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. 

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 

present. 

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. 

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). 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-50 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

Vegetation Reclamation 

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. 

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 sage-grouse 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. 

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. 

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, nonnative 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 Sage-Grouse 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 Sage-Grouse, 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. 

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 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). 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-51 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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). 

105 

Priority would be given for implementing specific sage-grouse 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. 

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. 

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. 

Grasshopper/Mormon Cricket Control and Management 

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 Sage-Grouse, 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. 

Wild Horse Management 

109 Within PHMAs, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as follows: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-52 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 Sage-Grouse, 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. 

110 PHMA (core only) management objectives would be considered when evaluating appropriate management levels (AML). 

111 PHMA (core only) management objectives would be considered when conducting land health assessments in BLM HMAs. 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. 

113 Coordinate with other resources (Range, Wildlife, and Riparian) to conduct land health assessments within all BLM HMAs. 

Wildland Fire and Fuels Management 

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 Sage-grouse [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 Sage-Grouse 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 species and/or other treatment components. Invasive vegetation post-treatment 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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-53 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 Sage-Grouse, 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. 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. 

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 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 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-54 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 Sage-Grouse, 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 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. 

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. 

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 Sage-Grouse, 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. 

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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-55 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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: 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. 

120 No action 121 No action 122 No action 123 No action 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 Sage-Grouse. 

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 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, 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-56 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 Sage-Grouse, 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 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 resource damage. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-57 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 high-priority 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 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. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management 

Monitoring Effectiveness 

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 Sage-Grouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification 

described above: Casper RMP: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-58 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 

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. 

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. 

Onsite and Offsite Mitigation 

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 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 Sage-Grouse, 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. 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: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-59 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 impact analysis suggests. 

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 

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 sage-grouse 

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. 

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 sage-grouse 

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. 

131 

Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing 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 criteria and could be allowed on a case by case basis. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-60 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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. 

132 

Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing 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. 

133 

Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing 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. 

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. 

Predation 

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 sagegrouse (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. 

Noise 

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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-61 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 A-weighted Decibels (dBA) above ambient noise. 

Adaptive Management 

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 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 (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 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-62 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Action # BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

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 

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). 

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. Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-63 
 

Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.6.4 Forest Service Proposed LUP Amendments 

Although the BLM and Forest Service propose plan amendments are very similar, some differences occur. 

Differences are due to (1) variations in BLM and Forest Service planning regulations (see Section 1.7 in 

Chapter 1); (2) variation in agency authority (especially in minerals management); and (3) variation in 

management emphasis. Differences also occur as the result of variation in required terminology; the BLM 

provides direction in “Management Actions” while the Forest Service proposes direction in “Desired 

Conditions,” “Standards,” and “Guidelines.” Both agencies propose direction in “Objectives.” 

Some management actions for the BLM Proposed LUP Amendments propose management that is either 

similar to existing National Forest and National Grassland management direction or that is not appropriate 

to include in a Forest Service plan amendment. Examples include direction regarding project level analysis, 

“to do” lists for future inventory or assessment work, direction to develop tactical management plans, and 

repetition of existing direction from directives, laws, or regulations. Further information about this 

management direction will be displayed in implementation guidance that will follow issuance of the final 

approved Forest Service plan amendments. 

The management described in the Forest Service plan amendments for priority-core and priorityconnectivity management areas include the “proposed priority-core” and “proposed priority-connectivity” 

management areas. Maps 2-8, 2-13, 2-18, 2-23, 2-28, and 2-33 display the location of these areas for the 

Forest Service Proposed LUP Amendments. 

Forest Service Plan Components2 

Desired condition - A description of specific social, economic, and/or ecological characteristics of the plan 

area, or a portion of the plan area, toward which management of the land and resources should be directed. 

Desired conditions must be described in terms that are specific enough to allow progress toward their 

achievement to be determined, but do not include completion dates. 

Guideline - A constraint on project and activity decision making that allows for departure from its terms, 

so long as the purpose of the guideline is met. Guidelines are established to help achieve or maintain a 

desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal 

requirements. 

Objective - A concise, measurable, and time-specific statement of a desired rate of progress toward a 

desired condition or conditions. Objectives should be based on reasonably foreseeable budgets. 

Standard - A mandatory constraint on project and activity decision making, established to help achieve or 

maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable 

legal requirements. 

The direction in the following standards and guidelines will be applied consistent with applicable valid 

existing rights, laws, and regulations. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

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 

2 Plan component definitions are based on generally accepted meanings under the 1982 rule and the Forest Service Plan 

Wording Style Guide 2009, http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5260265.pdf. 

2-64 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final EIS Chapter 2 

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-DC-002-Desired Condition - In Greater Sage-Grouse 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 2-5. 

Table 2-5. Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for Greater Sage- grouse 

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition 

Areas Managed for Breeding and Nesting1,2,3 (Seasonal Use Period March 15-June 30) Apply 

5.3 miles from occupied leks. 4 

Lek Security 

Proximity of trees5 

Trees or other tall structures are none to 

uncommon within 1.86 miles of leks6,7 

Proximity of sagebrush to leks6 

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 cover6,7,8 15 to 25% 

Sagebrush height7

 Arid sites7,9

 Mesic sites7,10 

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 sites6,7,9 

Mesic sites6,7,10 

>10% 

>15% 

Perennial grass height6,7,8 

Provide overhead and lateral concealment 

from predators6,15 

Perennial forb canopy cover 6,7,8

 Arid sites9

 Mesic sites10 

>5%6,7 

>10%6,7 

Areas Managed For Brood-Rearing/Summer1 (Seasonal Use Period July 1-November 30) 

Cover 

Seasonal habitat extent7 (Percent of 

seasonal habitat meeting desired 

conditions.) >40% of the brood-rearing/summer habitat 

Sagebrush canopy cover 6,7,8 10 to 25% 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-65 
 

 

Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition 

Sagebrush height7,8 

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 Condition12 

Upland and riparian perennial forb 

availability6,7 

Preferred forbs are common with several 

preferred species present13 

Winter1 (Seasonal Use Period December 1-March 14) 

Cover and Food 

Seasonal habitat extent6,7,8 (Percent of 

seasonal habitat meeting desired 

conditions.) >80% of the winter habitat 

Sagebrush canopy cover above snow6,7,8 >10% 

Sagebrush height above snow6,7,8 >10 inches14 

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. In Press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment 

Framework: Multi-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. Submitted for publication. 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 (HAF 

2014).

10 >12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata vaseyana is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (HAF 2014).
 11 Sagebrush plants with a spreading shape provide more protective cover than sagebrush plants that are more tree- or columnar 

shaped (HAF 2014).

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 Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) Table III-2 (HAF 2014). 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. 

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. 

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 factors and develop an appropriate 

response strategy. This strategy may include curtailment of activities that may adversely affect Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations or habitat. 

2-66 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

 

Final EIS Chapter 2 

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. 

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 2-5). 

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. 

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-008- Guideline - When removing conifers that are encroaching into Greater SageGrouse habitat, avoid persistent woodlands (i.e., old growth relative to the site or more than 100 years old). 

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. 

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 

2-5). 

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 2-5). 

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 2-5). 

Timing, Distance, Density, and Disturbance 

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. 

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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2	 Final EIS 

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 distance2 of 3.1 miles. 

GRSG-TDDD-ST-016-Standard - In-kind mitigation is preferred to out-of-kind mitigation. Where inkind 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 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. 

GRSG-TDDD-GL-017-Guideline3 - 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. 

GRSG-TDDD-GL-018-Guideline3 - 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-Guideline3 - 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-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. 

2 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. 

3 On 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, live-history, or behavioral needs of greater sage-grouse. 

2-68 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

Final EIS	 Chapter 2 

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. 

GRSG-TDDD-GL-022-Guideline3

 - 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 D. 

GRSG-TDDD-GL-023-Guideline3

 - 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 D, and the new use will 

not cause exceedance of the 5% cap. An exception is described in GRSG-M-LM-ST-097-Standard. 

Infrastructure 

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. 

	 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 Sage-Grouse 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. 

Lands and Realty 

Special Use Authorizations (non-recreation) 

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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-69 
 

Chapter 2 Final EIS 

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. 

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). 

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 south-central 

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 SageGrouse 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. 

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 rightsof-way unless an alternate route would benefit Greater Sage-Grouse or their habitats. 

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 SageGrouse leks, unless they are out of direct line of sight of an occupied lek. 

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. 

Land Ownership Adjustments 

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. 

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 SageGrouse population trends and habitats. 

Land Withdrawal 

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 SageGrouse or their habitats. 

2-70 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

 

                           

         

Final EIS Chapter 2 

Wind Energy Development 

GRSG-WS-GL-036-Guideline - In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, restrict 

authorization of wind utility-scale and/or commercial energy development except for on-site power 

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

Livestock Grazing 

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 2-5). 

GRSG-LG-GL-038-Guideline - Grazing guidelines in Table 2-6 should be applied in each of the seasonal 

habitats in Table 2-6. If values in Table 2-6 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 2-5 consistent with the ecological 

site capability. Do not use drought and degraded habitat condition to adjust values. Grazing guidelines in 

Table 2-6 would not apply to isolated parcels of National Forest System lands that have less than 200 acres 

of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

Table 2-6. Grazing Guidelines for Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat 

Seasonal Habitat Grazing Guidelines 

Areas managed for breeding and 

nesting1 within 5.3 miles of 

occupied leks 

Perennial grass height2: 

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 inches4,5,8 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 vegetation7,9 

Winter1 <35% utilization of sagebrush 

1 For descriptions of Seasonal Habitat and Seasonal Periods of Greater Sage-Grouse see Table 2-5.
 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, 2000).
 5Hagen 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. 6

Due 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 Crawford et al. 2004. Ecology and Management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. “In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sagegrouse prefer the lower vegetation (5-15 cm (2-6 in) vs. 30-50 cm (12-20 in); 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.”

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).
 

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 2-6. 

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 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-71 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

reserve where removal of livestock grazing would enhance the ability to achieve desired habitat conditions 

(Table 2-5). 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Fire Management 

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. 

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 2-5). 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 2-5. 

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 SageGrouse habitat consistent with desired conditions in Table 2-5, 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. 

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 Sage-Grouse habitat in the long-term. 

2-72 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

 

Final EIS Chapter 2 

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 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, 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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-73 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

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. 

Recreation 

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 SageGrouse seasonal habitat desired conditions (Table 2-5) 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-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 Sage-Grouse habitat. 

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. 

Roads/Transportation 

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-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-TDDDST-013 and 014-Standards. 

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 Sage-Grouse, is necessary for motorist safety, or 

eliminates the need to construct a new road. 

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 D. 

2-74 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

Final EIS Chapter 2 

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-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 2-5). 

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 weed-free earthmoving 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. 

Minerals 

Fluid Minerals – Unleased 

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 GRSG-TDDD. 

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. 

Fluid Minerals – Leased 

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-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 2-5. 

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 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-75 
Chapter 2	 Final EIS 

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-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. 

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 Sage-Grouse 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 Sage-Grouse, based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat features. 

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. 

Fluid Minerals – Operations 

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. 

2-76 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

 

Final EIS	 Chapter 2 

	 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-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. 

Coal Mines 

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 long-term viability. 

Locatable Minerals 

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. 

Non-Energy Leasable Minerals 

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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-77 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Mineral Materials 

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. 

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 2-5). 

Predators 

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. 

2.7 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, AND MITIGATION 

This section describes proposed management guidance that would apply to all action alternatives 

(Alternatives B through D and BLM and Forest Service Proposed LUP Amendments). As conditions, law, 

and policy change over time or new data are collected, the LUPs would continue to be updated through 

maintenance actions or amendments, as appropriate, to ensure management decisions reflect those changes. 

An implementation plan will be developed after approval of the ROD for the LUPs. The implementation 

plan will address monitoring, mitigation, projects, and activities to achieve the goals and objectives of the 

LUPs. 

2.7.1 Adaptive Management Plan 

In relation to the BLM/Forest Services’ National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, adaptive 

management will help identify if sage-grouse conservation measures presented in this EIS contain the 

needed level of certainty for effectiveness. Principles of adaptive management are incorporated into the 

conservation measures in the plan to ameliorate threats to a species, thereby increasing the likelihood that 

the conservation measure and plan will be effective in reducing threats to that species. The following 

provides the BLM/Forest Service’s adaptive management strategy for the Casper, Green River (covering 

the Rock Springs Field Office), Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, and Rawlins RMPs; and the BTNF, 

MBNF, and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) LRMPs. 

Adaptive Management and Monitoring 

This EIS contains a monitoring framework plan (Appendix D) that includes an effectiveness monitoring 

component. The agencies intend to use the data collected from the effectiveness monitoring to identify any 

changes in habitat conditions related to the goals and objectives of the plan and other range wide 

conservation strategies (U.S. Department of the Interior 2004; Stiver et al. 2006; USFWS 2013). The 

information collected through the Monitoring Framework Plan outlined in Appendix D will be used by the 

BLM and Forest Service to determine when adaptive management hard and soft triggers (discussed below) 

are met. 

The Greater Sage-Grouse adaptive management plan provides regulatory assurance that unintended 

negative impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will be addressed before consequences become severe or 

irreversible. This adaptive management plan: 

 Utilizes science based soft and hard adaptive management triggers 

 Addresses multiple scales of data 

 Utilizes an adaptive management working group. 

2-78 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

Final EIS Chapter 2 

Adaptive Management Triggers 

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. 

Soft Triggers 

Soft triggers are indicators that management or specific activities may not be achieving the intended results 

of conservation actions 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 field offices and/or Forest Service 

planning units, with the assistance of their respective LRMP implementation groups, local WGFD offices, 

and local sage-grouse working groups, will evaluate the metrics with the Adaptive Management Working 

Group (AMWG) on an annual basis. The purpose of these strategies is to address localized Greater SageGrouse 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% 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 fiveyear 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). See Management Action 137 and Appendix D. 

2.7.2 Monitoring for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 

The BLM’s planning regulations, specifically 43 CFR 1610.4-9, require that LUPs establish intervals and 

standards for monitoring based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions. LUP monitoring is the process 

of tracking the implementation of LUP decisions (implementation monitoring) and collecting 

data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of LUP decisions (effectiveness monitoring). For 

Greater Sage-Grouse, these types of monitoring are also described in the criteria found in the Policy for 

Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (50 CFR Vol. 68, No. 60). One of the 

Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions criteria evaluates whether 

provisions for monitoring and reporting progress on implementation (based on compliance with the 

implementation schedule) and effectiveness (based on evaluation of quantifiable parameters) of the 

conservation effort are provided. 

A guiding principle in the BLM National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy (U.S. Department of the 

Interior 2004) is that “the Bureau is committed to sage-grouse and sagebrush conservation and will continue 

to adjust and adapt our National Sage-grouse Strategy as new information, science, and monitoring results 

evaluate effectiveness over time.” In keeping with the WAFWA Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation 

Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006) and the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report (USFWS 

2013), the BLM and Forest Service will monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation 

measures in Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-79 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

On March 5, 2010, USFWS’ 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered were posted as a Federal Register notice (75 

Federal Register 13910-14014, March 23, 2010). This notice stated: 

“...the information collected by BLM could not be used to make broad generalizations about the status of 

rangelands and management actions. There was a lack of consistency across the range in how questions 

were interpreted and answered for the data call, which limited our ability to use the results to understand 

habitat conditions for sage-grouse on BLM lands.” 

Standardization of monitoring methods and implementation of a defensible monitoring approach (within 

and across jurisdictions) will resolve this situation. The BLM, Forest Service, and other conservation 

partners use the resulting information to guide implementation of conservation activities. 

Monitoring strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and populations must be collaborative, as habitat 

occurs across jurisdictional boundaries (52 percent on BLM-administered lands, 31 percent on private 

lands, 8 percent on National Forest System lands, 5 percent on state lands, 4 percent on tribal and other 

federal lands) (75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010), and state fish and wildlife agencies have 

primary responsibility for population level wildlife management, including population monitoring. 

Therefore, population efforts will continue to be conducted in partnership with state fish and wildlife 

agencies. The BLM and Forest Service have finalized a monitoring framework, which can be found in 

Appendix D. This framework describes the process that the BLM and Forest Service will use to monitor 

implementation and effectiveness of LUP decisions. The monitoring framework includes methods, data 

standards, and intervals of monitoring at broad and mid scales; consistent indicators to measure and metric 

descriptions for each of the scales; analysis and reporting methods; and the incorporation of monitoring 

results into adaptive management. The need for fine-scale and site-specific habitat monitoring may vary by 

area depending on existing conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land health. Indicators at the fine and 

site scales will be consistent with the Habitat Assessment Framework; however, the values for the indicators 

could be adjusted for regional conditions. 

More specifically, the framework discusses how the BLM and Forest Service will monitor and track 

implementation and effectiveness of planning decisions (e.g., tracking of waivers, modifications, site-level 

actions). The two agencies will monitor the effectiveness of LUP decisions in meeting management and 

conservation objectives. Effectiveness monitoring will include monitoring disturbance in habitats, as well 

as landscape habitat attributes. To monitor habitats, the BLM and Forest Service will measure and track 

attributes of occupied habitat, priority habitat, and general habitat at the broad scale, and attributes of habitat 

availability, patch size, connectivity, linkage/connectivity habitat, edge effect, and anthropogenic 

disturbances at the mid-scale. Disturbance monitoring will measure and track changes in the amount of 

sagebrush in the landscape and changes in the anthropogenic footprint, including change energy 

development density. The framework also includes methodology for analysis and reporting for field offices, 

states, ranger districts, BLM districts, National Forests, and forest regions, including geospatial and tabular 

data for disturbance mapping (e.g., geospatial footprint of new permitted disturbances) and management 

actions effectiveness. 

2.7.3 Regional Mitigation 

Consistent with the Proposed LUP Amendment’s goal outlined in Section 2.6.3, the intent of the Proposed 

LUP Amendments is to provide a net conservation gain to the species. To do so, 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 within priority habitat (core population areas and core 

population connectivity corridors), 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 

2-80 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

Final EIS Chapter 2 

of such mitigation. This will be achieved by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for impacts by 

applying beneficial mitigation actions. 

Mitigation Standards 

In undertaking BLM and Forest Service management actions, and, consistent with valid existing rights and 

applicable law, in authorizing third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation in PHMAs, 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. “Actions 

which result in habitat loss and degradation” include those identified as threats which contribute to Greater 

Sage-Grouse disturbance as identified by the USFWS in their 2010 listing decision (75 FR 13910) and 

shown in Table D-4 in the attached Implementation Framework (Appendix D). Mitigation will follow the 

regulations from the White House CEQ (40 CFR 1508.20; e.g., avoid, minimize, and compensate), hereafter 

referred to as the mitigation hierarchy. If impacts from BLM and Forest Service management actions and 

authorized third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation remain after applying avoidance 

and minimization measures (i.e., residual impacts), then compensatory mitigation projects will be used to 

provide a net conservation gain to the species. Any compensatory mitigation will be durable, timely, and 

in addition to that which would have resulted without the compensatory mitigation (see the concepts of 

durability, timeliness, and additionality as described further in Appendix D). 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team 

The BLM and Forest Service will establish a WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Team (hereafter, Team) to help guide the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse, within 90 

days of the issuance of the Record of Decision. This Team will develop a WAFWA Management Zone 

Regional Mitigation Strategy (hereafter, Regional Mitigation Strategy). The Team will also compile and 

report on monitoring data (including data on habitat condition, population trends, and mitigation 

effectiveness) from States across the WAFWA Management Zone (see Monitoring section). Subsequently, 

the Team will use these data to either modify the appropriate Regional Mitigation Strategy or recommend 

adaptive management actions (see Adaptive Management section). 

The BLM and Forest Service will invite governmental and tribal partners to participate in this Team, 

including the State Wildlife Agency and USFWS, in compliance with the exemptions provided for 

committees defined in the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the regulations that implement that act. 

The BLM and Forest Service will strive for a collaborative and unified approach between federal agencies 

(e.g., USFWS, BLM, and Forest Service), tribal governments, state and local government(s), and other 

stakeholders for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation. The Team will provide advice, and will not make any 

decisions that impact federal lands. The BLM and Forest Service will remain responsible for making 

decisions that affect federal lands. 

Developing a Regional Mitigation Strategy 

The Team will develop a Regional Mitigation Strategy to inform the mitigation components of NEPA 

analyses for BLM and Forest Service management actions and third party actions that result in habitat loss 

and degradation. The Strategy will be developed within one year of the issuance of the Record of Decision. 

The BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual MS-1794 will serve as a framework for developing the Regional 

Mitigation Strategy. The Regional Mitigation Strategy will be applicable to the states/field offices/forests 

within the WAFWA Management Zone’s boundaries. 

Regional mitigation is a landscape-scale approach to mitigating impacts to resources. This involves 

anticipating future mitigation needs and strategically identifying mitigation sites and measures that can 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-81 
 

Chapter 2 Final EIS 

provide a net conservation gain to the species. The Regional Mitigation Strategy developed by the Team 

will elaborate on the components identified above (i.e., avoidance, minimization, and compensation; 

additionality, timeliness, and durability) and further explained in Appendix D. 

In the time period before the Strategy is developed, BLM will consider regional conditions, trends, and 

sites, to the greatest extent possible, when applying the mitigation hierarchy and will ensure that mitigation 

is consistent with the standards set forth in the first paragraph of this section. 

Incorporating the Regional Mitigation Strategy into NEPA Analyses 

The BLM and Forest Service will include the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory 

recommendations from the Regional Mitigation Strategy in one or more of the NEPA analysis’ alternatives 

for BLM and Forest Service management actions and third party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation and the appropriate mitigation actions will be carried forward into the decision. 

Implementing a Compensatory Mitigation Program 

Consistent with the principles identified above, the BLM and Forest Service need to ensure that 

compensatory mitigation is strategically implemented to provide a net conservation gain to the species, as 

identified in the Regional Mitigation Strategy. In order to align with existing compensatory mitigation 

efforts, this compensatory mitigation program will be implemented at a state level (as opposed to a 

WAFWA Management Zone, a field office, or a forest), in collaboration with our partners (e.g., federal, 

tribal, and state agencies). 

To ensure transparent and effective management of the compensatory mitigation funds, the BLM and Forest 

Service will enter into a contract or agreement with a third-party to help manage the state-level 

compensatory mitigation funds, within one year of the issuance of the Record of Decision. The selection of 

the third-party compensatory mitigation administrator will conform to all relevant laws, regulations, and 

policies. The BLM and Forest Service will remain responsible for making decisions that affect federal 

lands. 

2.8 DRAFT LUP AMENDMENTS/EIS ALTERNATIVES 

The following are alternatives to the Proposed LUP Amendments and were presented and analyzed in the 

Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Some alternatives have been refined based on public comment. 

2.8.1 Alternative A (No Action) 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) is defined as a continuation of the present course of management for 

sage-grouse within each of the BLM and Forest Service offices. Management actions 1 through 29a do not 

apply to this alternative. Ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation, regulations and the existing 

LUPs would continue, even as new plans are developed or new planning efforts are being conducted with 

the planning area. Alternative A describes a subset of the current resource and land use management 

direction in the planning area that is proposed to be revised or supplemented by some or all of the action 

alternatives. This management may differ between BLM and Forest Service offices. Alternative A and its 

impact analysis represent the baseline to which the other alternatives and their associated analyses are 

compared. Alternative A uses the terms “Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat” or “core areas” as described in 

the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order 2011-5 (WY EO 2011-5) and defined in this document’s 

Glossary as habitat that is most important for Greater Sage-Grouse. Management actions proposed under 

the Alternative A are presented in Table 2-11 and reflected in Table 2-7 (land use restrictions) and Tables 

2-8 and 2-9 (oil and gas leasing stipulations). 

2-82 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

Final EIS Chapter 2 

2.8.2 Alternative B 

Alternative B is based on the conservation measures developed by the NTT planning effort in IM No. WO2012-044. As directed in the IM, the conservation measures developed by the NTT must be considered and 

analyzed, as appropriate, through the land use planning process and NEPA by all BLM state and field 

offices that contain occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Under this alternative, a surface disturbance cap 

of 3% per 640 acres is considered within sage-grouse priority habitat. In areas where the disturbance cap 

has been met by the project proponent, the BLM and Forest Service should consider opportunities for 

reclamation or removal of surface disturbing features that are no longer in use in order to reduce the current 

disturbance before further projects are permitted. This alternative considers incorporating a light grazing 

strategy, utilizing a 20-30% forage allocation for livestock allotments not meeting standards due to livestock 

grazing in sage-grouse priority habitat. Alternative B uses the term “Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat” 

as described in IM No. WO-2012-044 and defined in this document’s Glossary. Priority habitat is comprised 

of core habitat and connectivity habitat. Management actions proposed under Alternative B are presented 

in Table 2-11 and reflected in Table 2-7 (land use restrictions) and Tables 2-8 and 2-9 (oil and gas leasing 

stipulations). Alternative B is not strictly based on the conservation measures developed by the NTT 

planning effort. In the Western Watersheds Project v. U.S. Department of Interior, the Court remanded the 

Pinedale RMP decision to the BLM, without vacating the RMP, to allow the BLM to remedy the FLPMA 

and NEPA defects identified by the Court with respect to the Pinedale RMP and EIS. These remedies can 

be found in Alternative B. 

2.8.3 Alternative C 

Alternative C is based on the citizen groups recommended alternative. This alternative emphasizes 

improvement and protection of habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse and is applied to all occupied Greater SageGrouse habitat. Alternative C would limit commodity development in areas of occupied Greater SageGrouse habitat, and would close or designate portions of the planning area to some land uses. Under this 

alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 3% per 640 acres is considered within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

This alternative considers closing priority sage-grouse habitat to livestock grazing. Alternative C uses the 

term “Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat” as described in IM No. WO-2012-044 and defined in this 

document’s Glossary. Priority habitat is comprised of core habitat and connectivity habitat. Management 

actions proposed under Alternative C are presented in Table 2-11 and reflected in Table 2-7 (land use 

restrictions) and Tables 2-8 and 2-9 (oil and gas leasing stipulations). 

2.8.4 Alternative D 

Alternative D provides opportunities to use and develop the planning area while providing protection of 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat based on scoping comments and input from Cooperating Agencies involved 

in the alternatives development process. This alternative increases the potential for development and 

resource use, with reduced Greater Sage-Grouse habitat protections. Protective measure would be applied 

to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Under this alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 9% per 640 acres is 

considered within sage-grouse core habitat. Alternative D uses the terms “Greater Sage-Grouse core 

habitat” or “core areas” as described in WY EO 2011-5 and defined in this document’s Glossary. 

Management actions proposed under Alternative D are presented in Table 2-11 and reflected in Table 2-7 

(land use restrictions) and Tables 2-8 and 2-9 (oil and gas leasing stipulations). 

2.9 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN 

AMENDMENTS AND DRAFT ALTERNATIVES 

This section summarizes and compares Alternatives A through D and the BLM and Forest Service Proposed 

LUP Amendments considered in the Final EIS. Combined with the appendices and maps, Tables 2-7 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-83 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

through 2-10 provide the differences among the alternatives relative to what they establish and where they 

occur. The tables compare the differences with the most potential to affect resources among the alternatives. 

