BLM

National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Planning Strategy 

Scoping Summary Report 

FS

May 2012

Great Basin Region, including western Utah, Idaho, Southwestern 

Montana, California, Nevada, and Oregon.

Rocky Mountain Region, including eastern Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, 

South Dakota, North Dakota, and Eastern Montana.

Land Use Plan Amendments 

and Environmental Impact Statements

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs i 

Scoping Summary Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ES-1

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Background..................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose of and Need for Land Use Plan Amendments...................................................... 1-3

1.3 Description of the Planning Areas............................................................................................ 1-3

1.3.1 Greater Sage-Grouse Range-wide Planning Area .................................................. 1-3

1.3.2 Great Basin Region........................................................................................................ 1-4

1.3.3 Rocky Mountain Region............................................................................................... 1-8

1.4 Overview of the Scoping Process and Scoping Report....................................................... 1-9

1.5 Description of the Scoping Process.......................................................................................1-10

1.5.1 Notice of Intent ...........................................................................................