2-84 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Table 2-7. Land Use Restrictions by Alternative 

Resource/Activity Land Use Restriction 

Alternative A 

(Continuation of 

Existing 

Management) 

(acres) 

Alternative B 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(acres) 

Alternative D 

(acres) 

Proposed LUP 

Amendments 

(acres) 

Surface Disturbing 

Activities 

Prohibited Areas 

68,550 

PHMA: 44,900 

GHMA: 23,470 

0 0 0 

337,860 

PHMA: 303,470 

GHMA: 30,780 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 3,520 

Restricted Areas 

93,580 

PHMA: 74,490 

GHMA: 18,960 

0 0 

75,870 

PHMA: 53,950 

GHMA: 21,830 

160,630 

PHMA: 130,430 

GHMA: 30,200 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 0 

Fluid Mineral Leasing 

Closed 

871,780 

PHMA: 871,780 

GHMA: 0 

6,886,890 

PHMA: 6,886,890 

GHMA: 0 

16,878,220 

PHMA: 6,884,390 

GHMA: 9,981,180 

964,860 

PHMA: 964,850 

GHMA: 11 

883,670 

PHMA: 883,670 

GHMA: 0 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 0 

No Surface Occupancy 

40,980 

PHMA: 24,480 

GHMA: 16,320 

2,117,160 

PHMA: 2,117,160 

GHMA: 0 

2,117,160 

PHMA: 2,117,160 

GHMA: 0 

0 

441,690 

PHMA: 406,090 

GHMA: 30,630 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 4,960 

Controlled Surface 

Use 

5,015,210 

PHMA: 3,057,700 

GHMA: 1,922,240 

0 0 

2,117,990 

PHMA: 1,394,490 

GHMA: 723,500 

6,438,480 

PHMA: 5,539,210 

GHMA: 761,940 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 137,320 

Rights-of-Way Exclusion Areas 

285,930 

PHMA: 145,000 

GHMA: 140, 930 

5,271,440 

PHMA: 5,033,240 

GHMA: 140,920 

11,556,490 

PHMA: 5,058,390 

GHMA: 6,498,040 

5,230,110 

PHMA: 5,033,240 

GHMA: 196,860 

285,930 

PHMA: 145,000 

GHMA: 140,930 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-85 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Resource/Activity Land Use Restriction 

Alternative A 

(Continuation of 

Existing 

Management) 

(acres) 

Alternative B 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(acres) 

Alternative D 

(acres) 

Proposed LUP 

Amendments 

(acres) 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 0 

Avoidance Areas 

2,460,340 

PHMA: 1,249,560 

GHMA: 1,210,760 

6,357,180 

PHMA: 0 

GHMA: 6,357,120 

0 

1,300,510 

PHMA: 0 

GHMA: 1,300,510 

6,208,990 

PHMA: 4,886,230 

GHMA: 1,197,550 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 125,200 

Mineral Materials Closed Areas 

472,800 

PHMA: 472,800 

GHMA: 0 

6,992,690 

PHMA: 6,992,690 

GHMA: 0 

6,992,690 

PHMA: 6,992,690 

GHMA: 0 

472,800 

PHMA: 472,800 

GHMA: 0 

472,800 

PHMA: 472,800 

GHMA: 0 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 

Locatable Minerals 

Existing Withdrawals 

1,761,550 

PHMA: 1,761,550 

GHMA: 0 

1,761,550 

PHMA: 1,761,550 

GHMA: 0 

1,761,550 

PHMA: 1,761,550 

GHMA: 0 

1,761,550 

PHMA: 1,761,550 

GHMA: 0 

1,761,550 

PHMA: 1,761,550 

GHMA: 0 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 0 

Proposed 

Withdrawals 

131,070 

PHMA: 131,070 

GHMA: 0 

5,118,070 

PHMA: 5,118,070 

GHMA: 0 

5,118,070 

PHMA: 5,118,070 

GHMA: 0 

131,070 

PHMA: 131,070 

GHMA: 

252,070 

PHMA: 252,070 

GHMA: 0 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 0 

Considered for 

Proposed Withdrawal 

894,060 

PHMA: 894,050 

GHMA: 10 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 0 

Solid Leasable 

Minerals (non-energy) Closed Areas 

261,000 

PHMA: 261,000 

GHMA: 0 

6,992,690 

PHMA: 6,992,690 

GHMA: 0 

6,992,690 

PHMA: 6,992,690 

GHMA: 0 

261,000 

PHMA: 261,000 

GHMA: 0 

483,420 

PHMA: 333,170 

GHMA: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-86 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Resource/Activity Land Use Restriction 

Alternative A 

(Continuation of 

Existing 

Management) 

(acres) 

Alternative B 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(acres) 

Alternative D 

(acres) 

Proposed LUP 

Amendments 

(acres) 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 150,250 

Wind Energy 

Excluded 

424,820 

PHMA: 424,820 

GHMA: 0 

5,033,240 

PHMA: 5,033,240 

GHMA: 0 

11,531,340 

PHMA: 5,033,240 

GHMA: 6,498,040 

424,820 

PHMA: 424,820 

GHMA: 0 

425,080 

PHMA: 424,820 

GHMA: 0 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 260 

Avoided 

2,438,850 

PHMA: 2,438,850 

GHMA: 0 

0 0 

4,608,420 

PHMA: 4,608,420 

GHMA: 0 

4,731,350 

PHMA: 4,606,404 

GHMA: 0 

FS Proposed 

PHMA: 124,950 

Table 2-8 shows the number of acres of surface and subsurface acres (for conventional oil and gas exploration and development) that are subject to leasing restrictions designed to protect sage-grouse habitat. The acreage values provided in the table are organized by the type and level of 

restriction and mineral development potential. 

Table 2-8. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements by Hydrocarbon Potential for Conventional Oil and Gas 

Fluid Mineral Lease 

Conditional Requirement 

Hydrocarbon Development Potential (acres) 

None Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Total3 

ALTERNATIVE A (Continuation of Existing Management) 

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to the Terms and Conditions of 

the Standard Lease Form 

2,319,851 41,271 3,863,490 7,016,828 1,538,958 412,128 442,160 15,634,685 

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Moderate Constraints1 

276,972 25,862 1,300,342 2,198,260 708,182 232,664 256,328 4,998,611 

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Major Constraints1 

2,885 629 3,500 24,324 5,426 1,831 2,145 40,740 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-87 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Fluid Mineral Lease 

Conditional Requirement 

Hydrocarbon Development Potential (acres) 

None Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Total3 

Unavailable for Leasing2 137,065 0 234,397 347,079 104,053 690 0 823,282 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Available for Leasing, Subject to the Terms and Conditions of the Standard Lease Form 

2,154,973 57,855 3,208,177 6,394,476 1,719,525 526,128 473,428 14,534,562 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Moderate Constraints1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Major Constraints1 

6,116 848 517,749 1,142,075 247,857 70,186 130,530 2,115,360 

Closed to Leasing2 581,593 2,636 2,174,606 3,120,380 627,450 115,920 214,123 6,836,707 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Available for Leasing, Subject to the Terms and Conditions of the Standard Lease Form 

1,028,865 0 1,147,529 513,682 3,162 0 176 2,693,385 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Moderate Constraints1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Major Constraints1 

6,116 848 517,749 1,142,075 247,857 70,186 130,530 2,115,360 

Closed to Leasing2 1,240,940 60,491 4,235,212 7,400,709 2,271,151 635,110 687,370 16,530,983 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Available for Leasing, Subject to the Terms and Conditions of the Standard Lease Form 

2,438,029 46,858 4,588,825 8,185,370 1,994,701 537,344 546,880 18,338,007 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Moderate Constraints1 

163,561 13,633 521,033 944,064 241,170 92,590 140,672 2,116,723 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Major Constraints1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Closed to Leasing2 134,976 0 272,925 385,427 111,105 12,113 0 916,546 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-88 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Fluid Mineral Lease 

Conditional Requirement 

Hydrocarbon Development Potential (acres) 

None Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Total3 

Proposed LUP Amendments 

Available for Leasing, Subject to the Terms and Conditions of the Standard Lease Form 

2,122,860 39,647 3,117,385 6,027,392 1,545,737 449,577 356,426 13,659,024 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Moderate Constraints1 

453,460 20,616 1,901,137 2,914,424 652,380 179,555 314,603 6,436,176 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Major Constraints1 

23,209 227 127,778 218,351 43,096 12,227 16,522 441,411 

Closed to Leasing2 137,036 0 236,485 354,681 105,762 689 0 834,652 

1All activities would be subject to intensive mitigation, including offsite placement of facilities; remote control monitoring; restricted or prohibited surface use, including road 

construction; multiple wells from a single pad; central tank batteries and facilities; pipelines and power lines concentrated in specific areas; etc., based on site-specific analysis. 

2Although closed to leasing and related oil and gas activity, any other surface disturbing or disrupting use would follow the surface disturbance prescriptions. 3Acreage values to not include areas that have not been assessed. 

Table 2-9 shows the number of acres of surface and subsurface acres (for coalbed natural gas exploration and development) that are subject to 

leasing restrictions designed to protect sage-grouse habitat. The acreage values provided in the table are organized by the type and level of restriction and mineral development potential. 

Table 2-9. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements by Hydrocarbon Potential for Coalbed Natural Gas 

Fluid Mineral Lease 

Conditional Requirement 

Hydrocarbon Development Potential (acres) 

None Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High Total3 

ALTERNATIVE A (Continuation of Existing Management) 

Available for Leasing, Subject to the Terms and Conditions of the Standard Lease Form 

9,899,624 602,655 2,630,488 1,962,153 407,322 141,227 15,643,480 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Moderate Constraints1 

2,594,430 174,497 953,545 866,436 217,570 187,563 4,944,041 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Major Constraints1 

13,3406 1,829 6,654 11,658 2,573 4,761 40,811 

Unavailable for Leasing2 439,353 0 366,675 8,831 8,432 4 823,295 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-89 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Fluid Mineral Lease 

Conditional Requirement 

Hydrocarbon Development Potential (acres) 

None Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High Total3 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Available for Leasing, Subject to the Terms and Conditions of the Standard Lease Form 

8,805,828 463,824 2,711,981 1,847,374 473,441 243,560 14,546,007 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Moderate Constraints1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Major Constraints1 

966,958 149,613 402,605 475,957 76,040 43,633 2,114,806 

Closed to Leasing2 4,117,974 301,242 1,206,325 989,580 139,585 74,852 6,829,557 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Available for Leasing, Subject to the Terms and Conditions of the Standard Lease Form 

2,493,007 1,077 167,481 35,214 1,874 779 2,699,431 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Moderate Constraints1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Major Constraints1 

966,958 149,613 402,605 475,957 76,040 43,633 2,114,806 

Closed to Leasing2 8,697,240 763,988 3,435,448 2,708,313 605,644 317,634 16,528,266 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Available for Leasing, Subject to the Terms and Conditions of the Standard Lease Form 

11,342,970 636,135 3,110,654 2,470,954 525,963 255,510 18,342,187 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Moderate Constraints1 

1,144,201 89,502 405,023 336,566 78,631 62,900 2,116,821 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Major Constraints1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Closed to Leasing2 436,631 39,428 402,632 29,432 8,434 4 916,559 

Proposed LUP Amendments 

Available for Leasing, Subject to the Terms and Conditions of the Standard Lease Form 

8,503,013 447,236 2,454,356 1,651,238 416,846 197,489 13,670,178 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-90 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Fluid Mineral Lease 

Conditional Requirement 

Hydrocarbon Development Potential (acres) 

None Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High Total3 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Moderate Constraints1 

3,714,345 303,641 1,020,366 1,104,506 176,423 110,918 6,430,199 

Available for Leasing, Subject to Major Constraints1 

261,220 12,188 71,431 72,359 11,324 10,002 440,525 

Closed to Leasing2 445,225 0 372,155 8,850 8,432 4 843,665 

1All activities would be subject to intensive mitigation, including offsite placement of facilities; remote control monitoring; restricted or prohibited surface use, including road 

construction; multiple wells from a single pad; central tank batteries and facilities; pipelines and power lines concentrated in specific areas; etc., based on site-specific analysis. 

2Although closed to leasing and related oil and gas activity, any other surface disturbing or disrupting use would follow the surface disturbance prescriptions. 3Acreage values to not include areas that have not been assessed. 

Table 2-10. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Federal Oil and Gas and Coalbed Natural Gas Wells and 

Associated Surface Disturbance Acres 

Analysis Area 

Alternative A 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Alternative B 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Alternative C 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Alternative D 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Proposed LUP 

Amendments 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG 

Casper Field Office 

Sage-grouse Core/Priority Areas 496 105 76 6 76 6 430 88 284 52 

Disturbance Acres* 4,960 730 730 4,280 2,810 Sage-grouse General Habitat 563 403 564 409 441 374 562 408 550 406 

Disturbance Acres* 5,340 5,370 4,360 5,350 5,260 

Total Wells 1,059 508 639 415 517 380 992 496 834 458 

Total Disturbance Acres* 10,300 6,100 5,090 9,640 8,070 

Kemmerer Field Office 

Sage-grouse Core/Priority Areas 168 84 50 4 50 4 146 73 98 49 

Disturbance Acres* 1,990 490 490 1,740 1,160 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-91 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Analysis Area 

Alternative A 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Alternative B 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Alternative C 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Alternative D 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Proposed LUP 

Amendments 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG 

Sage-grouse General Habitat 534 200 546 206 454 112 545 206 545 206 Disturbance Acres* 5,310 5,430 4,210 5,420 5,420 

Total Wells 702 285 595 210 504 116 691 279 642 255 

Total Disturbance Acres* 7,300 5,920 4,700 7,160 6,580 

Newcastle Field Office 

Sage-grouse Core/Priority Areas 67 11 10 0 10 0 57 9 43 4 

Disturbance Acres* 550 80 80 460 340 Sage-grouse General Habitat 165 13 167 14 114 0 165 13 165 13 

Disturbance Acres* 1,230 1,250 820 1,230 1,230 

Sage-grouse Connectivity Habitat 71 0 73 0 42 0 63 0 68 0 Disturbance Acres* 400 400 240 360 380 Total Wells 303 23 250 14 166 0 285 21 276 17 

Total Disturbance Acres* 2,180 1,650 1,060 1,590 1,620 

Pinedale Field Office 

Sage-grouse Core/Priority Areas 447 45 14 2 14 2 160 31 154 18 

Disturbance Acres* 5,610 180 180 2,090 1,950 

Sage-grouse General Habitat 4,246 328 4,429 341 3,996 240 4,278 333 4,263 333 

Disturbance Acres* 33,870 35,320 31,530 34,130 34,020 

Total Wells 4,693 373 4,443 343 4,010 242 4,438 364 4,416 351 

Total Disturbance Acres* 39,480 35,500 31,710 36,220 35,960 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-92 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Analysis Area 

Alternative A 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Alternative B 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Alternative C 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Alternative D 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Proposed LUP 

Amendments 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG 

Rawlins Field Office 

Sage-grouse Core/Priority Areas 405 546 172 153 172 153 352 481 253 357 

Disturbance Acres* 6,120 2,210 2,210 5,360 3,910 

Sage-grouse General Habitat 1,436 785 1,498 820 857 611 1,472 809 1,472 809 

Disturbance Acres* 15,170 15,830 9,770 15,580 15,580 Total Wells 1,841 1,331 1,670 973 1,029 764 1,824 1,291 1,725 1,167 

Total Disturbance Acres* 21,290 18,030 11,970 20,930 19,480 

Rock Springs Field Office 

Sage-grouse Core/Priority Areas 2,188 37 1,101 2 1,101 2 1,977 31 1,598 12 

Disturbance Acres* 25,600 12,790 12,790 23,110 16,460 

Sage-grouse General Habitat 2,573 111 2,601 114 2,149 61 2,586 113 2,585 113 Disturbance Acres* 20,820 21,060 17,230 20,930 20,920 

Total Wells 4,761 149 3,702 117 3,250 63 4,564 144 4,183 126 

Total Disturbance Acres* 46,410 33,850 30,020 44,050 37,380 

Bridger-Teton 

National Forest 

Sage-grouse Core/Priority Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Disturbance Acres* 0 0 0 0 0 Sage-grouse General Habitat 158 9 159 10 26 0 158 9 158 9 

Disturbance Acres* 2,010 2,020 320 2,010 2,0104 Total Wells 158 9 159 10 26 0 158 9 158 9 

Total Disturbance Acres* 2,013 2,019 319 2,014 2,010 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-93 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Analysis Area 

Alternative A 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Alternative B 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Alternative C 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Alternative D 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

Proposed LUP 

Amendments 

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells) 

O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG 

Thunder Basin National Grasslands 

Sage-grouse Core/Priority Areas 44 11 2 0 2 0 38 9 26 7 

Disturbance Acres* 410 19 19 360 260 Sage-grouse General Habitat 93 70 94 73 30 27 94 72 94 72 

Disturbance Acres* 950 970 260 960 960 Total Wells 136 81 96 73 32 27 131 82 120 80 Total Disturbance Acres* 1,360 990 280 1,320 1,220 

Medicine Bow National Forest 

Sage-grouse Core/Priority Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Disturbance Acres* 0 0 0 0 0 Sage-grouse General Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Disturbance Acres* 0 0 0 0 0 Total Wells 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Disturbance Acres* 

0 0 0 0 0 

Total Wells 13,653 2,758 11,555 2,154 9,533 1,594 13,083 2,686 12,355 2,462 Total Disturbance Acres* 130,330 104,050 85,140 122,910 112,330 

*Acreages are for short-term surface disturbance acres 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-94 
 

Final EIS	 Chapter 2 

2.10 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF DRAFT ALTERNATIVES 

2.10.1 How to Read Table 2-11 

The following describes how Table 2-11 Description of Draft Alternatives, below, is written and formatted 

to show the land use plan decisions proposed for each alternative. 

In accordance with Appendix C of the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), LUP and LUP 

amendment decisions are broad-scale decisions that guide future land management actions and subsequent 

site-specific implementation decisions (BLM 2005). LUP decisions fall into two categories, which establish 

the base structure for desired outcomes (goals and objectives), and allowable uses and actions to achieve 

outcomes. 

	 Goals are broad statements of desired outcomes that usually are not quantifiable. 

	 Objectives identify specific desired outcomes for resources. They may be quantifiable and 

measurable and may have established timeframes for achievement, as appropriate. 

	 Allowable uses identify uses, or allocations, that are allowable, restricted, or prohibited on BLMadministered lands and mineral estate. 

	 Actions identify measures or criteria to achieve desired objectives, including actions to maintain, 

restore, or improve land health. 

Stipulations (prohibitions and restrictions on surface occupancy/disturbance, which fall under the allowable 

uses category) are also applied to surface-disturbing activities to achieve desired outcomes (i.e., objectives). 

In general, only those resources and resource uses that have been identified as planning issues have notable 

differences among the alternatives. 

Actions that are applicable to all alternatives are shown in one cell across a row. These particular objectives 

and actions would be implemented regardless of which alternative is ultimately selected. 

Actions that are applicable to more than one but not all alternatives are indicated by either combining cells 

for the same alternatives, or by denoting those objectives or actions as the “same as Alternative A,” for 

example. 

In some cells, “No Similar Action” is used to indicate that there is no similar goal, objective or action to 

the other alternatives, or that the similar goal, objective or action is reflected in another management action 

in the alternative. 

2.10.2 Management Goals for Alternatives A and D 

1.	 Conserve, recover, and enhance sage-grouse habitat on a landscape scale consistent with local, state, 

and federal management plans and policies, as practical, while providing for multiple use of BLMadministered lands and National Forest System lands. 

2.	 Maintain and/or increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring 

the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in cooperation with other state, local, 

industry, permittee and conservation partners. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-95 
Chapter 2	 Final EIS 

2.10.3 Management Goal for Alternative B 

1.	 Maintain and/or increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing, or 

restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in cooperation with other 

conservation partners. 

2.10.4 Management Goal for Alternative C 

1.	 Maintain and increase current sage-grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing, or 

restoring the sagebrush ecosystem. 

2.10.5 Management Objectives for Alternatives B, C, and D 

1.	 In cooperation with State of Wyoming and its agencies, local governments, private landowners, local 

sage-grouse working groups, partners and stakeholders, develop site-specific conservation strategies 

to maintain or enhance sage-grouse habitats and habitat connectivity. 

2.	 Enhance quality/suitable habitat to support the expansion of sage-grouse populations on federallyadministered lands within the planning areas. 

3.	 Manage sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintain habitat connectivity to support population 

objectives set by the State of Wyoming in cooperation with the agencies. 

4.	 Identify and prioritize opportunities for habitat enhancement and conservation within sage-grouse core 

habitat areas based on threats and the ability to manage sage-grouse habitat. 

5.	 Restore native (or desirable) plants and create landscape patterns which most benefit sage-grouse. 

6.	 Develop specific objectives to conserve, enhance or restore sage-grouse priority habitat based on ESD 

(Forest Service may use other methods) and BLM land health evaluations (including within wetland 

and riparian areas) taking into account site history (historic treatments or habitat manipulations) that 

have changed the soil chemistry possibly altering the ESD. If an effective grazing system that meets 

sage-grouse habitat requirements is not already in place, analyze at least one alternative that conserves, 

restores, or enhances sage-grouse habitat in the NEPA document prepared for grazing management 

(Doherty et al. 2011b, Williams et al. 2011). 

7.	 Establish measurable objectives related to sage-grouse habitat from baseline monitoring data, ESDs 

(Forest Service may use other methods), or land health assessments/evaluations. 

8.	 Manage for vegetation composition and structure consistent with ecological site potential (Forest 

Service may use other methods) to achieve sage-grouse seasonal habitat objectives. 

9.	 Incorporate available site information collected using the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 

or similar methods to evaluate existing resource conditions and to develop any necessary resource 

solutions in cooperation with State of Wyoming and its agencies, the local governments, private 

landowners, project proponents, partners, and stakeholders. 

10. Incorporate management practices that will provide for maintenance and/or enhancement of sagegrouse habitats, including specific attention to maintenance of desired understories of sagebrush plant 

communities. When developing objectives for residual cover and species diversity, identify the 

ecological site types within the planning area and refer to the appropriate ESDs (Forest Service may 

use other methods). 

2-96 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

Final EIS	 Chapter 2 

11. In determining appropriate management actions that will be considered, refer to the document, 

“Grazing Influence, Management, and Objective Development in Wyoming's Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat” (Cagney et al. 2010) for guidance. 

2.10.6 Management Objectives for Alternative B 

1.	 Protect priority sage-grouse habitats from anthropogenic disturbances that will reduce distribution or 

abundance of sage-grouse. 

2.	 Manage wild horse population levels within established AMLs. 

3.	 Prioritize wild horse gathers in sage-grouse priority habitat, unless removals are necessary in other 

areas to prevent catastrophic environmental issues, including herd health impacts. 

4.	 Write specific land use plan objectives for vegetation that connects habitats and creates patterns that 

benefit sage-grouse. Write specific vegetation management objectives relative to invasive annual grass 

spread and woody plant removal where these are of concern in sage-grouse habitat. Consider 

management objectives in buffers around intact priority habitats that detect and rapidly respond to 

invasions in the buffer zones. 

2.10.7 Management Sub-Objectives for Alternative B 

1.	 Designate priority sage-grouse habitats for each WAFWA management zone (Stiver et al. 2006) across 

the current geographic range of sage-grouse that are large enough to stabilize populations in the short 

term and enhance populations over the long term. 

2.	 To maintain or increase current populations, manage or restore priority areas so that at least 70% of the 

land cover provides adequate sagebrush habitat to meet sage-grouse needs. 

3.	 Develop quantifiable habitat and population objectives with WAFWA and other conservation partners 

at the management zone and/or other appropriate scales. Develop a monitoring and adaptive 

management strategy to track whether these objectives are being met, and allow for revisions to 

management approaches if they are not. 

4.	 An additional objective will be designated for the priority area to prioritize and reclaim/restore 

anthropogenic disturbances so that 3% or less of the total priority habitat area is disturbed within 10 

years. 

5.	 Quantify and delineate general habitat for capability to provide connectivity among priority areas 

(Knick and Hanser 2011). 

6.	 Conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse habitat and connectivity (Knick and Hanser 2011) to 

promote movement and genetic diversity, with emphasis on those habitats occupied by sage-grouse. 

7.	 Enhance general sage-grouse habitat such that population declines in one area are replaced elsewhere 

within the habitat. 

8.	 Assess general sage-grouse habitats to determine potential to replace lost priority habitat caused by 

perturbations and/or disturbances and provide connectivity (Knick and Hanser 2011) between priority 

areas. These habitats should be given some priority over other general sage-grouse habitats that provide 

marginal or substandard sage-grouse habitat. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-97 
Chapter 2	 Final EIS 

9.	 Restore historical habitat functionality to support sage-grouse populations guided by objectives to 

maintain or enhance connectivity. Total area and locations will be determined at the land use plan level. 

2.10.8 Management Objectives for Alternative C 

1.	 Restore and maintain sagebrush steppe to its ecological potential in occupied sage-grouse habitat. 

2.	 Establish a system of sagebrush reserves to anchor recovery efforts by protecting the highest quality 

habitats. 

3.	 Develop and implement methods for prioritizing and restoring sagebrush steppe invaded by non-native 

plants. 

4.	 Encourage partners to monitor effects of retiring grazing permits in sage-grouse habitat. 

5.	 Any oil, gas, or geothermal activity will be conducted to maximize avoidance of impacts, based on 

evolving scientific knowledge of impacts. 

6.	 Manage wild horse population levels within established AMLs. 

7.	 Prioritize wild horse gathers in sage-grouse priority habitat, unless removals are necessary in other 

areas to prevent catastrophic environmental issues, including herd health impacts. 

8.	 Establish a system of sagebrush reserves to anchor recovery efforts by protecting the highest quality 

habitats. 

2.10.9 Management Objectives for Alternative D 

1.	 Identify core/priority, general, and connectivity habitats for each WAFWA MZ across the current 

geographic range of Greater Sage-Grouse that are large enough to stabilize populations in the short 

term and enhance populations over the long term. Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in this planning area 

overlaps 2 WAFWA MZs: (1) MZ I-Great Plains and (2) MZ II-Wyoming Basin. 

2.	 Protect core/priority, general, and connectivity habitats from anthropogenic disturbance that will reduce 

distribution or abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse. 

2-98 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

2.11 DETAILED COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Table 2-11. Detailed Comparison of Alternatives 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

General Management Direction 

1 Continue to support the development of statewide sage-grouse seasonal habitat models for the State of Wyoming. 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 BMPs and offsite compensatory mitigation where appropriate. 

3 Utilize the Wyoming SGIT and Local Working Group plans or other state or cooperatively-developed plans, analyses, and other 

sources of information to guide development of conservation objectives for local management of sage-grouse habitats. The BLM and Forest Service 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. 

4 Include the collection of baseline data and outline post-project monitoring components into project planning, as appropriate and 

necessary. 

5 The BLM and Forest Service will coordinate new recommendations, mitigation, and conservation measures applied for sage-grouse 

with the WGFD and other appropriate agencies, local government cooperators, and the Wyoming SGIT. These measures will be 

analyzed in site-specific NEPA documents, as necessary. 

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 

long-term success. 

7 Ensure site-specific, measurable, conservation and mitigation objectives are included in project planning within sage-grouse 

habitats. 

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. 

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. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-99 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

10 Apply all desired required design features (Appendix B) as mandatory Stipulations/COAs 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. 

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. 

12 Existing notices and approved plans of operations under 43 CFR 38094: 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 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 by the BLM in 43 CFR 3809.5 

and the Forest Service in 36 CFR 228.3). 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/Forest Service’s 

determination of whether the proposed operations will cause unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.5 or likely 

cause a significant disturbance of surface resources under 36 CFR 228.4. 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 and Forest Service 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 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. 

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. 

14 Contribute to actions that help to ground-truth the statewide sage-grouse seasonal habitat models for the State of Wyoming. 

15 Use the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework or best available assessment tool (approved by the AO/Responsible Official) 

when assessing or evaluating sage-grouse habitats at multiple scales. 

16 The official Wyoming sage-grouse lek database is maintained by the WGFD in accordance with Appendix 4B of the Umbrella MOU 

between the WGFD and BLM and Forest Service (WGFD and BLM 1990). 

4 These regulations apply to the exploration and development of locatable minerals on placer claims and lode claims, as well as exploration on tunnel sites and mineral 

processing operations on mill sites The location and maintenance of claims and sites are regulated under 43 CFR Subpart 3830. 

2-100 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. 

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 sage-grouse conservation objectives (such as, but not limited to, 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. 

18 Areas within PHMAs would be limited to designated roads, primitive roads, and trails. Individual route designations will occur during 

subsequent implementation level travel management planning. Until implementation level travel management plans and route designations are complete, motorized travel will be limited to existing roads, and trails. 

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

20 Construct roads needed for production activities to minimum design standards within PHMAs, in compliance with the DDCT 

process. 

21 Field office and ranger district staff will work with project proponents (including those within the BLM/Forest Service) 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. 

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 Sage-Grouse populations or its habitat, as determined in coordination 

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

23 Management Action 23 has been moved to Management Action 137. 24 Management Action 24 has been moved to Management Action 138. 25 All existing LUP decisions will be retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in these plan 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. 

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). 

27 BLM and Forest Service planning units (Districts and Forests), 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 atrisk 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 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-101 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

would also be a coordinated effort with an IDT to take into account other Greater Sage-Grouse 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/Forest) Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire & Invasive Species Assessment using the best available science related to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse. In coordination with USFWS and relevant state agencies, BLM and Forest Service planning units (districts/forests) 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. 

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. 

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 sage-grouse habitat consistent with land use plan direction. 

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 non-habitat areas first and then in the least suitable habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Lands and Realty Management 

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

30 Portions of sage-grouse core and general 

habitat areas would be managed as ROW exclusion areas (Map 2-9). 

Priority sage-grouse habitat areas would be managed as exclusion areas for new BLM ROW or Forest Service SUA permits (Map 2-10). Consider the following exceptions: 1. Within designated ROW or SUA 

corridors encumbered by existing ROW or SUA authorizations, new ROWs could be co-located only if the entire footprint of the proposed project (including construction and staging) can be completed within the existing disturbance associated with the authorized ROWs or SUAs. 

2. Subject to valid, existing rights where 

new ROWs or SUAs associated with 

Sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas would be managed as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW or SUA permits (Map 2-11). Consider the following exceptions: 1. Within designated ROW or SUA 

corridors encumbered by existing ROW or SUA authorizations, new ROWs and SUAs could be co-located only if the entire footprint of the proposed project (including construction and staging) can be completed within the existing disturbance associated with the authorized ROWs or SUAs. 

In addition to Alternative A: Sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas would be managed as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW or SUA permits (Map 2-12). Consider the following exceptions: 1. Within designated ROW corridors 

encumbered by existing ROW or SUA authorizations, new ROWs and SUAs could be co-located within the designated corridors. 

2. Subject to valid existing rights 

including non-federal land inholdings, required new ROWs and SUAs would be co-located within existing ROWs or SUAs or where it best minimizes sage2-102 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

valid existing rights are required, new ROWs or SUAs would be co-located within existing ROWs or SUAs or where it best minimizes sage-grouse impacts. Existing roads or realignments, as described above, would be used to access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot 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 priority area. If that disturbance exceeds 3% for that area, additional effective mitigation would be evaluated and implemented on a case-by-case basis to offset the resulting loss of sage-grouse habitat. 

2. Subject to valid, existing rights where 

new ROWs or SUAs associated with valid existing rights are required, new ROWs and SUAs would be co-located within existing ROWs or SUAs or where it best minimizes sage-grouse impacts. Existing roads or realignments, as described above, would be used to access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot 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 priority area. If that disturbance exceeds 3% for that area, additional mitigation that has been demonstrated to be effective would be used to offset the resulting loss of sage-grouse habitat. 

grouse impacts. Existing roads or realignments, as described above, would be used to access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. 

3. If valid existing rights cannot 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 core habitat area. If that disturbance exceeds 9% for that area, additional effective mitigation necessary to offset the resulting loss of sage-grouse would be used. If such a ROW or SUA is subsequently relinquished, the AO would require the holder to complete reclamation with objective of ensuring reestablishment of prior affected sagegrouse habitat. 

30a No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action 

31 Portions of sage-grouse general habitat 

areas would be managed as ROW avoidance areas (Map 2-9). 

General sage-grouse habitat areas would be managed as avoidance areas for new ROWs or SUAs, except for areas currently managed as ROW exclusion areas (2-10). Within general sage-grouse habitat where new ROWs/SUAs are necessary, new ROWs/SUAs would be co-located within existing ROWs/SUAs where technically feasible. 

No similar action In addition to Alternative A: 

General sage-grouse habitat areas would be available for new ROWs or SUAs, subject to BMPs. 

32 Sage-grouse core and connectivity 

habitat areas: Casper RMP: No new corridor designations would be made in Bates Hole. When placement of a major ROW facility within a designated 

Sage-grouse priority habitat areas: New transmission corridors would not be authorized. New above-ground transmission structures would be prohibited both inside and outside existing corridors. 

No similar action Sage-grouse core and connectivity 

habitat areas: New transmission projects would be allowed in existing designated utility corridors (i.e., West Wide Energy Corridor, RMPs, etc.). 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-103 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 would be minimized. No new corridors would be established in the Sand Hills 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 10.West wide Energy Corridor 

New transmission projects would be allowed within the proposed 2-mile wide transmission line corridor through sagegrouse core habitat population areas in south-central and southwestern Wyoming (see Map 2-15 from WY EO 2011-5). New transmission lines would be authorized if they are constructed within the 2-mile wide corridor between July 1 and March 14 (or between July 1 and November 30 in sage-grouse winter concentration areas). In addition, new transmission lines would be authorized if they are constructed between July 1 and March 14 (or between July 1 and November 30 in sage-grouse winter concentration areas) and within one half mile either side of existing 115 kV or larger transmission lines. New transmission projects may be constructed outside the 2-mile wide corridor and the one-mile wide corridor mentioned above, in consideration of other resources, when it can be demonstrated that the activity will not cause declines in sage-grouse populations through project design and/or mitigation. 

2-104 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. 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: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-105 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 I80, 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 utility/transportation systems whenever practical. Areas to be avoided for new facility placement and routes would be identified on a case-by-case 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 

2-106 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

established as oil and gas fields are developed. Rawlins RMP: All BLM-administered public lands, except WSAs and some SD/MAs (including ACEC/SIAs), 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 sitespecific 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 with safety or incompatibility or resource conflicts were identified. The designated 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-107 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 north-south. Other areas would be considered for rights-of-way on a case-by-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 north-south window on the west side of Flaming Gorge, a window south along Highway 430, and a northsouth window along the east side of Flaming Gorge have been identified for above and below ground utilities. JMH 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 rightsof-way. 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. TBNG LRMP: Utility companies would be permitted to construct new utility corridors, unless prohibited by management direction. 

2-108 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

MBNF LRMP: Current utility corridors would be fully utilized. Corridors would be provided in the future in areas that meet the needs of society while protecting the integrity of the environment. BTNF LRMP: Within sage-grouse core habitat areas, disturbance would be limited by colocating roads, pipelines, gathering lines, and power lines for energy resource development. New roads, pipelines, gathering lines, and technically required overhead power lines would be routed in a manner as to minimize visual impacts and conform to approved corridors. When these facilities leave corridors, they should be subordinate to the landscape. 

33 No similar action Existing designated ROW corridors 

crossing sage-grouse priority habitat that 

are void of any authorized ROWs would be relocated outside of the priority habitat area. If relocation is not possible, the entire corridor would be undesignated during the planning process. 

Same as Alternative B No similar action 

34 Kemmerer RMP: 

New utility lines would be buried or BLMapproved anti-perch devices would be installed on all new utility lines within sagebrush and/or semiarid shrubdominated habitats, unless NEPA analysis shows little or no impact without burial or modification. BTNF LRMP: Operations would be conducted in a manner that will offer the least possible 

No similar action ROWs would be amended to require 

features that enhance sage-grouse habitat security. Existing designated corridors in BLM ACECs and Forest Service Special Areas could be accessed for maintenance. 

Maintenance of existing structures would be allowed and upgrades would be considered, subject to BMPs. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-109 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

disturbance to wildlife on or adjacent to the leased land. 

35 No similar action Opportunities to remove, bury, or modify 

existing power lines within priority sagegrouse habitat areas would be evaluated and taken advantage of. Where existing leases or ROWs or SUAs have had some level of development (e.g., road, fence, and well) and are no longer in use, the site would be reclaimed by removing these features and restoring the habitat. 

Same as Alternative B No similar action 

Renewable Energy 

36 Wind energy development would be 

allowed within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas, except in areas that are currently unavailable due to the need to protect sensitive resources (Map 2-29)1. 

No similar action Wind energy development would be 

prohibited in sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas (Map 2-31)1. 

In addition to Alternative A: Wind energy development would be avoided in sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas (Map 2-32), unless it can be sufficiently demonstrated that the development activity would not result in declines of sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat populations. Sufficient demonstration of “no declines” should be coordinated with the WGFD and USFWS. Areas that are currently unavailable due to the need to protect sensitive resources would remain unavailable to wind energy development1. 

37 No similar action No similar action Wind energy development would be sited 

at least five miles from active sagegrouse leks1. 

No similar action 

38 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 

In addition to Alternative A: MET towers would be prohibited in sagegrouse priority habitat areas. 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 

2-110 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. 

39 No similar action No similar action Industrial solar projects would be 

prohibited in ACECs and occupied sagegrouse habitats. 

No similar action 

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

40 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: 1. Areas where there are documented or 

existing trespass facilities that can be resolved by an authorization under this section 

The BLM Forest Service would retain public ownership of sage-grouse priority habitat. Exceptions would be considered where there is mixed ownership and land exchanges would allow for additional or more contiguous federal ownership patterns within the sage-grouse priority habitat area. Under sage-grouse priority habitat areas 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. 

Same as Alternative B, without exceptions for disposal to consolidate ownership that would be beneficial to sage-grouse. 

The BLM and Forest Service would retain ownership of sage-grouse core and connectivity habitats unless economic or other benefits are determined. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-111 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

2. Areas along major highways where 

developments may facilitate public needs 

3. 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. 

41 Casper RMP: 

The BLM would pursue acquisition of lands and interest in lands in the Bolton Creek Drainage and Bates Creek areas. 

Areas where acquisitions (including subsurface mineral rights) or conservation easements would benefit sage-grouse habitat would be identified. 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A 

42 No similar action Where suitable conservation actions 

cannot be achieved, the BLM and Forest Service would seek to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface mineral estate or BLM/National Forest System lands that need subsurface mineral estate by donation, purchase or exchange in order to best conserve, enhance or restore sage-grouse habitat. 

The BLM and Forest Service would strive to acquire important private lands in BLMdesignated ACECs and Forest Service Sage-Grouse Special Areas. Acquisition will be prioritized over easements. 

The BLM and Forest Service would acquire lands based on a variety of economic resources criteria. Land exchanges outside of sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat would be considered if lands can be exchanged for lands within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat. 

43 No similar action In priority habitat, withdrawal proposals 

not associated with mineral activity would not be approved unless the land management is consistent with sagegrouse conservation measures. (For example, in a proposed withdrawal for a military training range buffer area, the buffer area would be managed with sagegrouse conservation measures.) 

Withdrawal proposals not associated with mineral activity would not be approved unless the land management is consistent with sage-grouse conservation measures. (For example, in a proposed withdrawal for a military training range buffer area, the buffer area would be managed with sage-grouse conservation measures that have been demonstrated to be effective.) 

No similar action 

Livestock Grazing Management 

44 The BLM policy in WO-IM-2009-007 and 

BLM Handbook H-4180-1 and a National Forest’s LRMP or allotment specific NEPA decision for the Forest Service would be used to evaluate land health 

Allotments not meeting standards due to livestock grazing in sage-grouse priority habitat would incorporate a light grazing management strategy utilizing a 20-30% forage allocation for livestock. 

Livestock grazing would be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

Same as Alternative A 

2-112 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

standards achievement in sage-grouse core habitats 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 nonachievement 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 (utilization or stubble 

height objectives) 

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. 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. 

45 No similar action In priority habitat, the BLM and Forest 

Service would work cooperatively on 

No similar action The BLM and Forest Service would work 

cooperatively with permittees, lessees, 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-113 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

integrated ranch planning within sagegrouse habitat so operations with deeded BLM and/or Forest Service allotments can be planned as single units. 

and other landowners to develop grazing management strategies on an allotmentby-allotment basis to improve sagegrouse habitat. 

Livestock Grazing Permit Monitoring 

46 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 

In addition to Alternative A: Measureable objectives would be monitored and grazing management would be evaluated to assure that management actions are achieving sagegrouse habitat objectives. When conducting land health assessments, indicators and measurements of structure, condition, and composition of vegetation specific to achieving sage-grouse habitat objectives would be included. If local/state seasonal habitat objectives are not available, sagegrouse habitat recommendations from Connelly et al. 2000b and Hagen et al. 2007 would be used Completion of land health assessments (Forest Service may use other analyses) and processing grazing permits within sage-grouse priority habitat areas would be prioritized. This process would focus on allotments that have the best opportunities for conserving, enhancing, or restoring habitat for sage-grouse. BLM and Forest Service ESDs (Forest Service may use other methods) would be utilized to conduct land health assessments to determine if standards of rangeland health are being met. 

In addition to Alternative A: Measureable objectives would be monitored and grazing management would be evaluated to assure that management actions are achieving sagegrouse habitat objectives. Composition, function, and structure of native vegetation communities would be consistent with the reference state of the 

appropriate ESD and would provide for healthy, resilient, and recovering sagegrouse habitat components. 

In addition to Alternative A: The BLM and Forest Service would continue to prioritize oversight and effectiveness monitoring of grazing activities to ensure compliance with permit conditions and that progress is being made on achieving Wyoming land health standards on BLM-administered lands. 

2-114 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

used to direct and support grazing management decisions consistent with national policy. 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. 

47 No similar action No similar action In sage-grouse habitat, the BLM and 

Forest Service would ensure that soil cover and native herbaceous plants are at their ESD potential to help protect against invasive plants. In areas without ESDs, reference sites would be utilized to identify appropriate vegetation communities and soil cover. 

No similar action 

Permit Renewals 

48 TBNG LRMP: 

During the AMP process or as other opportunities arise, livestock grazing strategies would be designed and implemented to provide quality nesting cover in all sagebrush stands (>15% canopy cover of big sagebrush, silver sagebrush, and greasewood) within at least 3.0 miles of active display grounds (consistent with Geographic Area (GA) vegetation objectives) where sagebrush is 

irregularly distributed around the display ground. This minimum distance could be 

If the LUP identifies specific allotment and/or permits where retirement is potentially beneficial, but the plan directs further site-specific analysis, a land use plan amendment would not be required to retire the permit as long as the sitespecific analysis is consistent with the ROD. 

Same as Alternative B In addition to Alternative A: 

As the grazing permits are renewed, consider incorporating terms and conditions that address sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations in core and connectivity habitats. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-115 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

reduced to 2.0 miles where sagebrush is uniformly distributed around display grounds. MBNF LRMP: Livestock grazing on rangelands would be coordinated to provide adequate cover and forage for sage-grouse. 

49 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 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-bycase basis, including an environmental analysis, and would be authorized in 

The BLM and Forest Service would implement management actions (grazing decisions, conservation plan development, or other agreements) to modify grazing management to meet seasonal sage-grouse habitat requirements. The BLM and Forest Service would consider singly, or in combination, changes in: 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 (utilization or stubble 

height objectives) 

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. When processing NEPA for grazing 

permit renewals, include at least one alternative that would implement a deferred or rest-rotation grazing system, if one is not already in place and the size of the allotment warrants it. 

The BLM and Forest Service would consider terms and conditions on grazing permits and leases that assure plant growth requirement are met and residual 

No similar action Same as Alternative B 

2-116 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 season-of 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 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. 

forage remains available for sage-grouse hiding cover. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-117 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

TBNG LRMP: During the AMP process or as other opportunities arise, livestock grazing strategies would be designed and implemented to provide quality nesting cover in all sagebrush stands (>15% canopy cover of big sagebrush, silver sagebrush, and greasewood) within at least 3.0 miles of active display grounds (consistent with GA vegetation objectives) where sagebrush is irregularly distributed around the display ground. This minimum distance could be reduced to 2.0 miles where sagebrush is uniformly distributed around display grounds. BTNF LRMP: Fisheries, riparian habitats, and Threatened and Endangered Species (TES) species' needs would be addressed in allotment management plans. Range improvements, management activities, and trailing would be coordinated with and designed to help meet fish and wildlife needs, especially on key habitat such as crucial winter range, seasonal calving areas, riparian areas, sage-grouse leks, and nesting sites. Special emphasis would be placed on helping to meet the needs of TES species. 

50 When livestock grazing permits and/or 

grazing preference are voluntarily relinquished, the relinquishment of grazing preference would be managed according to appropriate BLM and Forest Service regulations. 

Retirement of grazing privileges would be maintained as an option in sage-grouse priority habitat areas when the current permittee is willing to retire grazing on all or part of an allotment. The impacts of no livestock use on wildfire and invasive species threats 

Same as Alternative B In addition to Alternative A: 

Retirement of up to 15% within the individual planning unit would be authorized for grazing allotments in sagegrouse core and connectivity habitat areas, where the permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes their grazing preference in their grazing allotment. 

2-118 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

would be analyzed in evaluating retirement proposals. Retirement of grazing preference would be provided on a case by case basis when the advantage to sage-grouse habitat warrants, and a permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes their grazing preference in a specific grazing allotment or when a property is transferred. No temporary use would be allowed in allotments where grazing preference has been relinquished. If the LUP identifies specific allotment and/or permits where retirement is potentially beneficial, but the plan directs further site-specific analysis, a land use plan amendment would not be required to retire the permit as long as the sitespecific analysis is consistent with the ROD. 

Temporary use may be allowed in allotments where grazing preference has been relinquished or non-use warrants, to rest other allotments that include important sage-grouse habitat. 

51 No similar action Each planning effort would identify the 

specific allotment(s) where permanent retirement of grazing privileges is potentially beneficial to sage-grouse. 

In each planning process, grazing allotments where permanent retirement of grazing privileges would be potentially beneficial to sage-grouse would be identified. 

No similar action 

52 Casper RMP: 

Other management considerations for use of 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-bycase 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 determining there is 

In addition to Alternative A: During drought periods, evaluating effects of drought in sage-grouse priority habitat areas relative to their needs for food and cover would be prioritized. Since there is a lag in vegetation recovery following drought, the BLM and Forest Service would ensure that post-drought management allows for vegetation recovery that meets sage-grouse needs in priority habitat areas. 

In addition to Alternative A: During drought periods, evaluating effects of drought in sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas relative to their biological needs would be prioritized, as well as drought effects on ungrazed reference areas. Since there is a lag in vegetation recovery following drought, the BLM and Forest Service would ensure that post-drought management allows for vegetation recovery that meets sagegrouse needs in sage-grouse habitat 

In addition to Alternative A: When periods of drought occur within sage-grouse core or connectivity habitat, where appropriate, the season of use and stocking rate would be evaluated and adjusted through coordination with grazing permittee/lessee and annual billings processes. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-119 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. A drought contingency plan would be developed to maintain adequate habitat components for viable fish, wildlife, and Special Status Species populations. BTNF LRMP: Non-use for resource protection can be approved as a result of ongoing drought conditions. Requests by permittees to downsize or de-stock because of extreme or prolonged drought are in the interest of sound rangeland management, should be approved on a case-by-case allotment basis, and should not count against the permittee’ s period of nonuse for personal convenience. TBNG LRMP: At the onset of drought, the need to adjust land uses to reduce impacts on sagegrouse nesting and brooding habitat would be evaluated. 

areas based on sage-grouse habitat objectives. 

Range Development Projects 

53 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, unless 

In addition to Alternative A: In priority habitat, any new structural range improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) would be designed to conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse habitat through an improved grazing management system relative to sage-grouse objectives. Structural range improvements, in this context, would include but would not be 

In addition to Alternative A: All new structural range developments and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) would be avoided in sagegrouse priority and general habitat unless independent peer-reviewed studies show that the range improvement structure or nutrient supplement placement benefits sage-grouse. 

In addition to Alternative A: In sage-grouse general, core, and connectivity habitats, existing range improvements (e.g., fences, livestock/wildlife watering facilities) associated with grazing management operations would continue to be evaluated and modified when necessary for reducing impacts on Greater SageGrouse and its habitat. 

2-120 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 BLMadministered lands within the planning area. Existing fences would be eliminated or modified to reduce conflicts on a case-bycase 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 caseby-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 BLM-administered 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 

limited to: cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals or other livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks (including moveable tanks used in livestock water hauling), windmills, ponds/reservoirs, solar panels and spring developments. Potential for invasive species establishment or increase following construction must be considered in the project planning process and monitored and treated postconstruction. When fences are necessary, in sagegrouse habitat a sage-grouse-safe design would be required. To reduce sage-grouse strikes and mortality fences in high risk areas would be removed, modified, or marked within sage-grouse habitat based on proximity to lek, lek size, and topography. In sage-grouse priority habitat, existing structural range improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) would be evaluated to make sure they conserve, enhance, or restore sagegrouse habitat. 

Structural range developments, in this context, would include but would not be limited to cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals or other livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks (including moveable tanks used in livestock water hauling), windmills, ponds/reservoirs, solar panels and spring developments. Potential for invasive species establishment or increase following construction must be considered in the project planning process and monitored and treated postconstruction. The comparative cost of changing grazing management instead of constructing additional range developments would be considered. Fences in areas of moderate or high risk of sage-grouse strikes would be removed, modified, or marked within sage-grouse habitat based on proximity to lek, lek size, and topography. In sage-grouse priority and general habitat, existing structural range improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) would be evaluated to make sure they conserve, enhance, or restore sagegrouse habitat. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-121 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 blocks would not be placed within 0.25 mile of an occupied sage-grouse 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 

2-122 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 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 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-123 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

supplements at least 500 feet away from wells, troughs, and other human-made water sources would be encouraged to better distribute livestock. TBNG LRMP: Any fences or water developments that are not contributing in achieving desired conditions would be prioritized for removal. When installing new livestock water tanks, durable and effective escape ramps for birds and small mammals would be installed. During maintenance of existing tanks, ramps that are ineffective or missing would be replaced. To help reduce disturbances to nesting sage-grouse, the following activities would be prohibited within 2.0 miles of active display grounds from March 1 to June 15: 1. Construction (e.g., roads, water 

impoundments, oil and gas facilities), 

2. Reclamation, 3. Gravel mining operations, 4. Drilling of water wells, Standard 

(Grassland Wide Direction) 

To reduce disturbances to nesting sagegrouse, the following activities would not be authorized within 2.0 miles of active display grounds from March 1 to June 15: 1. Construction (e.g., pipelines, utilities, 

fencing), Guideline (Grassland Wide Direction) 

When constructing facilities or structures within 2 miles of a sage-grouse active display ground, they would be designed to discourage raptor perching by 

2-124 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

maintaining a low profile or using perch inhibitors. BTNF LRMP: Fish; Wildlife; and Sensitive Species Standard - Range improvements, management activities, and trailing would be coordinated with and designed to help meet fish and wildlife needs, especially on key habitat such as crucial winter range, seasonal calving areas, riparian areas, sage-grouse leks, and nesting sites. Special emphasis would be placed on helping to meet the needs of TES species. Allotment Management Plan Standard - Fisheries; riparian habitats; and TES species' needs would be addressed in allotment management plans. Fish; Wildlife; and Sensitive Species Standard - Range improvements, management activities, and trailing would be coordinated with and designed to help meet fish and wildlife needs, especially on key habitat such as crucial winter range, seasonal calving areas, riparian areas, sage-grouse leks, and nesting sites. Special emphasis will be placed on helping to meet the needs of TES species. Form FS-2200-10b (Grazing Permit - Part 3) contains management practice requirements pertaining to livestock salting. Though none of the provisions found in recent permits directly address sage-grouse conservation measures, this section may be modified to stipulate such measures. MBNF LRMP: New disturbances such as construction, drilling, new recreation facilities, logging, 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-125 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

or other concentrated intense activities would be prohibited. Short-term projects designed to improve habitat such as prescribed burning are permitted. Sage-grouse breeding complexes: March 1 - June 30; 2 miles: Fence density would be limited by allowing new fences only to facilitate protection, public safety, or habitat protection or enhancement. Stock tanks and similar features would, in all cases, be kept out of the water influence zone if feasible and out of riparian areas and wetlands. Stock driveways would be kept out of the water influence zone except to cross at designated points. Water gaps would be hardened and stock crossing would be designated where needed and feasible. Salt and other supplements would be placed at least 0.25 mile from riparian areas and water developments unless specified otherwise in the allotment management plan or annual operating instructions. 

Livestock Trailing 

54 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 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: 

No similar action In addition to Alternative A: 

Grazing and trailing would be avoided within lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats during periods of the year when these habitats are utilized by sagegrouse. 

Same as Alternative A 

2-126 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Adequate stock trails would be maintained to support livestock trailing needs. 

Riparian Area Management 

55 Casper RMP: 

Lotic and lentic wetland/riparian areas would be managed toward PFC. The BLM would manage toward PFC and identified 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: 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 

In addition to Alternative A: Within sage-grouse priority habitat, where riparian areas and wet meadows meet proper functioning condition or meet standards using other similar methodology (Forest Service only), the BLM and Forest Service would strive to attain reference state vegetation relative to the ESD. Riparian areas and wet meadows would be managed for proper functioning condition or other similar methodology (Forest Service only) within sage-grouse priority habitats. Within priority and general sage-grouse habitats, wet meadows would be managed to maintain a component of perennial forbs with diverse species richness relative to site potential (e.g., reference state) to facilitate brood rearing. 

Also these wet meadow complexes would be conserved or enhanced to maintain or increase the amount of edge and cover within that edge to minimize elevated mortality during the late brood rearing period. Within sage-grouse priority habitat, hot season grazing on riparian and meadow complexes would be reduced to promote recovery or maintenance of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Fencing/herding techniques, seasonal use, or livestock distribution changes would be utilized to reduce pressure on riparian or wet meadow vegetation used 

In addition to Alternative A: Within sage-grouse priority habitat, where riparian areas and wet meadows meet proper functioning condition or meet standards using other similar methodology (Forest Service only), the BLM and Forest Service would strive to attain reference state vegetation relative to the ESD. Riparian areas and wet meadows would be managed for proper functioning condition or other similar methodology (Forest Service only) within sage-grouse priority habitats. Within sage-grouse priority and general habitats, wet meadows would be managed to maintain a component of perennial forbs with diverse species richness and productivity relative to site potential (e.g., reference state) to facilitate brood rearing. At least 6 inches of stubble height must remain on all riparian/meadow area herbaceous species at all times. Also these wet meadow complexes would be conserved or enhanced to maintain or increase the amount of edge and cover within that edge to minimize elevated mortality during the late brood-rearing period. 

In sage-grouse core and connectivity habitats, to address a proven threat to sage-grouse conservation, balancing grazing between riparian habitats and upland habitats would be considered to promote the production and availability of beneficial forbs to Greater Sage-Grouse in meadows, mesic habitats, and riparian pastures for Greater Sage-Grouse use during nesting and brood-rearing while maintaining upland conditions and functions. Through a full range of grazing management strategies for livestock, wildlife, and wild horses, changes to season-of-use in riparian/wetland areas before or after the hot growing season would be considered. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-127 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 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 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 

by sage-grouse in the hot season (summer). 

2-128 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. TBNG LRMP: During vegetation management practices, maintain or enhance wet and subirrigated meadows, seeps, riparian habitats, and other wetland areas that occur in or adjacent to sage-grouse habitat as quality sage-grouse foraging areas during the spring, summer, and fall. BTNF LRMP: Objective 4.3 - Protect and rehabilitate riparian areas to retain and improve their value for fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife, and water quality. MBNF LRMP: Manage livestock grazing in riparian areas and wetlands using “best management practices.” The following Watershed Conservation Practices are interrelated and should be considered and implemented as a complete package where feasible: 1. Apply short duration grazing, as 

feasible (generally 20-30 days), to provide greater opportunity for regrowth and to avoid utilization of woody species. 

2. Design grazing systems to limit 

utilization of woody species. Move livestock from riparian areas and wetlands when they begin to have a preference for woody species, especially plants in the young maturity classes. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-129 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

3. Keep stock tanks and similar features 

out of the water influence zone if feasible and out of riparian areas and wetlands always. 

4. Keep stock driveways out of the water 

influence zone except to cross at designated points. Harden water gaps and designated stock crossing where needed and feasible. 

56 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 species will be required. Water developments and/or range improvements proposed in sensitive areas will be considered only if wildlife habitat and resource conditions are maintained or improved and no significant or irreversible adverse effects will occur. BTNF LRMP: Allotment Management Plan Standard - Fisheries; riparian habitats; and TES species' needs will be addressed in allotment management plans. MBNF LRMP: 

In addition to Alternative A: Within sage-grouse priority habitats, new water developments for diversion from spring or seep source would be authorized only when priority sage-grouse habitat would benefit on both upland and riparian habitat from the development or when there are no negative impacts to sage-grouse. This would include developing new water sources for livestock as part of an AMP/conservation plan to improve sage-grouse habitat. 

In addition to Alternative A: No new water developments for diversion from spring or seep sources would be authorized within sage-grouse priority and general habitats. 

In addition to Alternative A: Within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitats, water developments would be authorized as needed to support grazing objectives. 

2-130 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Keep stock tanks and similar features out of the water influence zone if feasible and out of riparian areas and wetlands always. 

57 BTNF LRMP: 

Allotment Management Plan Standard - Fisheries; riparian habitats; and TES species' needs will be addressed in allotment management plans. Priority 1 validation monitoring of riparian areas: Conduct a level III riparian evaluation...and level II riparian evaluation on stocked allotments...with key riparian values to solve site specific problems and/or to assess impacts of management activities on riparian resources. Further evaluation or change in management required when riparian area management objectives are not met. TBNG LRMP: Manage livestock grazing to maintain or improve riparian/woody draw areas. Implement the following practices: Avoid season-long grazing and activities, such as feeding, salting, herding, or water developments, which concentrate livestock in riparian/woody draw areas. Control the timing, duration, and intensity of grazing in riparian areas to promote establishment and development of woody species. 

In addition to Alternative A: Springs, seeps and associated pipelines would be analyzed to determine if modifications are necessary to maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within sage-grouse priority habitats. Modifications would be made where necessary, considering impacts to other water uses when such considerations are neutral or beneficial to 

sage-grouse. 

In addition to Alternative A: Springs, seeps and associated water developments would be analyzed to determine if modifications are necessary to maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within sage-grouse habitats. Modifications would be made where necessary, including dismantling water developments. 

In addition to Alternative A: Existing water developments would be maintained or modified to support grazing objectives. 

Minerals Management 

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

58 Exceptions, waivers, and modifications to 

lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs, etc. for sage-grouse will continue to be 

Exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs for sage-grouse would not be considered within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

Exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs for sage-grouse would not be considered 

Exceptions waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs, etc., for sage-grouse would continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis consistent with approved LUPs and other 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-131 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

considered on a case-by-case basis consistent with approved LUPs. TBNG LRMP: Exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs, etc. for sage-grouse will continue to be considered on a case-bycase basis consistent with approved stipulations in Appendix D of the TBNG LRMP. MBNF LRMP: Exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs, etc. for sage-grouse will continue to be considered on a case-bycase basis consistent with approved stipulations in Appendix E of the MBNF LRMP. 

within sage-grouse priority and general habitat. 

BLM and Forest Service policy and regulations as they relate to exceptions within sage-grouse core, connectivity, and general habitat. 

Fluid Minerals Unleased Estate 

59 No similar action No similar action Any oil, gas, or geothermal activity would 

be conducted to maximize avoidance of impacts, based on evolving scientific knowledge of impacts. 

No similar action 

60 Fluid mineral leasing would be allowed in 

sage-grouse core habitat areas, except in areas that are unavailable for leasing due to the need to protect other sensitive resources (Map 2-4). 

Priority sage-grouse habitat areas would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (Map 2­5). An exception would be considered when there is an opportunity for the BLM and Forest Service to influence conservation measures where surface and/or mineral ownership is not entirely federally owned (i.e., checkerboard ownership). In this case, a plan amendment may be developed that opens the priority area for new leasing. The plan must demonstrate long-term population increases in the priority area through mitigation (prior to issuing the lease) including lease stipulations, offsite mitigation, etc., and avoid short-term losses that put the sageSage-grouse priority and general habitat areas would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (Map 2-6). An exception would be considered when there is an opportunity for the BLM and Forest Service to influence conservation measures where surface and/or mineral ownership is not entirely federally owned (i.e., checkerboard ownership). In this case, a plan amendment may be developed that opens sage-grouse habitat for new leasing. The plan must demonstrate long-term population increases in the priority area through mitigation (prior to issuing the lease) including lease stipulations, and offsite mitigation, and avoid short-term losses 

that put the sage-grouse population at 

The agencies would allow oil and gas leasing consistent and subject to the leasing stipulations analyzed in the timing, distance, disturbance, and density restrictions sections. In addition to Alternative A: Fluid mineral leasing would be closed in the following special management or higher sagegrouse core habitat areas (Map 2-7): 1. Newcastle RMP: Raven Creek (79,640 

total acres) 

2. Pinedale RMP: Beaver Ridge, 

Fontenelle Creek, and East Anticline (39,860 total acres). 

2-132 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

grouse population at risk from stochastic events leading to extirpation. 

risk from stochastic events leading to extirpation. Upon expiration or termination of existing leases, nominations/expressions of interest for parcels within sage-grouse priority and general habitat would not be accepted. 

As existing fluid mineral leases expire in the areas listed above, they would not be re-offered for lease. 

61 A minimum lease size would not be 

applied within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas. 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 

62 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) administratively 

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 development. 

In addition to Alternative A: Geophysical exploration would be allowed within sage-grouse priority habitat areas to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to sage-grouse priority habitat areas. Geophysical operations would be allowed using only helicopter-portable drilling, wheeled or tracked vehicles on existing roads, or other approved methods conducted in accordance with seasonal timing limitations and other restrictions that may apply. 

In addition to Alternative A: No new geophysical exploration permits would be issued within priority and general sage-grouse habitat. An exception to this for the purposes of recognizing valid existing rights would be the following: Geophysical exploration would be allowed within priority and general sagegrouse habitat areas to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to priority and general sagegrouse habitat areas. Geophysical operations would be allowed by only using helicopter-portable drilling methods and in accordance with seasonal timing restrictions and/or other restrictions that may apply. Geophysical exploration shall be subject to seasonal restrictions that preclude activities in breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and winter habitats during their season of use by sage-grouse. 

Same as Alternative A 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-133 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

5. These blocks remain open to livestock 

grazing. 

6. All allowed surface-disturbing activities 

within the designated blocks are subject to a CSU restriction, minimizing surface disturbance to meet management objectives. Decision 4024 

The North Platte River SRMA will continue to be open to oil and gas leasing and geophysical operations. Decision 7039 The area is administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing and geophysical exploration is not allowed. Decision 7047 The MA is administratively 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 surfacedisturbing 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 administratively 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 surface2-134 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 an NSO restriction, may be open to geophysical operations should site specific NEPA analysis disclose a finding of no significant impact. No geophysical operations are allowed in areas administratively unavailable 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 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-135 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

restriction, will be analyzed and mitigation developed on a case-by-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, 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 

2-136 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

lines may be laid using foot traffic within these areas. Exceptions to these restrictions may be granted on a case-bycase basis subject to appropriate sitespecific 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-bycase basis subject to appropriate sitespecific 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 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-137 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

be performed with acceptable mitigation of impacts. BTNF LRMP: Seismic Activity Standard - Helicopteraccess seismic activity will be permitted. Seismic Activity Termination Guideline - Seismic activity may be seasonally restricted. TBNG LRMP: Where no suitable mitigation measures are possible, prohibit geophysical (seismic) operations that cause surface disturbance in Research Natural Areas (RNA), Special Interest Areas, American Indian traditional use area, and known National Register eligible sites. Minimize surface and other resource disturbance from geophysical operations. Do not allow new road construction, unless alternatives have been assessed and determined to be more environmentally damaging. MBNF LRMP: Where no effective mitigation measures are possible, prohibit geophysical (seismic) operations that cause surface disturbance in RNAs , Special Interest Areas, Recommended Wilderness, recommended Wild and Scenic Rivers, American Indian traditional use areas and known National Register sites. Minimize surface and other resource disturbance from geophysical operations. 

Fluid Minerals Leased Estate 

63 Kemmerer RMP: In addition to Alternative A: 

In cases where federal oil and gas leases have been issued without adequate stipulations for the protection of sageIn addition to Alternative A: In cases where federal oil and gas leases have been issued without adequate stipulations for the protection of sage- In addition to Alternative A: The BLM and Forest Service would work with project proponents in these situations to promote measurable sage2-138 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 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: 

grouse or their habitats being provided in the applicable LUP decision, as revised or amended, their inclusion as permit 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 would be given to minimizing the impact to sage-grouse through a project design that avoids, minimizes, reduces, rectifies, and/or adequately compensates for direct and indirect impacts to sage-grouse habitat or use and includes applicable and technically COAs. Selection and application of these measures would be based on current science and research on the effects to important breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas. For proposed operations in priority habitat areas, the Surface Use Plan of Operations (see 43CFR 3162.3-1(f)) would 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 sagegrouse 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. 

grouse or their habitats being provided in the applicable LUP decision, as revised or amended, their inclusion as permit 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. In this process, the following, among other things, would be evaluated: 

1. Whether the conservation measure is 

“reasonable” (43 CFR § 3101.1-2) with the valid existing rights 

2. Whether the action is in conformance 

with the approved RMP. 

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 connectivity areas that support population management objectives set by the state. The BLM and Forest Service 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 and resources whether inside or outside of sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas. Valid existing rights will be recognized and respected. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-139 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 sitespecific 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. 

In this process, the following, among other things, would be evaluated: 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. 

BLM and Forest Service field offices/district offices 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 connectivity areas that support population management objectives set by the state. BLM and Forest Service 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 and resources whether inside or outside of priority habitat areas. Valid existing rights would be recognized and respected. 

64 Field offices would work with project 

proponents (including those within BLM/Forest Service) to site their projects in locations that minimize impacts to 

sensitive resources. 

In addition to Alternative A: If the lease is partially or entirely within priority habitat areas, subject to topographic and other environmental constraints, any development within priority habitat would be required to be placed in the area least harmful to sagegrouse based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat features. 

No similar action Same as Alternative A 

2-140 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

65 No similar action In sage-grouse priority habitat, the 

following conservation measures would be provided as terms and conditions of the approved RMP: Do not allow new surface occupancy on federal leases within priority habitats, this includes winter concentration areas during any time of the year. Consider an exception: If the lease is entirely within priority habitats, apply a 4­mile NSO around the lek. 

Same as Alternative B No similar action 

66 No similar action To ensure comprehensive planning 

relative to sage-grouse conflicts, Master Development Plans would be completed during planning and review of projects involving multiple proposed disturbances within a lease or priority habitat area, without an exception for individual wildcat (exploratory) wells. 

Same as Alternative B Master development plans would not be 

required. 

67 No similar action Within sage-grouse priority habitat, 

unitization would be required when deemed necessary for proper development and operation of an area (with strong oversight and monitoring) to minimize adverse impacts to sage-grouse according to the Federal Lease Form, 3100-11, Sections 4 and 6. 

Same as Alternative B Within sage-grouse core and connectivity 

habitat, unitization for the orderly development of the mineral resource would be used. 

68 The BLM and Forest Service should 

closely examine the applicability of categorical exclusions in sage-grouse core, connectivity, and general habitat. If extraordinary circumstances review is applicable, the BLM and Forest Service should determine whether those circumstances exist. 

The BLM and Forest Service would closely examine the applicability of categorical exclusions in priority habitat. If extraordinary circumstances review is applicable, BLM and Forest Service should determine whether those circumstances exist. 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 

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 

For future actions, a full reclamation bond specific to the site would be required in accordance with 43 CFR 3104.2, 3104.3 and 3104.5, and 36 CFR 228.109. The 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-141 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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, that operator must notify BLM and Forest Service that he/she is the responsible operator, giving the particulars of the bond under which he/she will operate. BLM and Forest Service 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 

BLM and Forest Service would insure bonds are sufficient for costs relative to reclamation (Connelly et al. 2000, Hagen et al. 2007) that would result in full restoration of the lands to the condition it was found prior to disturbance. The reclamation costs would be based on the assumption that contractors for the BLM or Forest Service would perform the work. 

2-142 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

reclamation program and the need for additional measures to be taken when estimating the cost to the Forest Service to reclaim the disturbed area. 

69a No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action 

70 Pinedale RMP: 

Produced water from CBNG wells will be treated and disposed of in collaboration and consistent with the requirements of the state. 

No similar action Prohibit the construction of evaporation or 

infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater. 

No similar action 

71 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. 

Where the federal government owns the mineral estate and the surface is nonfederal ownership, the same conservation measures would be applied as those applied on public land. 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A 

72 MBNF LRMP: 

Negotiate surface management for private oil and gas minerals with the owner and operator to be as close as possible to the standards used for federal minerals. 

Where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in nonfederal ownership, appropriate BMPs would be applied to surface development. 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A 

73 No similar action No similar action Agencies would explore options to 

amend, cancel, or buy out leases in ACECs and sage-grouse priority and general habitat. 

No similar action 

74 No similar action No similar action Conditions that require relinquishment of 

leases/authorizations would be included if doing so would: (1) mitigate the impact of a proposed development, or (2) mitigate the unanticipated impacts of an approved development. 

No similar action 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-143 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Solid Leasable Minerals 

75 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 reevaluated 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 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 Leases By Application (LBA) 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. 

In addition to Alternative A: In sage-grouse priority habitat, find unsuitable all surface mining of coal under the criteria set forth in 43 CFR 3461.5. In general habitat, apply minimization of surface-disturbing or disrupting activities (including operations and maintenance) where needed to reduce the impacts of human activities on important seasonal sage-grouse habitats. Apply these measures during activity- level planning. Use additional, effective mitigation to offset impacts as appropriate (determined by local options/needs). 

Same as Alternative B In addition to Alternative A: 

Upon receipt of a coal lease application in sage-grouse core areas, 43 CFR 3461.5, Criterion 15 would be applied and the area would be identified as 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 the sagegrouse. Special conditions could be required as identified during the leasing process to protect sage-grouse resources. 

2-144 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. BTNF LRMP: Coal Leasing Standard - Coal leasing will be allowed. Strip mining will not be permitted unless no other mining options exist. Numerous areas closed to leasing of solid minerals. 

76 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. 

In addition to Alternative A: No new underground mining leases would be granted unless all surface disturbances (appurtenant facilities) are placed outside of the sage-grouse priority habitat area. Where new appurtenant facilities associated with the existing lease cannot be located outside the sage-grouse priority habitat area, new facilities would 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-145 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 reevaluated 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 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). 

be co-located within existing disturbed areas. If this is not possible, any new appurtenant facilities would be constructed to the absolute minimum standard necessary. Where BLM and Forest Service identifies development of coal using underground mining methods, the BLM and Forest Service would consider the potential surface operations and surface impacts, and unsuitability Criterion No. 15 applies, the lands would be assessed as unsuitable unless the surface management agency finds that a relevant exception or exemption applies. See 43 CFR 3461.1(b). 

2-146 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. BTNF LRMP: Coal Leasing Standard - Coal leasing will be allowed. Strip mining will not be permitted unless no other mining options exist. Numerous areas closed to leasing of solid minerals. 

77 Coal exploration activities are allowed in 

sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat with applicable stipulations. 

Coal exploration activities would not be allowed in sage-grouse priority habitat. 

No similar action Same as Alternative A 

Solid Leasable Minerals (Other than Coal and Oil Shale) 

78 Leasing of non-energy leasable minerals 

would be considered within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas, except in areas that are unavailable for leasing due to the need to protect sensitive resources (Map 2-24). 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 

Priority habitat would be closed to nonenergy leasable mineral leasing. This would include not permitting any new leases to expand an existing mine (Map 2-25). 

Same as Alternative B (Map 2-26) In addition to Alternative A: 

Exploration licenses and prospecting permits would be considered with appropriate mitigating measures. All non-energy leasable mineral activities would be considered in sage-grouse core and connectivity habitats, provided that the activities can be completed in compliance to surface occupancy and disturbance and density stipulations (Map 2-27) analyzed through the DDCT process. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-147 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 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 

2-148 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 

79 Portions of sage-grouse core habitat are 

withdrawn from mineral entry for the protection of sensitive resources (Map 2­19). 

In priority habitat, withdrawal from mineral entry would be proposed based on risk to the sage-grouse and its habitat from conflicting locatable mineral location and entry (Map 2-20). Existing [mining] claims would be made within the withdrawal area subject to validity exams or buy out. Claims that have been subsequently determined to be null and void in the recommended withdrawal would be included. In plans of operations required prior to any proposed surface disturbing activities, the following would be included: 1. Additional, effective mitigation in 

perpetuity for conservation (In accordance with existing policy, WO IM 2008-204). (Example: purchase private land and mineral rights or severed subsurface mineral rights within the priority area and deed to US Government). 

Seasonal restrictions would be considered if deemed effective. 

Same as Alternative B (Map 2-21) Same as Alternative A (Map 2-22) 

Salable Minerals 

80 Sage-grouse core and connectivity 

habitat areas would be open to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits, except in areas that are 

Sage-grouse priority habitat areas would be closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits subject to valid existing rights (Map 2-15). 

Same as Alternative B (Map 2-16) Same as Alternative A (Map 2-17) 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-149 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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

81 Salable mineral pits no longer in use will 

continue to be available for use for other resource uses. 

In sage-grouse priority habitat, salable mineral pits no longer in use would be restored to meet sage-grouse habitat conservation objectives. 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A 

Recreation and Visitor Services 

Outdoor Recreation Management 

82 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 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: 

BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs would only be allowed in priority habitat where they would have neutral or beneficial effects to priority habitat areas. 

Same as Alternative B In addition to Alternative A: 

BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation SUAs would be approved in sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat on a case by case basis consistent with other resource values. 

2-150 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Allow dispersed recreation and permit special recreational activities (e.g., outfitting and guiding permits and 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’ 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 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-151 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis after an environmental analysis process. TBNG LRMP: To reduce disturbances to nesting sagegrouse, do not authorize the following activities within 2.0 miles of active display grounds from March 1 to June 15: Permitted recreation events involving large groups of people. Manage display ground viewing activities to reduce disturbances and adverse impacts to the birds on the display grounds. 

82a No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action 

83 No similar action No similar action Camping and other non-motorized 

recreation would be seasonally prohibited within 4 miles of active sage-grouse leks. 

No similar action 

Special Designations and Other Management Areas 

84 No similar action All sage-grouse priority habitat areas 

would be designated as sage-grouse conservation ACECs/SIAs (Map 2-34). 

All sage-grouse priority habitat areas and Audubon Important Bird Areas would be designated as sage-grouse conservation ACECs/SIAs (Map 2-35). 

New sage-grouse conservation ACECs/SIAs would not be designated. 

85 No similar action No similar action Large ACECs/SIAs would be designated 

to preserve, protect, conserve, restore, and sustain sage-grouse populations and the sagebrush ecosystem on which the sage-grouse relies. 

No similar action 

Travel Management 

86 The following areas would be managed 

as OHV “open” areas: 

1. Casper Field Office: Poison Spider 

OHV Park (290 acres) 

2. Rawlins Field Office: Dune Pond 

Cooperative Management Area (3,740 acres) 

All OHV “open” areas within sage-grouse priority habitat areas would be designated as limited to designated roads and trails. These areas would include the following: 

1. Casper Field Office: Poison Spider 

OHV Park (290 acres) 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A 

2-152 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

3. Rock Springs Field Office: Portion of 

the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area (530 acres). 

2. Rawlins Field Office: Dune Pond 

Cooperative Management Area (3,740 acres) 

3. Rock Springs Field Office: Portion of 

the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area (530 acres). 

4. The sand dune portions of these areas 

where roads do not exist would continue to be managed as OHV “open” areas. 

87 Limit motorized travel to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails at a minimum, until such time as travel management planning is complete and routes are either designated or closed. 

Motorized travel would be limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails at a minimum, until such time as travel management planning is complete and routes are either designated or closed. Activity level travel plans would be completed within five years of the record of decision. During activity level planning, where appropriate, routes would be designated in priority habitat with current administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative access only. 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A 

88 Casper Field Office: 

Avoid surface disturbance or occupancy within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. Surface disturbing activity is restricted or prohibited within 0.75 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks in Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek. Occupied sage-grouse leks in Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek will have a 4-mile buffer. Within this buffer, surface disturbing activities will be avoided within 4 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks in areas with sagebrush stands greater than 10% canopy cover. Avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable sage-grouse nesting 

No similar action New road construction would be 

prohibited within 4 miles of active sagegrouse leks, and new road construction would be avoided in sage-grouse priority and general habitat. 

New roads would be avoided within 0.25 miles of the perimeter of occupied sagegrouse leks within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-153 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

and early brood-rearing habitats within 2 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified sage-grouse nesting and early broodrearing habitats outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 to July 15 (timing limitation stipulation (TLS)). Kemmerer Field Office: Avoid surface disturbance or occupancy within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks. Newcastle Field Office: Avoid surface disturbance or occupancy within 0.25 mile of the perimeter or occupied sage-grouse leks. Pinedale Field Office: Surface disturbing activities in Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas are prohibited in suitable habitat within 0.25 mile of occupied leks. Rawlins Field Office: Surface disturbing activities or occupancy are prohibited on and within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of an occupied Greater Sage-Grouse lek. Green River RMP/JMH CAP: Active grouse leks (sage- and sharp-tail grouse) and the area within a 0.25 mile of the perimeter of active leks are avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities. Surface occupancy (long-term or permanent aboveground facilities) in the Jack Morrow Hills planning area will be prohibited within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of Greater Sage-Grouse leks unless adverse impacts can be mitigated. Distances will be subject to change on a case-by-case basis dependent on 

2-154 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

applicable scientific research and sitespecific analysis. TBNG LRMP: To help reduce adverse impacts to breeding sage-grouse and their display grounds, prohibit construction of new oil and gas facilities within 0.25 mile of active display grounds. A display ground is no longer considered active if it’s known to have been unoccupied during the past 5 breeding seasons. This does not apply to pipelines and underground utilities. Roads are included in oil and gas facilities. 

89 Kemmerer RMP: 

Designated roads would not be upgraded. Any improvements to the roadways would require further analysis. 

Within sage-grouse priority habitat, no upgrading of existing routes that would change route category (road, primitive 

road, or trail) or capacity would be allowed unless the upgrading would have minimal impact on sage-grouse in sagegrouse priority habitat, was necessary for motorist safety, or eliminated the need to construct a new road. 

Within priority and general sage-grouse habitat, no upgrading of existing routes that would change route category (road, primitive road, or trail) or capacity would be allowed unless it was necessary for motorist safety or eliminated the need to construct a new road. Any impacts would be mitigated with methods that have been demonstrated to be effective to offset the loss of sage-grouse habitat. 

Within sage-grouse core, connectivity, and general habitat, upgrading of existing routes would be allowed based on other resource uses. 

90 No similar action In priority habitat, existing roads or 

realignments as described above 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 priority area. If that disturbance exceeds 3% for that area, additional, effective mitigation necessary would be evaluated or implemented to offset the resulting loss of sage-grouse habitat. 

Within priority and general sage-grouse, route construction would be limited to realignments of existing designated routes if that realignment has a minimal impact on sage-grouse habitat, eliminates the need to construct a new road, or is necessary for motorist safety. Impacts would be mitigated with methods that have been demonstrated to be effective to offset the loss of sage-grouse habitat. 

No similar action 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-155 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

91 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. BTNF LRMP: Minerals - Reclamation Standard - Disturbed area will be returned to near pre-construction conditions, unless changed conditions would benefit other resources. 

In priority habitat, restoration of roads, primitive roads and trails not designated in travel management plans would be conducted. This would include primitive route/roads that were not designated in wilderness study areas and within lands with wilderness characteristics that had been selected for protections in previous RMPs. 

Same as Alternative B Within sage-grouse core, connectivity, 

and general habitat, natural deterioration of roads not designated in travel management plans would be allowed. 

92 BTNF LRMP: 

Soil, Water, Air - Rehabilitation Standard: Rehabilitation seed mixes or other plantings will be designed for each vegetation community type that meets desired future condition. 

Within sage-grouse priority habitats, when reseeding roads, primitive roads and trails, appropriate seed mixes (appropriate for sage-grouse ecological conditions) would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered. 

Within sage-grouse priority and general habitat, when reseeding closed roads, primitive roads and trails, appropriate native seed mixes and require the use of transplanted sagebrush would be used. 

Within sage-grouse core, connectivity, and general habitat, natural reseeding would apply. 

Vegetation Management 

93 Casper RMP: 

Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek: The areas will have priority for vegetative treatments to improve sage-grouse 

In sage-grouse priority habitat, the BLM and Forest Service would manage for vegetation composition and structure consistent with ecological site potential 

No similar action Within sage-grouse core and connectivity 

habitat, the BLM and Forest Service would manage for vegetation composition 

2-156 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

habitats and for vegetation monitoring to ensure residual herbaceous vegetation is maintained for nesting cover on public lands. TBNG LRMP: Pastures will be managed for sagegrouse/big sagebrush only if they contain sagebrush stands with 5% or more canopy cover of big sagebrush. During vegetation management projects, maintain or increase the size of big sagebrush patches in sage-grouse habitat. When conducting vegetation management projects, maintain small opening within big sagebrush stands at a maximum ratio of 1 acre of opening to 3 acres of shrub. Manage for high vegetative structure in areas where it would enhance sagegrouse nesting habitat. Emphasize areas characterized by: Presence of moderate to highly productive soils and range sites; Plant composition dominated by mid and/or tall grasses, with sagebrush canopy cover of 15 – 25%; Proximity to sage-grouse display grounds. 

and within the reference state to achieve sage-grouse seasonal habitat objectives. 

and structure that reflects desired plant community or comparable standard. 

94 TBNG LRMP: 

In big sagebrush and sage-grouse wintering habitat, do not prescribe burn or treat with herbicides unless it can be demonstrated to be beneficial for local sage-grouse populations. Treatments should not be conducted where shrub canopy cover of sagebrush averages less than 15%. Limit treatments to less than 80-acre patches and no more than 20% of the sagebrush stands in the wintering habitat. Big sagebrush stands within 100 

In priority habitat, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Sagebrush canopy cover would not be reduced to less than 15% (Connelly et al. 2000, Hagen et al. 2007) unless a fuels management objective requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of priority sagegrouse habitat and conserve habitat quality for the species. The benefits of the 

Within priority and general sage-grouse habitat, sagebrush canopy cover would not be reduced to less than 15% unless a fuels management objective requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of priority and general sage-grouse habitat and conserve habitat quality for the species. The benefits of the fuel break would be closely evaluated against the additional loss of sagebrush cover in the EA process. 

No similar action 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-157 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

yards of meadows, riparian areas, and other foraging habitats should not be burned or sprayed. 

fuel break would be closely evaluated against the additional loss of sagebrush cover in future NEPA documents. 

95 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. MBNF LRMP: When managing vegetation, maintain existing, or move towards desired patch size, distribution, abundance, and/or edge-to-interior ratios, which are characteristic of natural disturbances (fire, insects, and diseases) representative of the cover types, measured at the Geographic Area scale. 

In priority habitat, only treatments that conserve, enhance or restore sagegrouse habitat would be allowed (this includes treatments that benefit livestock as part of an AMP/Conservation Plan to improve sage-grouse habitat). 

In addition to Alternative A: Within sage-grouse priority and general habitat, the BLM and Forest Service would ensure that vegetation treatments create landscape patterns which most benefit sage-grouse. Only treatments that are demonstrated to benefit sage-grouse and retain sagebrush height and cover consistent with sagegrouse habitat objectives would be allowed (this includes treatments that benefit livestock as part of an AMP/Conservation Plan to improve sagegrouse habitat). 

In addition to Alternative A: For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within core and connectivity habitat areas, refer to Appendix A, WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse (WGFD 2011, as updated). These recommended protocols would be used in determining whether proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that will contribute toward the 9% 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 core populations or if they represent additional habitat loss or fragmentation. Treatments to enhance sagebrush/grasslands habitat for sagegrouse would be evaluated based upon habitat quality and the functionality/use of treated habitats post-treatment. The BLM and Forest Service would work collaboratively with partners at the state and local level to maintain and enhance sage-grouse habitats in a manner consistent with the core population area strategy for conservation. 

96 Casper RMP: 

Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek: As sage-grouse winter habitats are designated, a TLS will restrict activities from November 15 to March 14. Within the designated winter habitats, CSU for 

Treatments would not be allowed in known sage-grouse winter range unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around or in the winter range and would maintain winter range habitat quality. 

Fuels treatments would not be allowed in known sage-grouse winter range unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around or in the winter range and would maintain winter range habitat quality. 

No similar action 

2-158 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

surface disturbing activities in sagebrush stands of greater than 20% canopy cover. TBNG LRMP: In big sagebrush and sage-grouse wintering habitat, do not prescribe burn or treat with herbicides unless it can be demonstrated to be beneficial for local sage-grouse populations. Treatments should not be conducted where shrub canopy cover of sagebrush averages less than 15%. Limit treatments to less than 80-acre patches and no more than 20% of the sagebrush stands in the wintering habitat. Big sagebrush within 100 yards of meadows, riparian areas, and other foraging habitats should not be burned or sprayed. 

97 Pinedale RMP: 

Treated areas will generally be rested from livestock grazing for a minimum of two full growing seasons after treatment unless the appropriate level of environmental analysis determines that shorter durations are adequate. Analysis could indicate a need for a longer rest period. Green River RMP: All treated areas will be rested a minimum of 2 growing seasons from livestock grazing. Burn areas will be fenced from livestock and big game animals if necessary. Prescribed fire will be restricted in areas with surface coal or other fossil fuel outcrops. JMH CAP: Areas proposed for treatment with prescribed burns will be rested 1 full year prior to treatment (unless vegetation cover prior to burning has adequate fine 

Treated areas would be rested from grazing for two full growing seasons unless vegetation recovery dictates otherwise with no exceptions. 

No similar action Treated areas would not be rested from 

grazing. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-159 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

fuels to carry the fire) and 24 months after treatment, unless an onsite analysis determines that this time frame should be expanded or reduced. Treatments in aspen communities may be fenced on a case-by-case basis. 

98 No similar action No similar action Within sage-grouse priority and general 

habitat, sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage would be avoided and would include plans to restore high-quality habitat in areas with invasive species. 

No similar action 

Vegetation Reclamation 

99 Reclamation of surface disturbances in 

sage-grouse habitats would be in accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a). 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 

100 No similar action Within sage-grouse priority habitat: Areas 

for vegetation restoration and/or criteria that include state sage-grouse conservation plans and appropriate local information would be identified; use of native seeds for restoration would be required unless probability for success is low (non-native seeds could be used as long as they meet sage-grouse habitat objectives); restoration management would be designed to obtain long-term persistence. Reestablishment of sagebrush cover and desirable understory plants would be the highest priority for restoration efforts. Native plants and landscape patterns that most benefit sage-grouse would be restored and created, considering potential changes in climate. 

Within sage-grouse priority and general habitat, exotic seedings would be rehabbed, interseeded, and restored to recover sagebrush in areas to expand sage-grouse priority and general habitats. 

No similar action 

101 No similar action Within sage-grouse priority habitat, 

implementation of restoration projects 

Within sage-grouse priority and general habitat, implementation of restoration 

No similar action 

2-160 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. 

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 and where factors causing degradation have already been addressed (e.g., changes in livestock management). 

102 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. TBNG LRMP: Allow only certified noxious weed seedfree products for animal feed or revegetation projects. This includes use of certified hay or straw, and heat-treated, or other appropriately processed products. Where technically and economically feasible, use genetically local (at the ecological sub-section level) native plant species in re-vegetation efforts. To prevent soil erosion, non-native annuals or sterile perennial species may be used while native perennials are becoming established. MBNF LRMP: Use native species and desirable nonnative species in seed mixtures; if nonNative seed allocation would be prioritized for use in sage-grouse habitat in years when preferred native seed is in short supply. This may require reallocation of native seed from ES&R, BLM, and/or BAER (Forest Service) projects outside of priority sage-grouse habitat to those inside it. Within sage-grouse priority habitat, the use of native plant seeds for ES&R or BAER seedings would be required based on availability, adaptation (site potential), and probability of success. Same as Alternative B In addition to Alternative A: Within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat, use of native and non-native plant seeds for vegetation seedings would be allowed based on probability of success and benefits to sage-grouse habitats. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-161 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

natives are used to assure ground cover, select plants based on the likelihood that they will not persist beyond the rehabilitation period. Use genetically local (subsection level) plant species where technically and economically feasible. 

103 No similar action Post ES&R and BAER management 

would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native 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). 

No similar action No similar action 

104 No similar action The role of existing seedings that are 

currently composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in and adjacent to priority sage-grouse habitats 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/Conservation Plan or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing the rest of the priority habitats, no restoration would be necessary. The compatibility of these seedings would be assessed for sage-grouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system during the land health assessments (or other analyses [Forest Service only]) (Davies et al. 2011). 

Within sage-grouse priority and general habitat, the role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in and adjacent to sage-grouse habitat would be evaluated to determine if they should be restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for sage-grouse. If these seedings provide value in conserving or enhancing sage-grouse habitat, no restoration would be necessary. The compatibility of these seedings for sage-grouse habitat would be assessed during the land health assessments. 

No similar action 

105 No similar action Priority would be given for implementing 

specific sage-grouse habitat restoration projects in annual grasslands first to sites that are adjacent to or surrounded by sage-grouse priority habitats. Annual grasslands would be second priority for 

No similar action Within sage-grouse core and general 

habitat, sage-grouse habitat restoration projects in annual grassland restoration would be prioritized commensurate with its threat to the region. 

2-162 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

restoration when the sites are not adjacent to priority habitat, but are within 2 miles of priority habitat. The third priority for annual grasslands habitat restoration projects would be sites beyond 2 miles of priority habitat. The intent would be to focus restoration outward from existing, intact habitat. 

106 No similar action In fire prone areas where sagebrush seed 

is required for sage-grouse habitat restoration, the BLM and Forest Service would consider establishing seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production and are a priority for protection from outside disturbances. 

Same as Alternative B. No similar action 

107 No similar action No similar action Any vegetation treatment plan would 

include pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition, establish non-grazing exclosures, and include long-term monitoring where treated areas are monitored for at least three years before grazing returns. Monitoring would be continued for five years after livestock are returned to the area, and compared to treated, ungrazed exclosures, as well as untreated areas. 

No similar action 

Grasshopper/Mormon Cricket Control and Management 

108 Casper RMP: 

Work with 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. 

Grasshopper or cricket control would not occur in sage-grouse priority habitat areas unless it can be demonstrated that it is beneficial to sage-grouse. 

No similar action Grasshopper or cricket control would 

occur to enhance economic benefits to other resource objectives. 

Wild Horse Management 

109 Green River RMP/JMH CAP: 

Specific habitat objectives for herd management areas would be developed. 

Within sage-grouse priority habitat, BLM HMAPs and Forest Service Wild Horse Territory Plans would be developed or amended to incorporate sage-grouse 

Same as Alternative B Wild horse populations would be 

managed at an appropriate management level, utilizing sage-grouse core habitat condition as one key parameter for 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-163 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Consideration will be given to desired plant communities, wildlife, watershed, livestock grazing, and other resource needs. 

habitat objectives and management considerations for all BLM HMAs and Forest Service Wild Horse Territories (WHT). 

setting these levels, where BLM HMAs and core habitat overlap. 

110 No similar action For all BLM HMAs and Forest Service 

WHTs within priority sage-grouse habitat, the evaluation of all AMLs would be prioritized based on indicators that address structure/condition/composition of vegetation and measurements specific 

to achieving sage-grouse habitat objectives. 

No similar action The evaluation of all AMLs in sagegrouse core and connectivity habitat 

would be prioritized based on sagegrouse habitat objectives. 

111 No similar action Within sage-grouse priority habitat, land 

health assessments would be prioritized and conducted to determine existing structure/condition/composition of vegetation within all BLM HMAs and Forest Service WHTs. 

Same as Alternative B Land health assessments would be 

prioritized and conducted in BLM HMAs within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas. 

112 Green River RMP: 

Water developments will be provided if necessary, to improve herd distribution and manage forage utilization. JMH CAP: Water developments will be provided if necessary, to improve herd distribution and manage forage utilization. Water developments within sensitive wildlife habitats will be considered only if wildlife habitat and resource conditions will be improved or maintained. 

When conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse management activities, water developments or other rangeland improvements for wild horses in sagegrouse priority habitat, 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 priority habitats. 

Same as Alternative B No similar action 

113 No similar action The BLM and Forest Service would 

coordinate with other resources (Range, Wildlife, and Riparian) to conduct land health assessments to determine existing structure/condition/composition of vegetation within all BLM HMAs and Forest Service WHTs. 

Same as Alternative B No similar action 

2-164 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Wildfire and Fuels Management 

114 Casper RMP: 

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: 1. Urban and industrial interface areas 2. Developed recreation areas 3. Commercial timber areas 4. Wildlife habitats 5. Range-improvement facilities 6. Communication sites 7. Municipal watersheds. 

In priority habitat, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. 

Within sage-grouse priority and general habitat, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. 

No similar action 

115 Kemmerer RMP: 

Implement BLM Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation standards located in the 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. 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 

Burned areas that are within priority sagegrouse habitats would be restored and recovered. The BLM and Forest Service would bring in BAER and BAR teams who would work collaboratively with partners at the federal, state, and local level to maintain and enhance sage-grouse habitats in a manner consistent with the priority 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 sage-grouse priority habitat would be high priority for restoration of sage-grouse habitat beyond immediate response. 

No similar action Same as Alternative A 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-165 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

health and safety, and to help communities protect infrastructure. 

116 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 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. WUI and communities at risk will receive priority for fuels reduction. 

Within sage-grouse priority habitat, fire would not be used to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch precipitation zones (e.g., Wyoming big sagebrush or other xeric sagebrush species). However, if as a last resort and after all other treatment opportunities have been explored and site specific variables allow, the use of prescribed fire that would disrupt fuel continuity or enhance land health could be considered where cheatgrass is a very minor component in the understory. 

Within sage-grouse priority and general habitat, fire would not be used to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch precipitation zones (e.g., Wyoming big sagebrush or other xeric sagebrush species). However, if as a last resort and after all other treatment opportunities have been explored and site specific variables allow, the use of prescribed fire for fuel breaks that would disrupt the fuel continuity across the landscape could be considered in stands where cheatgrass is a very minor component in the understory. 

Same as Alternative A 

117 No similar action Within sage-grouse priority habitat, post 

fuels management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native plants. This could require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing management, wild horse management, 

Within sage-grouse priority and general habitat, post fuels management projects would be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native plants, including sagebrush. This could require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing 

No similar action 

2-166 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

travel management, or other activities to achieve and maintain the desired condition of the fuels management project. 

management, wild horse management, travel management, or other activities to achieve and maintain the desired condition of the fuels management project. 

118 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. 

No similar action Within sage-grouse priority and general 

habitat, lands will be managed to be in the good or better ecological condition to help minimize adverse impacts of fire. 

No similar action 

119 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: 1. Urban and industrial interface areas 2. Developed recreation areas 3. Commercial timber areas 

Same as Alternative A Within sage-grouse priority and general 

habitat, any fuels treatments would focus on interfaces with human habitation or significant existing disturbances. 

Same as Alternative A 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-167 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

4. Wildlife habitats 5. Range-improvement facilities 6. Communication sites 7. 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: 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, 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 

2-168 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. 

120 No similar action No similar action Within sage-grouse priority and general 

habitat, post fire recovery would include establishing adequately sized exclosures (free of livestock grazing) that could be used to assess recovery. 

No similar action 

121 No similar action No similar action Within sage-grouse priority and general 

habitat, livestock grazing should be excluded from burned areas until woody and herbaceous plants achieve sagegrouse habitat objectives. 

No similar action 

122 No similar action No similar action Within sage-grouse priority and general 

habitat where burned sage-grouse habitat cannot be fenced from other unburned habitat, the entire area (e.g., allotment/pasture) should be closed to grazing until recovered. 

No similar action 

123 No similar action No similar action Within sage-grouse priority and general 

habitat, mowing of grass would be used in any fuelbreak fuels reduction project (roadsides or other areas). 

No similar action 

124 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 priority sage-grouse habitat areas, suppression would be prioritized immediately after firefighter and public safety to conserve the habitat. In general sage-grouse habitat, a high priority for suppression would be assigned where wildfires threaten priority sage-grouse habitat. 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-169 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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: The use of retardant within 300 feet of surface water (standing or running) is prohibited. No trees are to be cut during suppression activities within 200 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 BLMadministered 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 

2-170 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 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 high-priority resource values have high priority for 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-171 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 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. 

2-172 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. TBNG LRMP: Minimize impacts to paleontological and heritage resources, streams, stream banks, shorelines, lakes and associated vegetation, and habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species from wildfire suppression efforts in the following ways: Prohibit the use of earth-moving equipment on known paleontological or heritage sites. Discourage the application of fireretardant chemicals over riparian areas, wetlands, and open water. Prior to using earth-moving equipment, consult appropriate specialists for guidance. Notify USFWS when TES habitat is threatened or impacted by fire. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-173 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

BTNF LRMP: Wildland fire suppression standards LRMP fire amendment, page 9 Wildland fire suppression standards: A full range of suppression tactics is authorized forest-wide, consistent with forest-wide and individual Desired Future Condition (DFC) management emphasis and direction. Wildland fire use standard, page 10, LRMP fire amendment: Wildland fire use is authorized forest ­wide, consistent with forest-wide and DFC emphasis and direction. The Fire Management Plan will designate areas of high resource values that will be protected during fire use. These sites include: 1. Administrative sites 2. Developed recreation sites 3. Summer homes 4. Communication sites 5. Oil and gas sites 6. Utility corridors 7. Other sites containing capital 

improvements. 

MBNF LRMP: When determining the appropriate fire management response, consider the following factors: a) proximity to other ownerships including all wildland-urban interfaces, b) values at risk such as suitable timber, structural improvements, and special interest areas, c) steep topography and motorized access to the area, d) protection of watersheds especially those that provide drinking water for local communities, e) concerns 

2-174 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

related to wildlife habitat management, and f) other multiple use, ecosystem management, or agency policy objectives. Where fire suppression is necessary, use techniques that minimize soil and vegetation disturbance. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management 

Monitoring Effectiveness 

125 Casper RMP: 

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. 

Sage-grouse monitoring plans would be developed and implemented in coordination with the WGFD and partners, and sage-grouse habitats and populations would be monitored to assess the effectiveness of conservation measures that are applied in achieving the conservation of sage-grouse habitats. The directives contained in the LUP actions/decisions would be assessed to determine the effectiveness of their implementation. The BLM and Forest Service would establish monitoring protocols that would be incorporated into project approvals as necessary. The BLM and Forest Service would report annually to the BLM Wyoming State Director regarding sage-grouse monitoring data and the directives contained in the LUP actions/decisions. 

No similar action Same as Alternative B 

Density and Disturbance 

126 No similar action Priority sage-grouse habitats would be 

managed so that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3% of the total sage-grouse habitat, regardless of ownership. Anthropogenic features would include but would not be limited to paved highways, graded gravel roads, transmission lines, 

No similar action Inside Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat 

areas, the density and disturbance goals would include the following: 1. The density of energy production 

(excluding coal and trona mining) and/or transmission structures (excluding buried pipelines or power 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-175 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

substations, wind turbines, oil and gas wells, geothermal wells and associated facilities, pipelines, landfills, homes, and mines. In priority habitats where the 3% disturbance threshold is already exceeded from any source, no further anthropogenic disturbances would be permitted by the BLM or Forest Service until enough habitat has been restored to maintain the area under this threshold (subject to valid existing rights). In this instance, an additional objective would be designated for the priority area to prioritize and reclaim/restore anthropogenic disturbances so that 3% or less of the total priority habitat area is disturbed within 10 years. 

lines) on the landscape would be managed. 

2. An average of three energy production 

locations and/or transmission structures per 640 acres within the DDCT area would not be exceeded; and the combined value of existing and proposed disturbances within each DDCT would not exceed 9% loss of sagebrush habitat. 

127 No similar action Inside sage-grouse connectivity areas, 

the disturbance goals would include the following: 1. The existing level of density of 

disturbance would be managed on the landscape. 

2. Three percent habitat disturbance (up 

to 19.2 acres) per 640 acres would not be exceeded using the DDCT process. 

Same as Alternative B Inside sage-grouse connectivity areas, 

the disturbance goals would include: 1. The density of energy production 

(excluding coal and trona mining) and/or transmission structures (excluding buried pipelines or power lines) would be managed on the landscape. 

2. Nine percent habitat disturbance (up to 

57.6 acres) per 640 acres would not be exceeded using the DDCT process. 

Onsite and Offsite Mitigation 

128 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 

Within sage-grouse priority habitat when permitting APDs on existing leases that are not yet developed, the proposed surface disturbance would not exceed 3% per section for that area. When necessary, additional, effective mitigation would be conducted in (1) sage-grouse priority habitat areas, or less 

Within sage-grouse priority habitat when permitting APDs on existing leases that are not yet developed, the proposed surface disturbance would exceed 3% per section for that area. An exception would be considered if additional, effective mitigation is 

Within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat when necessary, offsite mitigation would be conducted within the same population area where the impact occurs; and if that is not possible, mitigation would be conducted within the same Management Zone as the impact. 

2-176 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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. 

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. 

preferably in (2) general sage-grouse habitat (dependent upon the area-specific ability to increase sage-grouse populations). Additional, effective mitigation would be conducted first within the same population area where the impact is realized; and if not possible, mitigation would be conducted within the same Management Zone as the impact, per 2006 WAFWA Strategy. 

demonstrated to offset the resulting loss of sage-grouse. When necessary, additional, effective mitigation would be conducted in sagegrouse priority and general habitat (dependent upon the area-specific ability to increase sage-grouse populations). Additional, effective mitigation would be conducted first within the same population area where the impact is realized; and if not possible, mitigation would be conducted within the same Management Zone as the impact, per 2006 WAFWA Strategy. 

An exception to the 9% limit would be considered if additional mitigation is demonstrated to be capable of offsetting the resultant loss to sage-grouse or their habitats. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-177 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

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 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 

129 Sage-grouse leks inside sage-grouse 

core and connectivity habitat areas: Casper RMP: 

Sage-grouse leks inside sage-grouse priority and connectivity habitat areas: Provide the following conservation measures as terms and conditions of the 

Same as Alternative B Sage-grouse leks inside core and 

connectivity habitat areas: Surface occupancy or surface disturbing activities would be prohibited or restricted 

2-178 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Avoid surface disturbance or occupancy within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. Surface disturbing activity is restricted or prohibited within 0.75 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks in Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek. Occupied sage-grouse leks in Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek will have a 4-mile buffer. Within this buffer, surface disturbing activities will be avoided within 4 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks in areas with sagebrush stands greater than 10% canopy cover (Map 2-1). Areas Outside of Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek: Avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats within 2 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified sage-grouse nesting and early broodrearing habitats outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 to July 15 (TLS). Kemmerer RMP: Avoid surface disturbance or occupancy within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks (Map 2-1). Newcastle RMP: Avoid surface disturbance or occupancy within 0.25 mile of the perimeter or occupied sage-grouse leks. Pinedale RMP: Surface disturbing activities in Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas are prohibited in suitable habitat within 0.25 mile of occupied leks (Map 2-1). Rawlins RMP: 

approved RMP: New surface occupancy would not be allowed on federal leases within priority habitats. This would include winter concentration areas during any time of the year. The following exceptions would be considered: 1. If the lease is entirely within priority 

habitats, a 4-mile NSO would be applied around the lek, and permitted disturbances would be limited to 1 per section with no more than 3% surface disturbance in that section. 

2. If the entire lease is within the 4-mile 

lek perimeter, permitted disturbances would be limited to 1 per section with no more than 3% surface disturbance in that section. 

on or within 0.25 mile radius of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks (Map 2-2). 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-179 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Surface disturbing activities or occupancy are prohibited on and within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of an occupied Greater Sage-Grouse or lek (Map 2-1). Green River RMP: Active grouse leks (sage-grouse) and the area within a 0.25 mile of the perimeter of active leks are avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities. Surface occupancy (long-term or permanent aboveground facilities) in the Jack Morrow Hills planning area will be prohibited within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of Greater Sage-Grouse leks unless adverse impacts can be mitigated. Distances will be subject to change on a case-by-case basis dependent on applicable scientific research and sitespecific analysis (Map 2-1). TBNG LRMP: To help reduce adverse impacts to breeding sage-grouse and their display grounds, prohibit construction of new oil and gas facilities within 0.25 mile of active display grounds. A display ground is no longer considered active if it’s known to have been unoccupied during the past 5 breeding seasons. This does not apply to pipelines and underground utilities (Map 2-1). MBNF LRMP: Prohibit new disturbances such as construction, drilling, new recreation facilities, logging, or other concentrated intense activities. Short-term projects designed to improve habitat such as prescribed burning are permitted: sagegrouse breeding complexes March 1 through June 30, 2 miles. 

2-180 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

130 Sage-grouse leks outside core and 

connectivity habitat areas: Casper RMP: Avoid surface disturbance or occupancy within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks (Map 2-1). Surface disturbing activity is restricted or prohibited within 0.75 mile of occupied sage-grouse leks in Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek. Occupied sage-grouse leks in Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek will have a 4-mile buffer. Within this buffer, surface disturbing activities will be avoided within 4 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks in areas with sagebrush stands greater than 10% canopy cover (Map 2-1). Areas Outside of Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek: Avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats within 2 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified sage-grouse nesting and early broodrearing habitats outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 to July 15 (TLS). Kemmerer RMP: Avoid surface disturbance or occupancy within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks (Map 2-1). Newcastle RMP: Avoid surface disturbance or occupancy within 0.25 mile of the perimeter or occupied sage-grouse leks (Map 2-1). Pinedale RMP: Surface disturbing activities inside Intensively Developed Fields will be 

No similar action No similar action Sage-grouse leks outside core and 

connectivity habitat areas: Surface occupancy or surface disturbing activities would be restricted on or within a 0.25 mile radius of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks (Map 2-2). 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-181 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

designed and implemented to minimize impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse habitats to the extent practicable. Surface disturbing activities in Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas are prohibited in suitable habitat within 0.25 mile of occupied leks (Map 2-1). Rawlins RMP: Surface disturbing activities or occupancy are prohibited on and within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of an occupied Greater Sage-Grouse lek (Map 2-1). Green River RMP: Active grouse leks (sage-grouse) and the area within a 0.25 mile of the perimeter of active leks are avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities. Surface occupancy (long-term or permanent aboveground facilities) in the Jack Morrow Hills planning area will be prohibited within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of Greater Sage-Grouse leks unless adverse impacts can be mitigated. Distances will be subject to change on a case-by-case basis dependent on applicable scientific research and sitespecific analysis (Map 2-1). BTNF LRMP: Not directly addressed; There are numerous areas that are leased that have No Surface Occupancy, TimingLimitation, and/or Controlled-Surface-Use stipulations. Leases are issued with unique wildlife protection stipulations. Lessees are required to keep an absolute minimum number of access, tote roads, and other travelways necessary to conduct the lessee's operations, the location of which shall be designated by 

2-182 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

[forest] supervisor prior to the time of their construction. Operations shall be conducted in a manner that will offer the least possible disturbance to wildlife on or adjacent to the leased land. MBNF LRMP: Prohibit new disturbances such as construction, drilling, new recreation facilities, logging, or other concentrated intense activities according to the following table. Short-term projects designed to improve habitat such as prescribed burning are permitted: sagegrouse breeding complexes March 1 through June 30, 2 miles. TBNG LRMP: To help reduce adverse impacts to breeding sage-grouse and their display grounds, prohibit construction of new oil and gas facilities within 0.25 mile of active display grounds. A display ground is no longer considered active if it’s known to have been unoccupied during the past 5 breeding seasons. This does not apply to pipelines and underground utilities. 

131 Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and 

early brood-rearing habitat inside core habitat areas: Casper RMP: Avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats within 2 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified sage-grouse nesting and early broodrearing habitats outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 to July 15 (TLS). Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek: Occupied sage-grouse leks will have a 3⁄4-mile CSU buffer to protect breeding 

Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat inside priority habitat areas: A seasonal restriction on exploratory drilling that prohibits surface-disturbing 

activities during the nesting and early brood-rearing season would be applied in all sage-grouse priority habitat during this period. 

Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat in priority and general habitat areas: A seasonal restriction on exploratory drilling that prohibits surface-disturbing activities during the nesting and broodrearing season would be applied in all occupied sage-grouse habitat during this period. This seasonal restriction would also apply to related activities that are disruptive to sage-grouse, including vehicle traffic and other human presence. 

Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat inside core habitat areas: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited or restricted from March 15-June 30. This restriction would be applied to all identified nesting and early brood-rearing habitats inside core habitat areas within 2 miles of the lek within sage-grouse core habitat areas. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-183 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

habitats. Human activity will be avoided between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 to May 15 (TLS) within this buffer. Leks, which are currently displayed as points, will be displayed as polygons. Occupied sage-grouse leks will have a 4­mile buffer. Within this buffer, surface development or wildlife-disturbing activities will be restricted March 15 through July 15 (TLS). Also, within this 4­mile buffer (CSU), surface disturbing activities will avoid sagebrush stands of greater than 10% canopy cover. Within this 4-mile buffer, mitigate for power poles and other high profile structures that may provide raptor perches. Avoid placement of these structures if possible, or install devices to preclude raptor perching on the structures. Areas Outside of Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek: Avoid surface disturbance or occupancy within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. Avoid human activity between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 to May 15 (TLS) within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. Kemmerer RMP: Avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats within 2 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 through July 15. Newcastle RMP: Avoid surface disturbing activities in suitable sage-grouse nesting and early 

2-184 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

brood-rearing habitat within two miles of an occupied lek or in identified sagegrouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the two-mile buffer from March 15 through July 15. Pinedale RMP: Surface disturbing activities inside Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas will be avoided in suitable nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within 2 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks from March 15 to July 15. Rawlins RMP: Avoid surface disturbing and disruptive activities, geophysical surveys, and organized recreational activities (events) that require a SUP in suitable Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood rearing habitat within 2 miles of the perimeter of an occupied Greater SageGrouse lek, or in identified Greater SageGrouse nesting and early brood rearing habitat, from March 1 to July 15. Green River RMP: To protect grouse nesting habitat, seasonal restrictions will apply within appropriate distances from the grouse lek. Appropriate distances (up to two miles) and time frames (usually from March 1 through July 15) will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions to seasonal restrictions may be granted, provided the criteria in can be met. No disruptive activities in the Jack Morrow Hills planning area are allowed in nesting and early brood-rearing habitats (March 15 to July 15). These limitations will be determined and applied on a case-byWyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-185 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

case basis. In addition, nesting and early brood-rearing habitats will be protected from habitat degradation, and measures will be taken to improve habitat quality. TBNG LRMP: To help reduce disturbances to nesting sage-grouse, prohibit the following activities within 2 miles of active display grounds from March 1 to June 15: 1. Construction (e.g., roads, water 

impoundments, oil and gas facilities) 

2. Reclamation 3. Gravel mining operations 4. Drilling of water wells 5. Oil and gas drilling 6. Training of hunting dogs. To reduce disturbances to nesting sagegrouse, do not authorize the following activities within 2 miles of active display grounds from March 1 to June 15: 

1. Construction (e.g., pipelines, utilities, 

fencing) 

2. Seismic exploration 3. Workover operations for maintenance 

of oil and gas wells 

4. Permitted recreation events involving 

large groups of people. 

When constructing facilities or structures within 2 miles of a sage-grouse active display ground, design them to discourage raptor perching by maintaining a low profile or using perch inhibitors. Manage display ground viewing activities to reduce disturbances and adverse impacts to the birds on the display grounds. BTNF LRMP: There are numerous areas that are leased that have No Surface Occupancy, 

2-186 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Timing-Limitation, and/or ControlledSurface-Use stipulations. Leases are issued with unique wildlife protection stipulations. Lessees are required to keep an absolute minimum number of access, tote roads, and other travelways necessary to conduct the lessee's operations, the location of which shall be designated by [forest] supervisor prior to the time of their construction. Operations shall be conducted in a manner that will offer the least possible disturbance to wildlife on or adjacent to the leased land. MBNF LRMP: Prohibit new disturbances such as construction, drilling, new recreation facilities, logging, or other concentrated intense activities according to the following table. Short-term projects designed to improve habitat such as prescribed burning are permitted: sagegrouse breeding complexes March 1 through June 30, 2 miles. 

132 Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and 

early brood-rearing habitat inside connectivity habitat areas: Casper RMP: Avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats within 2 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified sage-grouse nesting and early broodrearing habitats outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 to July 15 (TLS). Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek: Occupied sage-grouse leks will have a 3⁄4-mile CSU buffer to protect breeding habitats. Human activity will be avoided between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 

No similar action Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and 

early brood-rearing habitat inside connectivity habitat areas: A seasonal restriction on exploratory drilling that prohibits surface-disturbing activities during the nesting and broodrearing season would be applied in all occupied sage-grouse habitat during this period. This seasonal restriction shall also to apply to related activities that are disruptive to sage-grouse, including vehicle traffic and other human presence. 

Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat inside connectivity habitat areas: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited or restricted from March 15-June 30. This restriction would be applied to all identified nesting and early brood-rearing habitats inside core habitat areas within 2 miles of the lek. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-187 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

to May 15 (TLS) within this buffer. Leks, which are currently displayed as points, will be displayed as polygons. Occupied sage-grouse leks will have a 4­mile buffer. Within this buffer, surface development or wildlife-disturbing activities will be restricted March 15 through July 15 (TLS). Also, within this 4­mile buffer (CSU), surface disturbing activities will avoid sagebrush stands of greater than 10% canopy cover. Within this 4-mile buffer, mitigate for power poles and other high profile structures that may provide raptor perches. Avoid placement of these structures if possible, or install devices to preclude raptor perching on the structures. Areas Outside of Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek: Avoid surface disturbance or occupancy within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. Avoid human activity between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 to May 15 (TLS) within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. Kemmerer RMP: Avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats within 2 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 through July 15. Newcastle RMP: Avoid surface disturbing activities in suitable sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within two miles of an occupied lek or in identified sage2-188 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the two-mile buffer from March 15 through July 15. Pinedale RMP: Surface disturbing activities inside Intensively Developed Fields will be designed and implemented to minimize impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse habitats to the extent practicable. Surface disturbing activities inside Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas will be avoided in suitable nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within 2 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks from March 15 to July 15. Rawlins RMP: Avoid surface disturbing and disruptive activities, geophysical surveys, and organized recreational activities (events) that require a SUP in suitable Greater Sage-Grouse and nesting and early brood rearing habitat within 2 miles of the perimeter of an occupied Greater SageGrouse lek, or in identified Greater SageGrouse nesting and early brood rearing habitat, from March 1 to July 15. Green River RMP: To protect grouse nesting habitat, seasonal restrictions will apply within appropriate distances from the grouse lek. Appropriate distances (up to two miles) and time frames (usually from March 1 through July 15) will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions to seasonal restrictions may be granted, provided the criteria in can be met. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-189 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

No disruptive activities in the Jack Morrow Hills planning area are allowed in nesting and early brood-rearing habitats (March 15 to July 15). These limitations will be determined and applied on a case-bycase basis. In addition, nesting and early brood-rearing habitats will be protected from habitat degradation, and measures will be taken to improve habitat quality. TBNG LRMP: To help reduce disturbances to nesting sage-grouse, prohibit the following activities within 2 miles of active display grounds from March 1 to June 15: 

1. Construction (e.g., roads, water 

impoundments, oil and gas facilities) 

2. Reclamation 3. Gravel mining operations 4. Drilling of water wells 5. Oil and gas drilling 6. Training of hunting dogs. 

To reduce disturbances to nesting sagegrouse, do not authorize the following activities within 2 miles of active display grounds from March 1 to June 15: 

1. Construction (e.g., pipelines, utilities, 

fencing) 

2. Seismic exploration 3. Workover operations for maintenance 

of oil and gas wells 

4. Permitted recreation events involving 

large groups of people. 

When constructing facilities or structures within 2 miles of a sage-grouse active display ground, design them to discourage raptor perching by maintaining a low profile or using perch inhibitors. Manage display ground viewing activities to reduce disturbances and adverse 

2-190 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

impacts to the birds on the display grounds. MBNF LRMP: Prohibit new disturbances such as construction, drilling, new recreation facilities, logging, or other concentrated intense activities according to the following table. Short-term projects designed to improve habitat such as prescribed burning are permitted: sagegrouse breeding complexes March 1 through June 30, 2 miles. 

133 Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and 

early brood-rearing habitat outside sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas: Casper RMP: Avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats within 2 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified sage-grouse nesting and early broodrearing habitats outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 to July 15 (TLS). Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek: Occupied sage-grouse leks will have a 3⁄4-mile CSU buffer to protect breeding habitats. Human activity will be avoided between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 to May 15 (TLS) within this buffer. Leks, which are currently displayed as points, will be displayed as polygons. Occupied sage-grouse leks will have a 4­mile buffer. Within this buffer, surface development or wildlife-disturbing activities will be restricted March 15 through July 15 (TLS). Also, within this 4­mile buffer (CSU), surface disturbing activities will avoid sagebrush stands of 

 No similar action Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and 

early brood-rearing habitat outside sage-grouse priority and connectivity habitat areas: A seasonal restriction on exploratory drilling that prohibits surface-disturbing activities during the nesting and broodrearing season would be applied in all occupied sage-grouse habitat during this period. This seasonal restriction would also apply to related activities that are disruptive to sage-grouse, including vehicle traffic and other human presence. 

Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat outside sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited or restricted from March 15–June 30. This restriction would be applied to all identified nesting and early brood-rearing habitats outside core habitat areas within 2 miles of the lek. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-191 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

greater than 10% canopy cover. Within this 4-mile buffer, mitigate for power poles and other high profile structures that may provide raptor perches. Avoid placement of these structures if possible, or install devices to preclude raptor perching on the structures. Areas Outside of Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek: Avoid surface disturbance or occupancy within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. Avoid human activity between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 to May 15 (TLS) within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. Kemmerer RMP: Avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats within 2 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 through July 15. Newcastle RMP: Avoid surface disturbing activities in suitable sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within two miles of an occupied lek or in identified sagegrouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the two-mile buffer from March 15 through July 15. Pinedale RMP: Surface disturbing activities inside Intensively Developed Fields will be designed and implemented to minimize impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse habitats to the extent practicable. 

2-192 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Surface disturbing activities inside Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas will be avoided in suitable nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within 2 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks from March 15 to July 15. Rawlins RMP: Avoid surface disturbing and disruptive activities, geophysical surveys, and organized recreational activities (events) that require a SUP in suitable Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood rearing habitat within 2 miles of the perimeter of an occupied Greater SageGrouse lek, or in identified Greater SageGrouse nesting and early brood rearing habitat, from March 1 to July 15. Green River RMP: To protect grouse nesting habitat, seasonal restrictions will apply within appropriate distances from the grouse lek. Appropriate distances (up to two miles) and time frames (usually from March 1 through July 15) will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions to seasonal restrictions may be granted, provided the criteria in can be met. No disruptive activities in the Jack Morrow Hills planning area are allowed in nesting and early brood-rearing habitats (March 15 to July 15). These limitations will be determined and applied on a case-bycase basis. In addition, nesting and early brood-rearing habitats will be protected from habitat degradation, and measures will be taken to improve habitat quality. TBNG LRMP: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-193 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

To help reduce disturbances to nesting sage-grouse, prohibit the following activities within 2 miles of active display grounds from March 1 to June 15: 

1. Construction (e.g., roads, water 

impoundments, oil and gas facilities) 

2. Reclamation 3. Gravel mining operations 4. Drilling of water wells 5. Oil and gas drilling 6. Training of hunting dogs. 

To reduce disturbances to nesting sagegrouse, do not authorize the following activities within 2 miles of active display grounds from March 1 to June 15: 

1. Construction (e.g., pipelines, utilities, 

fencing) 

2. Seismic exploration 3. Workover operations for maintenance 

of oil and gas wells 

4. Permitted recreation events involving 

large groups of people. 

When constructing facilities or structures within 2 miles of a sage-grouse active display ground, design them to discourage raptor perching by maintaining a low profile or using perch inhibitors. Manage display ground viewing activities to reduce disturbances and adverse impacts to the birds on the display grounds. BTNF LRMP: There are numerous areas that are leased that have No Surface Occupancy, Timing-Limitation, and/or ControlledSurface-Use stipulations. Leases are issued with unique wildlife protection stipulations. Lessees are required to keep an absolute minimum number of access, tote roads, and other travelways 

2-194 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

necessary to conduct the lessee's operations, the location of which shall be designated by [forest] supervisor prior to the time of their construction. Operations shall be conducted in a manner that will offer the least possible disturbance to wildlife on or adjacent to the leased land. MBNF LRMP: Prohibit new disturbances such as construction, drilling, new recreation facilities, logging, or other concentrated intense activities according to the following table. Short-term projects designed to improve habitat such as prescribed burning are permitted: sagegrouse breeding complexes March 1 through June 30, 2 miles. 

134 Sage-grouse winter concentration 

areas: Casper RMP: As sage-grouse winter habitats are designated, a TLS will restrict activities from November 15 to March 14. Within the designated winter habitats, CSU for surface disturbing activities in sagebrush stands of greater than 20% canopy cover. Newcastle RMP: To protect important raptor and/or sageand sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat, activities or surface use will not be allowed from February 1 through July 31 within certain areas encompassed by the authorization. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided in sagegrouse winter habitat from November 15 through March 14. Pinedale RMP: 

Sage-grouse winter concentration areas: In priority habitat, the following conservation measures would be provided as terms and conditions of the approved RMP: New surface occupancy would not be allowed on federal leases within priority habitats during any time of the year. 

Same as Alternative B Sage-grouse winter concentration 

areas: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities in mapped sage-grouse winter concentration areas within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas would be prohibited from November 15-March 14. Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities in mapped sage-grouse winter concentration areas supporting connectivity populations would be prohibited from November 15-March 14. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-195 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

All surface disturbing activities in Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas are prohibited in Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration areas from November 15 through March 15. Rawlins RMP: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities potentially disruptive to delineated Greater Sage-Grouse and sharp-tailed grouse winter concentration areas are prohibited during the period of November 15 to March 14 for the protection of Greater Sage-Grouse and sharp-tailed grouse winter concentration areas. Green River RMP: Seasonal restrictions for sage-grouse winter concentration areas may be identified on a case by case basis. Should additional seasonal restrictions be identified, exceptions would be handled on a case by case basis and include site specific analysis. Disruptive activities in the Jack Morrow Hills planning area will be prohibited in Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration areas typically from November 15 to March 14. These areas and/or dates are subject to change based on new data and scientific information. BTNF LRMP: There are numerous areas that area leased that have No Surface Occupancy, Timing-Limitation, and/or ControlledSurface-Use stipulations. Leases are issued with unique wildlife protection stipulations. 

2-196 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Predation 

135 The BLM and Forest Service would 

support other agencies in their efforts to minimize impacts from predators. TBNG LRMP: Under a Memorandum of Understanding, the APHIS has primary responsibility for predator damage control on most National Forest System lands for actions initiated by APHIS. This includes responsibilities for ensuring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. To date, APHIS has completed and issued a Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement for their national animal damage control program and have also issued several statewide Decision Notices and Environmental Assessments for predator damage control. Forest Service responsibilities in predator damage control on National Forest System lands are primarily limited to ensuring that APHIS programs comply with direction in LRMPs for visitor and user safety, mitigation for sensitive wildlife species, and pesticide use. 

No similar action No similar action In addition to Alternative A: 

The BLM and Forest Service would implement strategies and techniques in land management decisions that address predators shown to pose a threat to sagegrouse (Appendix F). The BLM and Forest Service would support and encourage other agencies in their efforts to minimize impacts from predators on sage-grouse where needs have been documented. 

Noise 

136 Kemmerer RMP: 

Locate facilities or use BMPs to minimize impacts of continuous noise on species relying on aural cues for successful breeding. This requirement is based on current information, but may be subject to change in the future based upon new information. Pinedale RMP: 

Noise would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20-24 dBA) at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek during active lek season. 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-197 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Noise generating activities in Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas will be minimized through the application of BMPs, such as high-efficiency mufflers. TBNG LRMP: To help prevent reproductive failure, limit noise on sage-grouse display grounds from nearby facilities and activities to 49 decibels (10 dBA above background noise) from March 1 to June 15. Prohibit development or operations of facilities within 2 miles of a sage-grouse display ground if these activities would exceed a noise level of more than 10 decibels above the background noise level (39 dB), at 800 feet from the noise source, from March 1 to June 15. Limit noise levels from oil and gas production facilities within 0.25 mile of developed recreation sites to be no more than 70 decibels, as measured by the Aweighted Sound level (dBA) system of measurements, at the edge of the developed site. This standard applies only to constant, routine, day-to-day production noises. It doesn’t apply to noise from drilling and testing of production nor temporary noises such as work-over rigs and maintenance or repair tasks. BTNF LRMP: Not directly addressed: Leases are issued with unique wildlife protection stipulations. Operations shall be conducted in a manner that will offer the least possible disturbance to wildlife on or adjacent to the leased land. 

Adaptive Management 

137 No similar action No similar action No similar action 

2-198 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

# Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

No similar action 

138 No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-199 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.12 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS 

The following alternatives were considered but were not carried forward for detailed analysis because (1) 

they would not fulfill the requirements of FLPMA, NFMA or other existing laws or regulations; (2) they 

did not meet the purpose and need; (3) they were already part of an existing plan, policy, or administrative 

function; or (4) they did not fall within the limits of the planning criteria. FLPMA requires the BLM and 

Forest Service to manage the public lands and resources in accordance with the principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield. 

2.12.1 Alternatives that Include Stipulations for Protection of SageGrouse Habitat from Oil Shale Resources 

Comments were received during the public scoping process that suggested the BLM should either adopt 

the permitting processes guidelines and stipulations in the Wyoming EO 2011-05 or develop some other 

mitigation strategies for the protection of Sage-Grouse habitat from oil shale development. This is an issue 

that has been previously raised in the context of both the 2008 and the 2013 oil shale and tar sands planning 

initiatives. Both the 2008 and 2013 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statements (PEIS) limit the scope of the decisions supported by the development of the PEIS to an 

allocation decision. (Please see Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, Section 2.5, page 2-80 of the Proposed LUP for 

Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement). 

This land use allocation does not authorize any future lease or development proposal. The current 

experimental state of the oil shale and tar sands industries does not allow the PEIS to include sufficient 

specific information or cumulative impact analyses to support future leasing decisions within these 

allocated lands. Accordingly, both the 2008 and 2013 Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEISs make clear that prior 

to any actual oil shale leasing, additional NEPA, and other applicable analyses will be required. Those 

analyses could result in decisions not to lease in specific areas or to lease in particular areas with 

stipulations, such as stipulations precluding surface disturbance. 

If and when applications to lease oil shale resources are received and accepted by the Secretary, the BLM 

will conduct these additional required analyses, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects, reasonable alternatives, and possible mitigation measures, as well as an assessment of the level of 

development that may be anticipated. On the basis of that analysis of future lease application(s), the BLM 

will establish general lease stipulations and best management practices and amend applicable land use 

plans, if necessary. BLM managers retain authority to approve, modify, or deny future lease and 

development proposals based on consideration of numerous factors, including, but not limited to, the 

specific technology proposed for use, the anticipated impacts on natural and cultural resources, economic 

viability, and community concerns. As part of the NEPA review process for any future oil shale lease, the 

BLM will consider the processes, guidelines, and stipulations detailed in EO 2011-05. After a lease is 

authorized, actual development will require additional analysis to address the site-specific conditions of the 

proposed development and to develop mitigating measures. 

This lack of specific information regarding the specific technological requirements and environmental 

consequences that might be associated with the development of oil shale resources on the public lands also 

means that, with respect to this Greater Sage-Grouse planning effort, it would be premature for the BLM 

to consider specific protective stipulations. At this point, there is insufficient analytical basis for such 

consideration. For this reason, the BLM is not carrying forward for more detailed analysis in this EIS 

consideration of protective stipulations to be adopted for oil shale development. 

2-200 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

 

 

Final EIS	 Chapter 2 

2.12.2 Closure of Sage-Grouse Habitat to Off-Highway Vehicle Use 

The BLM and Forest Service identified, but did not analyze in detail, an alternative to designate new area 

closures for off-highway vehicles within sage-grouse priority/core and general habitat areas. The following 

provides the rationale for why OHV area closures were eliminated from detailed study: 

	 There were no internal or external scoping comments submitted that suggested areas closures were 

an issue for detailed analysis during the public scoping period. 

	 Many of the BLM field offices that include sage-grouse priority/core and general habitat in the 

Great Basin and Rocky Mountain Regions have not initiated or completed route inventories; 

therefore, the BLM is not currently aware of the number of existing routes, or what the purpose of 

each of those routes may be. Without this detailed information, this large-scale programmatic EIS 

cannot propose area OHV closures because the analysis would be inconclusive. In addition, there 

is insufficient information to analyze the effects of these routes on Greater Sage-Grouse, resource 

allocations, uses, and the public. 

	 The appropriate planning level to evaluate closed OHV areas is during field office land use plan 

revisions or amendments, not for this multi-state programmatic plan amendment effort. During the 

field office plan revisions/amendments process, travel and transportation planning (areas open, 

closed and limited to OHVs) would be one of the key decisions being made for the local planning 

effort, and appropriate inventories would be conducted or local level information would be 

available in order to make site-specific decisions related to area closures. OHV decisions at the 

BLM field office/Forest Service district scale would take all resource conflicts and uses into 

consideration, not just sage-grouse. The massive scale of this programmatic EIS amendment is not 

conducive to providing detailed analysis concerning this decision. 

	 Field office plan revisions will take the initial "limited to existing roads" the sub-regional effort 

will likely identify, and step that down to RMP-level transportation planning during their revisions 

at a scale where the data is available to assess the nature of the designations and closures and 

multiple resource needs, not only sage-grouse. 

	 There are some OHV closures are already in place based on existing field office land use plans. 

Some of these closures intersect sage-grouse priority/core and general habitat areas and would 

remain constant under all alternatives in this EIS/amendment. 

	 Route inventories in sage-grouse priority/core and general habitat are currently underway based on 

coordinated efforts between the BLM and USFWS staff. Through these efforts, the agencies have 

determined where the greatest threats have been identified in Greater Sage-Grouse populations and 

thus a priority for inventory. 

	 Once the inventories are completed, the BLM will initiate travel and transportation management 

plans, which will be subject to a NEPA analysis and will include public involvement. 

	 USDA Forest Service, Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; 

Final Rule – 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295, Effective December 9, 2005. The final rule will 

prohibit the use of motor vehicles off the designated system, as well as use of motor vehicles on 

routes and in areas that is not consistent with the designations. This rule also includes seasonal 

closures and motorized vehicle classifications. The Travel Rule defines a Designated Road as a 

National Forest System Road. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-201 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.12.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Listing with Associated Conservation 

Measures 

Recommendations to analyze the effects of a USFWS listing decision were provided. Inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms was identified as one of the listing factors for Greater Sage-Grouse in the USFWS 

finding on the petition to list Greater Sage-Grouse. The USFWS identified the principal regulatory 

mechanism for the BLM and Forest Service as conservation measures in land use plans. In response to the 

USFWS findings, as well as the BLM’s and Forest Service’s requirement to manage sensitive species, the 

BLM and Forest Service are preparing plan amendments with an associated EIS to incorporate conservation 

measures in land use plans for Greater Sage-Grouse. Because the purpose of the plan amendments is to 

identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures in land use plans to conserve, enhance and/or 

restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat, the 

alternatives in this EIS, therefore, focus on those conservation measures that can be incorporated into the 

land use plans. Although the potential listing of Greater Sage-Grouse would also include conservation 

measures identified by the USFWS, those conservation measures are not known at this time. Therefore, an 

alternative that includes USFWS-listing with associated conservation measures for Greater Sage-Grouse 

was not analyzed in detail. Therefore a USFWS listing decision is not analyzed in detail, because such an 

alternative would not meet the purpose and need, and therefore associated analysis would be outside the 

scope of this EIS. 

2.12.4 Designation of All Sage-grouse General Habitat as Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern or Forest Service Special Interest 

Areas 

The BLM and Forest Service identified, but did not analyze in detail, an alternative to designate all Greater 

Sage-Grouse general habitat (Map 3-18) as an ACEC or SIA. These areas did not meet the relevance and 

importance criteria necessary to be considered for ACEC designation as determined by BLM regulation, 

nor did they meet designation criteria as determined by Forest Service regulation. However, the areas found 

to meet relevance and importance criteria are analyzed in detail in Alternative B and Alternative C. The 

sage-grouse priority habitat areas met relevance and importance due to their size and proposed restrictions 

on oil and gas and wind energy development. Other sensitive resources would benefit from this ACEC 

designation. The priority habitat areas also contain other sensitive wildlife habitats including big game 

crucial winter range, parturition habitats, and migration corridors. The sage-steppe habitats in the proposed 

priority habitat area is the most intact stands of habitat remaining for sagebrush obligate species, many of 

which are considered BLM sensitive, such as the pygmy rabbit, brewer’s sparrow, the loggerhead shrike, 

and the sage sparrow to name a few. There are also several areas of special status plant species within the 

sage-steppe core habitat areas. The fragmentation of much of the habitats outside of priority habitat in 

addition to continuous drought cycles have resulted in limitations and conflict for resources in the remaining 

habitats, making the intact priority habitats that much more important. 

The sage-grouse general habitat areas did not meet the ACEC importance criteria due to the cumulative 

buildup of anthropomorphic disturbances over time that has reduced habitat effectiveness to the point that 

the Greater Sage-Grouse has been identified as eligible for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The 

combination of disturbances industrial and agricultural in general habitats negates the benefits of the added 

protection needed in priority habitat and may inadvertently increase fragmentation of priority habitat, as 

the complexities of overlapping resource values and projects of national interest intersect. The general 

habitats within the project area in most cases have intensive mineral development and are held by 

production. The added value of managing the general habitat as an ACEC would not be fully realized due 

to the valid existing rights encumbering these habitats, which is largely why these areas were not included 

in the core-area strategy by the State of Wyoming. 

2-202 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
 

Final EIS Chapter 2 

2.13 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

Table 2-12, Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences, presents a comparison summary of 

impacts from management actions proposed for the alternatives. Chapter 4 provides a more detailed impact 

analysis. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-203 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Table 2-12. Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

Air Quality 

NOx emissions could increase 

by 8,172 tons per year in 2020. NOx emissions could increase by 7,365 tons per year in 2031. 

NOx emissions could increase by 8,318 tons per year in 2020. NOx emissions could increase by 4,430 tons per year in 2031. 

NOx emissions could 

increase by 4,696 tons per year in 2020. NOx emissions could increase by 4,068 tons per year in 2031. 

NOx emissions could increase by 8,340 tons per year in 2020. NOx emissions could increase by 7,061 tons per year in 2031. 

NOx emissions could increase by 7,667 tons per year in 2020. NOx emissions could increase by 5,182 tons per year in 2031. 

Cultural Resources 

Surface disturbance from oil and gas development, livestock grazing, recreation and travel management could potentially damage undiscovered or undocumented cultural sites. Under this alternative, 871,780 acres would be closed to oil and gas development, potentially decreasing impacts to cultural resources in these areas. Under this alternative, 285,930 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion areas and 424,820 acres would be closed to wind development, potentially decreasing impacts to cultural resources in these areas. Leasing of solid leasable minerals would be closed on 261,000 acres, potentially decreasing impacts to cultural resources in these areas. 

As with Alternative A, surface disturbance from oil and gas development, livestock grazing, recreation and travel management could potentially damage undiscovered or undocumented cultural sites. An increase in the number of acres closed to oil and gas development (6,886,890 acres in Alternative B as compared to 871,780 acres in Alternative A) would potentially decrease disturbance, resulting in fewer impacts to cultural sites. Additional restrictions on other surface and subsurface activities, such as ROW exclusion areas (5,271,440 acres) and areas closed to wind development (5,033,240 acres) would decrease the impacts to cultural 

As with Alternative A, surface disturbance from oil and gas development, livestock grazing, recreation and travel management could potentially damage undiscovered or undocumented cultural sites. An increase in the number of acres closed to oil and gas development (16,878,220 acres in Alternative C as compared to 871,780 acres in Alternative A) would potentially decrease disturbance, resulting in fewer impacts to cultural sites. Additional restrictions on other surface and subsurface activities, such as ROW exclusion areas (11,556,490 acres) and areas closed to wind development (11,531,340 acres) would decrease the impacts to cultural resources when compared with Alternative A. 

As with Alternative A, surface disturbance from oil and gas development, livestock grazing, recreation and travel management could potentially damage undiscovered or undocumented cultural sites. An increase in the number of acres closed to oil and gas development (964,860 acres in Alternative D as compared to 871,780 acres in Alternative A) would potentially decrease disturbance, resulting in fewer impacts to cultural sites. Additional restrictions on other surface and subsurface activities, such as ROW exclusion areas (5,230,110 acres) and areas closed to wind development (424,820 acres) would decrease the impacts to cultural resources when compared with Alternative A. 

As with Alternative A, surface disturbance from oil and gas development, livestock grazing, recreation and travel management could potentially damage undiscovered or undocumented cultural sites. The number of acres closed to oil and gas development, 883,670 acres, would close more land to oil and gas development as compared to Alternative A. Additional restrictions on areas closed to wind development (425,080 acres) would decrease the impacts to cultural resources when compared with Alternative A. Impacts from ROW exclusion areas would be the same as those in Alternative A. Impacts from solid leasable minerals would be the same as those described in Alternative A, with the same amount of acres being closed (Map 2-28). 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-204 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

resources when compared with Alternative A. An increase in the number of acres closed to solid leasable mineral development (6,922,690 acres as opposed to 234,230 acres under Alternative A) would protect cultural resources within these additional areas. 

An increase in the number of acres closed to solid leasable mineral development (6,992,690 acres as opposed to 234,230 acres in Alternative A) would protect cultural resources within these additional areas. 

Solid mineral leasing would be prohibited on 261,000 acres (Map 2-27), which is the same as Alternative A. Thus, impacts from solid mineral leasing would be similar to those described in Alternative A. 

Forestry 

Impacts to forestry and forestry resources would mostly occur from surface disturbing activities. Surface disturbing activities could reduce forest/woodland health through vegetation removal, soil compaction, soil removal, fractured vegetation communities, modified plant community structure and diversity, increased soil erosion, and increased surface runoff. This reduction in forest/woodland health could lead to an increase in invasive/noxious species establishment/proliferation and a reduction in timber production. The majority of surface disturbing activities within the planning area would be from minerals development and associated infrastructure, both of which typically are situated in non-forested to lightly forested areas. 

Impacts to forestry from surface disturbing activities could be reduced compared to Alternative A, as shortterm surface disturbances from fluid minerals development would be reduced to 104,050 acres and long-term surface disturbance acres to 33,540 acres. Surface disturbing impacts from oil, gas, and CBNG wells could be reduced compared to Alternative A, as the number of wells would be reduced to 11,555 oil and gas wells and 2,154 CBNG wells. These reductions could reduce the total acres developed for fluid minerals within forest/woodland habitat thus decreasing forestry/woodland vegetation, timber, and associated ecological processes which are 

Impacts to forestry from surface disturbing activities could be reduced compared to Alternative A, as shortterm surface disturbances from fluid minerals development would be reduced to 85,140 acres and long-term surface disturbances would be reduced to 27,030 acres. These disturbances would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as fluid mineral well development would be reduced to 9,533 oil and gas wells and 1,594 CBNG wells. The reduction in fluid mineral wells could reduce the total acres in forest/woodland habitat developed for fluid mineral activities which would maintain habitat functions and health as well as maintain timber production in these areas. 

Impacts to forestry from surface disturbing activities would be the same as Alternative A, except the level of intensity would be reduced as the total shortterm surface disturbance acres from fluid minerals development would be reduced to 122,910 acres and 37,720 long-term surface disturbance areas. This reduction in surface disturbance acres would help maintain ecological processes important to forest/woodland health and timber production. The reduction in impacts to forestry resources would mostly be due to the reduction of fluid mineral wells, with oil and gas wells being reduced to 13,083 wells and CBNG reduced to 2,686 wells. Reduction in wells could also reduce associated surface 

Impacts from fluid mineral activities would be the same as Alternative A, except the level of intensity would be different as the projected well development would be reduced to 12,355 oil and gas wells and 2,462 CBNG wells. This reduction in wells would help maintain forest/woodland ecological functions and maintain timber production. Compared to Alternative A, surface disturbing activities from fluid minerals development would be reduced which would reduce short-term surface disturbance to 112,330 acres and long-term surface disturbances to 35,430 acres. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-205 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

Minerals development and surface disturbing activities that do occur in woodland/forest areas are more likely to occur in areas that have high potential for CBNG. Surface disturbing impacts to forestry resources from fluid minerals development are expected to occur across 130,330 acres in the short-term and 39,050 acres in the long-term under Alternative A, most of which would be outside timber production and harvest areas. 

important to overall forest health. 

disturbances such as the construction of roads and utilities which could reduce forest/woodland vegetation removal compared to Alternative A. 

Lands and Realty 

Impacts on lands and realty management would result from placing restrictions on the location of ROWs and land tenure adjustments. Prohibiting or restricting surface disturbing activities and managing lands as ROW exclusion and avoidance areas could result in the relocation or redesign of proposed ROWs or could preclude the development of some ROWs that could not be effectively mitigated or located in other areas. Land use restrictions that result in the relocation or redesign of proposed ROWs would increase management efforts and costs related to proposals submitted by ROW applicants. 

Impacts on lands and realty management would be similar to those identified under Alternative A, except the impacts would be more extensive with an increase in ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would include 5,271,440 and 6,357,180 acres, respectively. 

Impacts on lands and realty management would be similar to those identified under Alternative A, except the impacts would be more extensive with an increase in ROW exclusion areas. ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would include 11,556,490 and 0 acres, respectively. 

Impacts on lands and realty management would be similar to those identified under Alternative A, except the impacts would be more extensive with an increase in ROW exclusion areas. ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would include 5,230,110 and 1,300,510 acres, respectively. 

Impacts on lands and realty management would be similar to those identified under Alternative A, except the impacts would be more extensive with an increase in ROW avoidance areas and areas in which surface disturbing activities are prohibited. ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would include 285,930 and 6,208,990 acres, respectively. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-206 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would include 285,930 and 2,460,340 acres, respectively. 

Livestock Grazing 

Impacts to livestock grazing would occur from surfacedisturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that remove or degrade forage resources. The impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of fewer restrictions on newly permitted surface disturbing activities within the planning area. Managing 285,930 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 871,780 acres as unavailable for oil and gas leasing, 40,980 acres as NSO areas, and 68,550 acres in which surface disturbing activities are prohibited would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain forage resources, but to a lesser extent than the other alternatives. Grazing management would be adjusted on all allotments not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands on BLMadministered lands, and to those not meeting LRMP S&Gs on Forest Serviceadministered lands, for reasons attributable to 

Impacts to livestock grazing would occur from surfacedisturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that remove or degrade forage resources. Managing 5,271,440 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 6,886,890 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing, and 2,117,160 acres as NSO areas would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain forage resources. 

Allotments within sagegrouse priority habitat not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands due, in part, to livestock grazing would require a 20-30% forage allocation for livestock, thereby decreasing the forage available for grazing. In addition, retiring specific allotments and/or permits could occur and reduce the number of acres available for livestock grazing. 

Impacts to livestock grazing would occur from surfacedisturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that remove or degrade forage resources. Managing 11,556,490 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 16,878,220 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing, and 2,117,160 acres as NSO areas, would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain forage resources. 

Because such restrictions are the most extensive under this alternative, impacts to livestock grazing associated with surface disturbances would be the least intensive. Livestock grazing would be entirely prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat (approximately 5 million acres), thereby significantly reducing the number of acres available for livestock grazing. 

Impacts to livestock grazing would occur from surfacedisturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that remove or degrade forage resources. Managing 5,230,110 acres as ROW exclusion areas and 964,860 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain forage resources. Grazing management would be adjusted on all allotments not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands on BLMadministered lands, and to those not meeting LRMP S&Gs on Forest Serviceadministered lands, for reasons attributable to grazing. These management restrictions could reduce AUM utilization and increase the cost of livestock operations. 

Impacts to livestock grazing would occur from surfacedisturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that remove or degrade forage resources. Managing 285,930 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 883,670 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing, 441,690 acres as NSO areas, and 337,860 acres in which surface disturbing activities are prohibited would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain forage resources. Grazing management would be adjusted on all allotments not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands on BLMadministered lands, and to those not meeting LRMP S&Gs on Forest Serviceadministered lands, for reasons attributable to grazing. These management restrictions could reduce AUM utilization and increase the cost of livestock operations. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-207 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

grazing. These management restrictions could reduce AUM utilization and increase the cost of livestock operations. 

Minerals and Energy 

Fluid Leasable Minerals Closing 871,780 acres and applying NSO on 40,980 acres and CSU on 5,015,210 acres within sage-grouse core and general habitat (Map 2-4) to fluid mineral development would restrict the area in which development could occur, would increase the complexity of mineral operations, slow down the production of fluid minerals, and ultimately reduce the number of mineral operations. Timing and distance limitations within sage-grouse core and general habitat would further shorten the season for mineral development and delay access to mineral resources. Under Alternative A, there would be 13,653 wells projected over the life of the plan. 

Closing 6,886,890 acres within sage-grouse priority habitat to fluid mineral development and applying NSO stipulations, as COAs, to valid existing leases on 2,082,140 acres (Map 2-5) would decrease the number of mineral operations compared to Alternative A. Timing and distance limitations would be increased to include a 4­mile NSO buffer around leks with a cap on surface disturbance of 1 disturbance per section and no more than 3% total surface disturbance, which would further reduce and limit mineral activity compared to Alternative A. Under Alternative B, the impacts above would reduce the number of wells projected over the life of the plan to 11,555. 

Closing all 16,878,220 acres of sage-grouse priority and general habitat to fluid mineral development and applying NSO stipulations, as COAs, to valid existing leases on 2,082,140 acres (Map 2-6) would decrease the number of mineral operations compared to Alternative A. Timing and distance limitations would be similar to Alternative B, but would include disruptive activities as well, which would further reduce and limit mineral activity compared to Alternative A. Under Alternative C, the impacts above would reduce the number of wells projected over the life of the plan to 9,533. 

Closing 964,860 acres within sage-grouse core and general habitat to fluid mineral development and applying CSU on 2,117,990 acres within sage-grouse core and general habitat (Map 2-7) would decrease the number of mineral operations compared to Alternative A. Timing and density limitations of 3 locations per 640 acres and a 9% disturbance cap would reduce and limit mineral development compared to Alternative A. Under Alternative D, the impacts above would reduce the number of wells projected over the life of the plan to 13,083. 

Closing 883,670 acres and applying NSO on 441,690 acres and CSU on 6,438,480 acres within PHMAs and GHMAs (Map 2-8) to fluid mineral development would decrease the number of mineral operations compared to Alternative A. Timing and distance limitations would be increased to include prohibiting surface occupancy and disruptive activities within 0.6 miles of occupied leks and density limitations of 1 location per 640 acres and a 5% disturbance cap would reduce and limit mineral activity compared to Alternative A. Under the Proposed LUP Amendments, the impacts above would reduce the number of wells projected over the life of the plan to 12,355. 

Solid Leasable Minerals Consideration of solid mineral leasing in most of the planning 

Closing sage-grouse priority areas to coal exploration would decrease the area 

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B (Map 2-26). 

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A (Map 2-27). 

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A. except 483,420 acres would 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-208 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

area would allow for the development of coal. Consideration of non-energy leasable minerals would allow for the development of sodium (trona), phosphates, and tar sands. Approximately 261,000 acres would be closed to solid mineral leasing, which would eliminate this type of mineral development over 3% of sagegrouse core and general habitat (Map 2-24). 

available for future development of coal compared to Alternative A. Closing sage-grouse priority areas to non-energy leasable minerals would reduce the amount of area available for mineral development. Approximately 6,992,690 acres would be closed to solid mineral leasing, which would eliminate this type of mineral development over 43% of sage-grouse priority and general habitat (Map 2­25). 

be closed to solid mineral leasing (Map 2-28). 

Locatable Minerals Withdrawing or pursuing withdrawal on approximately 131,070 acres from mineral entry would restrict the ability to develop locatable minerals in those areas (Map 2-19). 

Withdrawing or pursuing withdrawal on all priority sage-grouse habitat (approximately 5,118,070 acres) from mineral entry would restrict the ability to develop locatable minerals on more areas than Alternative A (Map 2-20). 

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B (Map 2-21). 

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A (Map 2-22). 

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A, except 252,070 acres would be pursued for withdrawal (Map 2-23). 

Salable Minerals Salable mineral development, including mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-14) would be closed on 472,800 acres (about 8% of sage-grouse core and general habitat). 

Salable mineral development, including mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-15) would be closed on 6,992,690 acres (all sagegrouse priority habitat), constituting about 43% of sage-grouse priority and general habitat, nearly 5 

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B (Map 2-16). 

Salable mineral development, including mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-17) would be closed on 472,800 acres. 

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative D (Map 2-18). 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-209 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

times the closures as Alternative A. 

Wind Energy Wind energy development would be allowed in most places across the planning area without specific restrictions (Map 2-29). 424,820 acres would be closed to wind development and 2,438,850 acres would have restrictions. A total of 27,970 wind turbines (2 megawatts) are projected to be developed through 2020. 

Closing sage-grouse priority habitat to wind energy (5,033,240 acres) would reduce projected development to 2,821 turbines (Map 2-30) compared to Alternative A. 

Closing sage-grouse priority and general habitat to wind energy development (11,531,340 acres) would reduce projected development to 2,821 turbines, the same as under Alternative B, but limiting areas where they could be built more than Alternative B (Map 2-31). 

Closing 424,820 acres to wind energy and avoiding wind energy on 4,608,420 acres would reduce projected development to 21,863 turbines (Map 2-32) compared to Alternative A. 

Closing 425,080 acres to wind energy and avoiding wind energy on 4,731,350 acres would reduce projected development to 2,821 turbines (Map 2-33), similar to the impacts under Alternative B. 

Paleontology 

Surface disturbance from oil and gas development, livestock grazing, recreation and travel management would cause potential damage to undiscovered or undocumented paleontological resources. Surface disturbing activities would be prohibited on 68,550 acres and restricted on 93,580 acres, which could protect paleontological resources within these areas. Under this alternative, 871,780 acres would be closed to oil and gas development, potentially decreasing impacts to paleontological resources in these areas. Leasing of solid leasable minerals would be closed on 261,000 acres, potentially decreasing impacts to 

As with Alternative A, surface disturbance from oil and gas development, livestock grazing, recreation and travel management would cause potential damage to undiscovered or undocumented paleontological resources. Closing 6,886,890 acres to oil and gas development would greatly expand the protection of paleontological resources within these areas as compared to 871,780 acres that would be closed to oil and gas development in Alternative A. Leasing of solid leasable minerals would be closed on 6,992,690 acres, greatly expanding the area 

As with Alternative A, surface disturbance from oil and gas development, livestock grazing, recreation and travel management would cause potential damage to undiscovered or undocumented paleontological resources. A significant increase in the number of acres closed to oil and gas development (16,878,220 acres) could potentially decrease disturbance, resulting in fewer impacts to paleontological resources as compared to Alternative A. Leasing of solid leasable minerals would be closed on 6,992,690 acres, greatly expanding the area protected from mineral development. 

As with Alternative A, surface disturbance from oil and gas development, livestock grazing, recreation and travel management would cause potential damage to undiscovered or undocumented paleontological resources. Impacts from oil and gas development would be similar to those in Alternative A with respect to the amount of acres closed to oil and gas development. However, the number of acres closed to oil and gas development would be slightly increased (964,860 acres in Alternative D, as opposed to 871,780 acres in Alternative A). 

As with Alternative A, surface disturbance from oil and gas development, livestock grazing, recreation and travel management would cause potential damage to undiscovered or undocumented paleontological resources. However, the number of acres on which surface disturbance is prohibited would increase (68,550 acres in Alternative A as opposed to 337,860 acres in the Proposed LUP Amendments). The number of acres where surface disturbance is restricted would increase when compared to Alternative A (93,580 acres in A, as 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-210 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

paleontological resources in these areas. Under this alternative, 285,930 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion areas and 424,820 acres would be closed to wind development, potentially decreasing impacts to paleontological resources in these areas. 

protected from mineral development. Additional restrictions on surface and sub-surface disturbing activities, such as ROW exclusion areas (5,271,440 acres) and areas closed to wind development (5,033,240 acres) are all greatly expanded as compared with Alternative A. 

Additional restrictions on other surface and subsurface activities, such as ROW exclusion areas (11,556,490 acres) and areas closed to wind energy (11,531,340 acres) would decrease the impacts to paleontological resources as compared with Alternative A. 

Solid mineral leasing would be closed on 261,000 acres (Map 2-27), which is the same as Alternative A. Impacts from solid mineral leasing would be similar to those described in Alternative A. Additional restrictions on other surface and subsurface activities, such as ROW exclusion areas (5,230,110 acres) and areas closed to wind energy (424,820) would decrease the impacts to paleontological resources as compared with Alternative A. 

opposed to 160,630 acres in E). Closing 883,670 acres to oil and gas development would expand the protection of paleontological resources within these areas as compared to 871,780 acres that would be closed to oil and gas development in Alternative A. Impacts from ROW exclusion areas (285,930 acres) would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from solid leasable minerals to paleontological resources would be the same as those described in Alternative A, with the same amount of acres being closed to solid leasable mineral development (Map 2-28). 

Recreation Resources 

Allowing recreation use either through permits or casual use will continue in most areas. Popular recreation activities in the planning area include OHV use, hunting, camping, hiking, and scenic touring, among others. 

Measures for the protection of sage-grouse in priority and general habitat could reduce some permit-based recreation opportunities compared to Alternative A. Conversely, opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation could be enhanced indirectly through actions that reduce or remove surface disturbing and disruptive activities. This would occur primarily in sage-grouse priority habitat. 

Impacts to permitted recreation opportunities would be similar to Alternative B, but expanded to include all non-motorized recreation, seasonally, within 4 miles of active leks. Impacts to other types of recreation would be the same as under Alternative B, except that impacts would be extended to include sagegrouse general habitat, where there would be additional removal of surface disturbing and disruptive activities. 

Impacts to permitted recreation opportunities would be similar to Alternative A, although more large-group permitted activities could be denied. 

Impacts would be roughly the same as under Alternative D. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-211 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

Socioeconomics 

Continued management within the planning area would be expected to perpetuate trends that are already occurring within the economic study area. The quantified economic impacts across the entire planning area from 2013–2020 (present value) in 2011 dollars were estimated at $63.9 billion (B) of total economic output, $15.6B of total labor earnings, and $4.1B of local and state revenues. Approximately 37,700 jobs would be supported in 2020. Social impacts from continuation of current trends would occur in this alternative. These impacts would include stresses on community resources and community cohesion caused by high rates of resource development in some areas. In addition, wildlife/ecosystem conservation stakeholders would find this alternative highly unsatisfactory; mineral development, renewable energy development, and livestock grazing stakeholders would generally find this alternative to be most conducive to their interests and values; and recreation stakeholders would have mixed views. 

Quantified economic impacts across the entire planning area from 2013– 2020 (present value) in 2011 dollars were estimated at $59.1B of total economic output, $13.9B of total labor earnings, and $3.9B of local and state revenues. Approximately 33,600 jobs would be supported in 2020. A number of actions may increase costs to operators or reduce use levels relative to Alternative A in ways that could not be quantified, and thereby affect (increase or decrease in various instances) economic activity in ways that could not be estimated. Social impacts from stresses on community resources and community cohesion caused by high rates of resource development would be reduced relative to Alternative A. In addition, wildlife/ecosystem conservation stakeholders would find this alternative more favorable than Alternative A; mineral development, renewable energy development, and livestock grazing stakeholders could find this alternative to be less favorable; and recreation 

Quantified economic impacts across the entire planning area from 2013–2020 (present value) in 2011 dollars were estimated at $49.9B of total economic output, $11.7B of total labor earnings, and $3.3B of local and state revenues. Approximately 27,900 jobs would be supported in 2020. Additional impacts relative to Alternative A, from actions that could not be quantified, would occur and would be most pronounced in this alternative. Social impacts from stresses on community resources and community cohesion caused by high rates of resource development would be most reduced by this alternative relative to Alternative A. In addition, wildlife/ecosystem conservation stakeholders would find this alternative most favorable of all the alternatives; mineral development and livestock grazing stakeholders would find this alternative least favorable; and renewable energy and recreation stakeholders could view this alternative very similarly to Alternative B. 

Quantified economic impacts across the entire planning area from 2013–2020 (present value) in 2011 dollars were estimated at $62B of total economic output, $15.1B of total labor earnings, and $4.0B of local and state revenues. Approximately 35,400 jobs would be supported in 2020. Additional impacts relative to Alternative A, from actions that could not be quantified, would occur and would be less pronounced in this alternative than Alternatives B and C. Social impacts from stresses on community resources and community cohesion caused by high rates of resource development would be similar to Alternative A. In addition, wildlife/ecosystem conservation stakeholders would find this alternative unsatisfactory; mineral development stakeholders would find it favorable; renewable energy stakeholders would find it less favorable than Alternative A but more favorable than the other alternatives; and livestock grazing stakeholders and recreation stakeholders generally would view it similarly to Alternative A. 

Quantified economic impacts across the entire planning area from 2013–2020 (present value) in 2011 dollars were estimated at $60.1B of total economic output, $14.3B of total labor earnings, and $3.9B of local and state revenues. Approximately 34,600 jobs would be supported in 2020. Additional impacts relative to Alternative A, from actions that could not be quantified, would occur and would be less pronounced in this alternative than Alternatives B and C. Social impacts from stresses on community resources and community cohesion caused by high rates of resource development may be somewhat reduced relative to Alternative A. In addition, wildlife/ecosystem conservation stakeholders would find this alternative more favorable than Alternative A or D, but less favorable than Alternative B or C; mineral development stakeholders could find it less favorable than Alternatives A and D, and more favorable than Alternatives B and C; renewable energy stakeholders would view it similarly to Alternative B; livestock grazing 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-212 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

stakeholders could have mixed views. 

stakeholders would view it somewhat similarly to Alternatives A and D and find it more favorable than Alternatives B and C; and recreation stakeholders could have mixed views. 

Soils 

Soil resources would be impacted by actions that remove vegetation and expose the surface to accelerated wind and water erosion. The impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of fewer restrictions on newly permitted surface disturbing activities within the planning area. Managing 285,930 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 871,780 acres as unavailable for oil and gas leasing, 40,980 acres as NSO areas, and 68,550 acres in which surface disturbing activities are prohibited would reduce surface disturbances and help to reduce soil erosion and maintain soil resources. 

Soil resources would be impacted by actions that remove vegetation and expose the surface to accelerated wind and water erosion. Managing 5,271,440 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 6,886,890 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing, and 2,117,160 acres as NSO areas would reduce surface disturbances and help to reduce soil erosion and maintain soil resources. 

Soil resources would be impacted by actions that remove vegetation and expose the surface to accelerated wind and water erosion. Managing 11,556,490 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 16,878,220 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing, and 2,117,160 acres as NSO areas would reduce surface disturbances and help to reduce soil erosion and maintain soil resources. Because such restrictions are the most extensive under this alternative, impacts to soil resources would be the least intensive. 

Soil resources would be impacted by actions that remove vegetation and expose the surface to accelerated wind and water erosion. Managing 5,230,110 acres as ROW exclusion areas and 964,860 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing would reduce surface disturbances and help to reduce soil erosion and maintain soil resources. 

Soil resources would be impacted by actions that remove vegetation and expose the surface to accelerated wind and water erosion. Managing 285,930 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 883,670 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing, 441,690 acres as NSO areas, and 337,860 acres in which surface disturbing activities are prohibited would reduce surface disturbances and help to reduce soil erosion and maintain soil resources. 

Special Designations and Management Areas 

Special Designations/Management Areas (SD/MA) would be managed to protect the individual values for which they are designated. Restrictions on surface disturbance would indirectly 

Designating all sage-grouse priority habitat areas as a sage-grouse conservation ACEC would greatly increase the area for which special values would be established and protected compared to Alternative A. 

Designating all sage-grouse priority habitat areas and Audubon Important Bird Areas as a sage-grouse conservation ACEC would greatly increase the area for which special values would be established and protected 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except more area would be protected from surface disturbance. 

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative D. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-213 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

affect SD/MAs by further protecting values such as wilderness, Special Status Species, cultural resources, recreation opportunities, etc. 

Adding 5,000,402 acres as SD/MAs would be a significant increase over Alternative A (Map 2-34). 

compared to Alternative A. Adding 6,398,221 acres as SD/MAs would be a significant increase over Alternative A (Map 2-35). 

Special Status Species and Sage-grouse 

Impacts to Special Status Species habitat would result from surface disturbing activities, primarily renewable and non-renewable energy development and associated infrastructure (pipelines, power lines, and roads). Estimated initial surface disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG is 130,330 acres. Additional surface disturbing activities from wind energy, pipelines, power lines, roads, and mineral development could impact Special Status Species habitat through loss, alteration, and fragmentation of habitats and displacement of wildlife. Continued livestock grazing practices could reach Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health or the Forest Service equivalent. Lek buffers and other existing restrictions would protect lands, especially sagebrush habitat, from surface disturbing activities, habitat loss, and fragmentation. Greater Sage-Grouse: In addition to the impacts described above, the current management could continue in 

Under Alternative B, impacts from surface disturbing activities are lower than all alternatives except for Alternative C. Management would close Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat to oil, gas, and CBNG leasing, wind energy, as well as other minerals. Estimated initial surface disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG is 104,050 acres. Additional management for livestock grazing could allow for greater achievement of Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health or the Forest Service equivalent, and provide improved habitat for Special Status Species, especially those that inhabit riparian and wetland areas. Larger lek buffers and restrictions to the density of disturbance for surface disturbing activities to protect sage-grouse priority habitat would protect more land, especially sagebrush habitat, from surface 

Impacts from surface disturbing activities are the lowest under Alternative C. Management would close Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat to oil, gas, CBNG leasing, and wind energy; and would close priority habitat to other minerals. Estimated initial surface disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG is 85,140 acres. Closing priority habitat to livestock grazing could allow for improved habitat and ample forage for wildlife, improved water quality for fisheries, and protection of special status plants from trampling, overgrazing, and soil loss. Larger lek buffers and restrictions to the density of disturbance for surface disturbing activities to protect sage-grouse habitat would protect more land, especially sagebrush habitat, from surface disturbing activities, habitat loss, and fragmentation. Overall, Alternative C would provide the greatest 

Alternative D could have impacts from surface disturbing activities that are similar to Alternative A. In some cases, such as ROWs and wind energy, Alternative D protects all core sage-grouse habitat. Estimated initial surface disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG is 122,910 acres. Impacts from surface disturbing activities such as livestock grazing and other mineral development could lead to loss, alteration, and fragmentation of habitat and displacement of special status wildlife. Lek buffers, similar to Alternative A and other restrictions would protect lands, especially sagebrush habitat, from surface disturbing activities, habitat loss, and fragmentation. Greater Sage-Grouse: In addition to the impacts described above, the proposed lek buffers are insufficient to provide Greater Sage-Grouse undisturbed habitat and prevent habitat fragmentation, although 

Overall, impacts to Special Status Species habitat from implementing the Proposed LUP Amendments would be similar to Alternative A although there would be greater protection to PHMAs (core only). Estimated initial surface disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG is 112,330 acres. All PHMAs (core only) would be an avoidance area for wind development, protecting more habitat than Alternative A from loss, alteration, and fragmentation of habitat and displacement of special status wildlife. Management for livestock grazing could allow for achievement of Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health or the Forest Service equivalent, and provide improved habitat for Special Status Species, especially those that inhabit riparian and wetland areas. Lek buffers larger than Alternative A and other restrictions would protect lands, especially sagebrush habitat, from surface 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-214 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and human disturbance and declines of sage-grouse are likely to progress. 

disturbing activities, habitat loss, and fragmentation. Greater Sage-Grouse: Alternative B would reduce surface disturbance and disruptive activities in priority sage-grouse habitat. The protection of priority sagebrush habitat could provide Greater SageGrouse the undisturbed, contiguous habitat necessary for the species to maintain or improve population numbers. 

protection of sagebrush habitat among all the alternatives. Greater Sage-Grouse: Alternative C would reduce surface disturbance and disruptive activities in priority sage-grouse habitat, and in some cases general habitat (oil, gas, CBNG, ROWs, wind). The protection of priority and general sagebrush habitat could provide Greater SageGrouse the largest area of undisturbed, contiguous habitat necessary for the species to maintain or improve population numbers. 

restrictions on density of disturbance could allow for some protection of contiguous habitat. Other management could provide protection of sage-grouse core habitat from wind development, by reducing habitat loss, fragmentation, and direct impacts from wind turbines and overhead structures. 

disturbing activities, habitat loss, and fragmentation. Greater Sage-Grouse: In addition to the impacts described above, the proposed lek buffers are sufficient to provide Greater Sage-Grouse undisturbed habitat and prevent habitat fragmentation. Other management could provide protection of PHMAs (core only) from wind development, by reducing habitat loss, fragmentation, and direct impacts from wind turbines and overhead structures. 

Transportation and Access Management 

Under this alternative, areas where surface disturbing activities are prohibited (including buffer areas around sage-grouse leks, nesting areas, and other sensitive areas) would limit travel and access to designated roads and trails in these areas (Map 2-1). Surface disturbing activities under this alternative are prohibited on 68,550 acres and restricted on 93,580 acres. The development of roads and transportation systems required for oil, gas and mineral development would increase travel and access in those areas. In addition, areas 

The development of roads and transportation systems required for oil, gas, and mineral development would increase travel and access in those areas. Areas closed to oil and gas development (6,886,890 acres), mineral materials (6,992,690 acres), locatable minerals (1,761,550 acres), and solid leasable minerals (6,992,690 acres), could limit or restrict travel and access in those areas. Travel in these areas would be limited to existing roads and trails. Compared with Alternative A, the number of acres closed to minerals 

The development of roads and transportation systems required for oil, gas and mineral development would increase travel and access in those areas. Areas closed to oil and gas development (16,878,220 acres), mineral materials (6,992,690 acres), locatable minerals (1,761,550 acres) and solid leasable minerals (6,992,690 acres), could limit or restrict travel and access in those areas. Travel in these areas would be limited to existing roads and trails. Compared with Alternative A, areas closed to minerals activities are much larger, expanding the area of 

As with Alternative A, areas where surface disturbing activities are prohibited (including buffer areas around sage-grouse leks, nesting areas, and other sensitive areas) would limit travel and access to designated roads and trails in these areas. Surface disturbing activities under this alternative are restricted on 75,870 acres. The development of roads and transportation systems required for oil, gas, and mineral development would increase travel and access in those areas. Areas closed to oil and gas development 

As with Alternative A, areas where surface disturbing activities are prohibited (including buffer areas around sage-grouse leks, nesting areas, and other sensitive areas) would limit travel and access to designated roads and trails in these areas. Surface disturbing activities under this alternative are prohibited on 337,860 acres and restricted on 160,630 acres. The development of roads and transportation systems required for oil, gas, and mineral development would increase travel and access in those areas. Areas closed to 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-215 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

closed to oil and gas development (871,780 acres), mineral materials (472,800 acres), locatable minerals (1,761,550 acres) and solid leasable minerals (261,000 acres), could limit or restrict travel and access in those areas. Travel in these areas would be limited to existing roads and trails. Mineral development could potentially affect the location of subsequent transportation systems in those areas where development of minerals occurs. Areas open to OHV use would provide motorized access to much of the decision area. Acres for other surface and sub-surface disturbing activities, such as ROW exclusion areas (285,930 acres) and areas closed to wind energy (424,820 acres) could also limit or preclude transportation development in these areas. 

activities is much larger, expanding the area where impacts could occur. Mineral development could potentially affect the location of subsequent transportation systems where minerals are developed. Roads, primitive roads, and trails in priority habitat not designated in travel management plans would be restored, removing them from travel and access uses under this alternative. Acres for other surface and sub-surface disturbing activities, such as ROW exclusion areas (5,271,440 acres) and areas closed to wind energy (5,033,240) are all greatly expanded when compared with Alternative A, potentially limiting or precluding transportation development in these areas. 

impact. Mineral development could potentially affect the location of subsequent transportation systems in those areas where minerals are developed. Prohibiting new road construction within four miles of active sage-grouse leks and avoiding new road construction in sage-grouse priority and general habitat would restrict travel and access in these areas. Acres for other surface and sub-surface disturbing activities, such as ROW exclusion areas (11,556,490 acres), areas closed to wind energy (11,531,340 acres) are all greatly expanded when compared with Alternative A, potentially limiting or precluding transportation development in these areas. 

(964,860 acres), mineral materials (472,800 acres), locatable minerals (1,761,550 acres) and solid leasable minerals (261,000 acres), could limit or restrict travel and access in those areas. Travel in these areas would be limited to existing roads and trails. Compared with Alternative A, acres closed to minerals activities are very similar. Prohibiting new road construction within 0.25 mile of active sage-grouse leks, and avoiding new road construction in sage-grouse core and general habitat would restrict travel and access in these areas. Acres for other surface and sub-surface disturbing activities, such as ROW exclusion areas (5,230,110 acres) and areas closed to wind energy (424,820) would be expanded when compared with Alternative A, potentially limiting or precluding transportation development in these areas. 

oil and gas development (883,670 acres), mineral materials (472,800 acres), locatable minerals (1,761,550 acres) and solid leasable minerals (483,420 acres), could limit or restrict travel and access in those areas. Travel in these areas would be limited to existing roads and trails. Compared with Alternative A, acres closed to minerals activities are very similar. Prohibiting primary and secondary roads within 1.9 miles of active sage-grouse leks, and avoiding new road construction in PHMAs and GHMAs would restrict travel and access in these areas. Acres for other surface and sub-surface disturbing activities, such as ROW exclusion areas (285,930 acres) and areas closed to wind energy (425,080 acres) would be expanded when compared with Alternative A, potentially limiting or precluding transportation development in these areas. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation and vegetation communities would primarily be impacted by different forms of surface disturbance and disruptive activities. These activities would result in both short and long term impacts to 

Impacts to vegetation from fluid minerals development and associated surface disturbing activities would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as short-term surface disturbances would 

Impacts to vegetation from surface disturbing activities could be reduced compared to Alternative A, as shortterm surface disturbances from fluid minerals development would be 

Impacts to vegetation from surface disturbing activities would be the same as Alternative A, except the level of intensity would be reduced as the total shortterm surface disturbance 

Impacts from fluid mineral activities would be the same as Alternative A, except the level of intensity would be different as the projected well development would be reduced to 12,355 oil and 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-216 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

small localized areas as well as large areas from the removal or damage of vegetative surface cover and vegetation habitat. These impacts would result in various levels of decreases to plant community health, diversity, and impact habitats that are susceptible to invasive/noxious weeds. Increases in invasive and noxious weeds would result in a decline to native species compromising the overall habitat health (through ecological processes). Impacts to vegetation from fluid minerals development would have 130,330 acres of shortterm surface disturbance and 39,050 acres of long-term surface disturbance. Most of the development and associated impacts such as loss of vegetation habitat would be from the construction and maintenance of 13,653 oil and gas wells and 2,758 CBNG wells. Impacts to vegetation could be eliminated on 472,800 acres that are closed to mineral materials development as well as on 261,000 acres closed to solid mineral development and 1,761,550 acres withdrawn to locatable mineral development. These closures would help to preserve plant community functions and health as well as reduce 

be reduced to 104,050 acres and long-term surface disturbance acres to 33,540. Surface disturbing impacts from oil, gas, and CBNG wells could be reduced compared to Alternative A, as the number of wells would be reduced to 11,555 oil and gas wells and 2,154 CBNG wells. These reductions would reduce the total acres developed for fluid minerals thus reducing habitat fragmentation. Impacts to vegetation from solid minerals development, minerals materials development, and wind energy development would decrease compared to Alternative A. Impacts to vegetation from locatable minerals development could be reduced with the recommended withdrawal of 5,118,070 acres from development. The recommended withdrawals could reduce vegetation removal, habitat fragmentation, and invasive species establishment associated with minerals development and associated surface disturbing activities. Protection for vegetation habitat health and continuity would be increased compared to Alternative A, 

reduced to 85,140 acres and long-term surface disturbances would be reduced to 27,030 acres. These disturbances would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as fluid mineral well development would be reduced to 9,533 oil and gas wells and 1,594 CBNG wells. These reductions would reduce the total acres of vegetation lost or impacted to fluid development and associated surface disturbing activities which would maintain habitat functions and health in these areas. Impacts to vegetation from solid minerals development, locatable minerals development, and minerals materials development would decrease compared to Alternative A. These closures would reduce vegetation removal, habitat fragmentation, and invasive species establishment associated with minerals development and associated surface disturbing activities. Protection for vegetation habitat health and continuity would be increased compared to Alternative A, as ROW and wind energy development and associated surface disturbing activities would be excluded or closed on 11,531,340 acres. 

acres from fluid minerals development would be reduced to 122,910 acres and 37,720 long-term surface disturbance areas. This reduction in surface disturbance would help maintain ecological processes important to plant community health and ecological processes. The reduction in impacts to vegetation resources compared to Alternative A would mostly be due to the reduction of fluid mineral wells, with oil and gas wells being reduced to 13,083 wells and CBNG reduced to 2,686 wells. Reduction in wells could also reduce associated surface disturbances such as the construction of roads and utilities which could reduce vegetation removal compared to Alternative A. Impacts from surface disturbing activities for solid minerals development, mineral materials, and recommended withdrawals of locatable minerals development, would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts to vegetation from wind energy development would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as the amount of acres closed to wind energy development would increase to 424,820 

gas wells and 2,462 CBNG wells. This reduction in wells would help maintain plant community ecological functions and maintain vegetation habitat continuity. Compared to Alternative A, surface disturbing activities from fluid minerals development would be reduced, which would reduce short-term surface disturbance to 112,330 acres and long-term surface disturbances to 35,430 acres. Surface disturbing activities from solid leasable minerals and mineral materials development would be the same as Alternative A. Withdrawals of locatable minerals would be proposed on 252,070 acres, which would reduce vegetation removal and habitat fragmentation as compared to Alternative A. Impacts to vegetation from wind energy development would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as the amount of acres closed to wind energy development would increase to 425,080 acres and restricted on 4,731,350 acres. These closures/restrictions would reduce the acres of surface disturbances from wind energy development which would reduce vegetation loss and habitat fragmentation. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-217 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

habitat fragmentation. Surface disturbing impacts from ROW development would be excluded on 285,930 acres and avoided on 2,460,340 acres, which could reduce vegetation loss, habitat fragmentation, and invasive species establishment. Vegetation habitat continuity and ecological processes could be maintained as 424,820 acres would be closed to wind energy development and 2,438,850 acres would be restricted to wind energy development. These restrictions could reduce vegetation loss and habitat fragmentation associated with surface disturbing activities associated with wind energy development. 

as ROW development and associated surface disturbing activities would be excluded on 5,271,440 acres and avoided on 6,357,180 acres. 

acres even though the amount of acres restricted to wind energy development would be reduced to 4,608,420 acres. These closures/restrictions would reduce the acres of surface disturbances which would reduce vegetation loss and habitat fragmentation. 

Visual Resources 

Visual resource categories and objectives would be the same for all alternatives. Although the amount of visual impacts would vary by alternative, it is assumed that all visual resource management (VRM)/scenic integrity objective (SIO)/visual quality objective (VQO) objectives would be met under all alternatives. Visual resources could decline in quality due to surface disturbance from mineral and energy development, recreation activities, and other similar activities. The bulk of changes to the visual quality of the landscape would occur in VRM Class III or IV (BLM), moderate or low SIO (Forest Service), or the Modification level VQO (Forest Service). 

Visual resources in sagegrouse priority habitat would be largely preserved due to efforts to protect sagegrouse and sagebrush habitat, which limit surface disturbance compared to Alternative A. 

Visual resources in sagegrouse priority and general habitat would be largely preserved due to efforts to protect sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat, which limit surface disturbance compared to Alternative A. 

Impacts to visual resources would be similar to Alternative A, except some visual resources could be spared due to limitations placed on surface disturbance and development density compared to Alternative A. 

Impacts to visual resources would be less than Alternative A, due to limitations placed on surface disturbance and development density. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-218 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

Watershed and Water Quality 

Impacts to water resources would occur from surface disturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that result in vegetation removal, soil compaction, increased overland flow, and increased sediment, salt, and nutrient transport to water bodies. The impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of fewer restrictions on newly permitted surface disturbing activities within the planning area. Managing 285,930 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 871,780 acres as unavailable for oil and gas leasing, 40,980 acres as NSO areas, and 68,550 acres in which surface disturbing activities are prohibited would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain soil and vegetation resources that would serve to slow runoff and decrease erosion and inputs into surface water features. 

Impacts to water resources would occur from surface disturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that result in vegetation removal, soil compaction, increased overland flow, and increased sediment, salt, and nutrient transport to water bodies. Managing 5,271,440 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 6,886,890 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing, and 2,117,160 acres as NSO areas would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain soil and vegetation resources that would serve to slow runoff and decrease erosion and inputs into surface water features. 

Impacts to water resources would occur from surface disturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that result in vegetation removal, soil compaction, increased overland flow, and increased sediment, salt, and nutrient transport to water bodies. Managing 11,556,490 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 16,878,220 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing, and 2,117,160 acres as NSO areas would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain soil and vegetation resources that would serve to slow runoff and decrease erosion and inputs into surface water features. Because such restrictions are the most extensive under this alternative, impacts to water resources would be the least intensive. 

Impacts to water resources would occur from surface disturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that result in vegetation removal, soil compaction, increased overland flow, and increased sediment, salt, and nutrient transport to water bodies. Managing 5,230,110 acres as ROW exclusion areas and 964,860 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain soil and vegetation resources that would serve to slow runoff and decrease erosion and inputs into surface water features. 

Impacts to water resources would occur from surface disturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that result in vegetation removal, soil compaction, increased overland flow, and increased sediment, salt, and nutrient transport to water bodies. Managing 285,930 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 883,670 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing, 441,690 acres as NSO areas, and 337,860 acres in which surface disturbing activities are prohibited would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain soil and vegetation resources that would serve to slow runoff and decrease erosion and inputs into surface water features. 

Wild Horses 

Impacts to wild horses would occur from surface-disturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that remove or degrade forage resources. The impacts would 

Impacts to wild horses would occur from surfacedisturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that remove 

Impacts to wild horses would occur from surface-disturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that remove or degrade forage resources. 

Impacts to wild horses would occur from surface-disturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that remove or degrade forage resources. 

Impacts to wild horses would occur from surface-disturbing and development activities (e.g., mineral development, ROW development) that remove or degrade forage resources. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-219 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

be greatest under this alternative because of fewer restrictions on newly permitted surface disturbing activities within the planning area. Managing 285,930 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 871,780 acres as unavailable for oil and gas leasing, 40,980 acres as NSO areas, and 68,550 acres in which surface disturbing activities are prohibited would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain forage resources, but to a lesser extent than the other alternatives. 

or degrade forage resources. Managing 5,271,440 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 6,886,890 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing, and 2,117,160 acres as NSO areas would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain forage resources. 

Managing 11,556,490 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 16,878,220 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing, and 2,117,160 acres as NSO areas, would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain forage resources. Because such restrictions are the most extensive under this alternative, impacts to wild horses would be the least intensive. 

Managing 5,230,110 acres as ROW exclusion areas and 964,860 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain forage resources. 

Managing 285,930 acres as ROW exclusion areas, 883,670 acres as closed to oil and gas leasing, 441,690 acres as NSO areas, and 337,860 acres in which surface disturbing activities are prohibited would reduce surface disturbances and help to maintain forage resources. 

Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Wildland fire management would primarily be impacted by different forms of surface disturbing activities associated with minerals and energy development which could increase human presence and the use of heavy equipment. This increase in human presence and heavy equipment use could increase additional ignition sources, the probability of wildland fire occurrence, and the need for fire suppression activities. Surface disturbing activities could reduce fire fuels loads from vegetation removal, increase fire breaks from roads and clearings as well as improve access for fire suppression activities in these 

Surface disturbing impacts from ROW development would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as areas closed to ROW development would increase to 5,271,440 acres which would reduce human presence and ignition sources from development. Impacts from wind energy development would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as areas closed to wind energy development would increase to 5,033,240 acres which would reduce human and machinery caused wildfires. Potential wildfires from fluid minerals development would be 

Surface disturbing impacts from ROW and wind energy development would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as areas excluded from ROWs or closed to wind development would increase to 11,556,490 acres, which would reduce human presence and ignition sources from development. Potential wildfires from fluid mineral development would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as the number of wells developed would be reduced to 9,5335 oil and gas and 1,594 CBNG wells. The development of these well would disturb fewer acres compared to Alternative A, with 85,140 

Surface disturbing impacts from ROW development would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as areas excluded from ROW development would increase to 5,230,110 acres which would reduce human presence and ignition sources from development. Impacts from wind energy development would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as areas closed to wind energy development would increase to 424,820 acres which could reduce human and machinery caused wildfires. Potential wildfires from fluid mineral development would be reduced compared to 

Surface disturbing impacts from ROW development would be similar to Alternative A. Impacts from wind energy development would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as areas closed to wind energy development would increase to 425,080 acres and avoidance acres would increase to 4,731,350 acres which could reduce human and machinery caused wildfires. Potential wildfires from fluid minerals development would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as the number of wells developed would be reduced to 12,355 oil and gas and 2,462 CBNG wells. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-220 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

areas. ROW development would be excluded on 285,930 acres which could reduce human presence and ignition sources such as vehicles and machinery that could cause wildland fires. Impacts from wind energy development would be eliminated on 424,820 acres that are prohibited to wind energy development and reduced on 2,438,850 acres that are restricted for wind energy development which would reduce human and machinery caused wildfires. Potential sources of wildfires from fluid minerals development would increase on 130,330 acres in the short-term and 39,050 acres in the long-term in areas outside of minerals development restrictions where fluid mineral development could reduce plant community health and increase the risk or humancaused fire starts. Most of the development and associated impacts such as loss of vegetation habitat would be from the construction and maintenance of 13,653 oil and gas wells and 2,758 CBNG wells. Potential fire ignition sources from minerals development would be eliminated on 472,800 acres that are closed to mineral materials development and 261,000 acres closed to solid 

reduced compared to Alternative A, as the number of wells developed would be reduced to 11,555 oil and gas and 2,154 CBNG wells. The development of these wells would disturb fewer acres compared to Alternative A, with 104,050 acres of shortterm surface disturbance and 33,540 acres of longterm surface disturbance. Impacts to wildland fire from solid minerals development, locatable minerals development, and minerals materials development would decrease compared to Alternative A. The closures or withdrawals would reduce potential fire ignition sources associated with human presence, motor vehicle travel, and construction of minerals development. Within priority habitats, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented to protect sagebrush systems. Burned areas in priority habitats would be restored and recovered. Priority sage-grouse habitat suppression would prioritize firefighter and public safety to conserve the habitat. General sage-grouse habitat would have a high suppression priority where 

acres of short-term surface disturbance and 27,030 acres of long-term surface disturbance Impacts to wildland fire from solid minerals development, locatable minerals development, and minerals materials development would decrease compared to Alternative A. These closures/withdrawals would reduce potential fire ignition sources associated with human presence, motor vehicle travel, and construction of minerals development. Within priority and general habitats, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented to protect sagebrush systems. Restoration and suppression practices would be the same as Alternative B. 

Alternative A, as the number of wells developed would be reduced to 13,083 oil and gas and 2,686 CBNG wells. The development of oil and gas wells would disturb fewer acres compared to Alternative A, with 122,910 acres of short-term surface disturbance and 37,720 acres of long-term surface disturbance. Impacts from surface disturbing activities for solid minerals development, mineral materials, and locatable minerals development would be the same as Alternative A. Wildfire restoration and suppression actions would be the same as Alternative A. 

The development of these well would disturb fewer acres compared to Alternative A, with 112,330 acres of short-term surface disturbance and 35,430 acres of long-term surface disturbance. Surface disturbing activities from solid leasable minerals and mineral material development would be the same as Alternative A, and proposed locatable mineral withdrawals, 252,070 acres, would be greater than Alternative A. The closures and withdrawals would reduce potential human and development caused wildfires. Within PHMAs (core only), fuels treatments would be designed and implemented to protect existing sagebrush systems (refer to WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit SageGrouse in Appendix A). Burned areas within PHMAs (core only) would be restored. Within these areas, suppression practices would be the same as Alternative B. General sage-grouse habitat would have a suppression priority commensurate with the local fire plan. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-221 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

leasable minerals development. These closures would help to preserve plant community functions, reduce habitat fire breaks, and increase fire fuel loads in these areas. Impacts from locatable minerals development would be eliminated on 1,761,550 acres that are withdrawn from development and could be eliminated on 131,070 acres that are proposed for withdrawal. The withdrawals could eliminate potential fire sources associated with development and surface disturbing activities. 

wildfires threaten priority sage-grouse habitat. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Impacts would result from surface disturbing activities, primarily renewable and nonrenewable energy development and associated infrastructure (pipelines, power lines, and roads). Estimated initial surface disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG is 130,330 acres. Additional surface disturbing activities from wind energy, pipelines, power lines, roads, and mineral development could impact wildlife and fish through loss, alteration, and fragmentation of habitats and displacement of wildlife. Continued livestock grazing practices could reach 

Under Alternative B, impacts from surface disturbing activities are lower than all alternatives except for Alternative C. Management would close Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat to oil, gas, and CBNG, wind energy, as well as other minerals. Estimated initial surface disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG is 104,050 acres. Additional management for livestock grazing could allow for greater achievement of Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health or the Forest Service 

Impacts from surface disturbing activities are the lowest under Alternative C. Management would close Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat to oil, gas, CBNG, and wind energy; and would close priority habitat to other minerals. Estimated initial surface disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG is 85,140 acres. Closing priority habitat to livestock grazing could allow for improved habitat and ample forage for wildlife and improved water quality for fisheries. 

Alternative D could have impacts from surface disturbing activities that are similar to Alternative A. In some cases, such as ROWs and wind energy, Alternative D protects all core sage-grouse habitat. Estimated initial surface disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG is 122,910 acres. Impacts from surface disturbing activities such as livestock grazing and other mineral development could lead to loss, alteration, and fragmentation of habitat and displacement of wildlife. Lek buffers, similar to Alternative A and other 

Overall, impacts to wildlife and fish habitat from implementing the Proposed LUP Amendments would be similar to Alternative A. Estimated initial surface disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG is 112,330. All PHMAs (core only) would be an avoidance area for wind development, protecting more habitat than Alternative A from loss, alteration, and fragmentation of habitat and displacement of wildlife. Management for livestock grazing could allow for achievement of Wyoming Standards for Rangeland 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-222 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed LUP Amendments 

Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health or the Forest Service equivalent. Lek buffers and other existing restrictions would protect lands, especially sagebrush habitat, from surface disturbing activities, habitat loss, and fragmentation. For additional information on effects to Forest Service wildlife and fish, please see the Biological Evaluation and Management Indicator Species Report in Appendix M. 

equivalent, and provide improved habitat for wildlife and fisheries. Larger lek buffers and restrictions to the density of disturbance for surface disturbing activities to protect sage-grouse habitat would protect more land, especially sagebrush habitat, from surface disturbing activities, habitat loss, and fragmentation. For additional information on effects to Forest Service wildlife and fish, please see the Biological Evaluation and Management Indicator Species Report in Appendix M. 

Larger lek buffers and restrictions to the density of disturbance for surface disturbing activities to protect sage-grouse habitat would protect more land, especially sagebrush habitat, from surface disturbing activities, habitat loss, and fragmentation. Overall, Alternative C would provide the greatest protection of sagebrush habitat among all the alternatives. For additional information on effects to Forest Service wildlife and fish, please see the Biological Evaluation and Management Indicator Species Report in Appendix M. 

restrictions would protect lands, especially sagebrush habitat, from surface disturbing activities, habitat loss, and fragmentation. For additional information on effects to Forest Service wildlife and fish, please see the Biological Evaluation and Management Indicator Species Report in Appendix M. 

Health or the Forest Service equivalent, and provide improved habitat for wildlife and fisheries. Lek buffers larger than Alternative A and other restrictions would protect lands, especially sagebrush habitat, from surface disturbing activities, habitat loss, and fragmentation. For additional information on effects to Forest Service wildlife and fish, please see the Biological Evaluation and Management Indicator Species Report in Appendix M. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-223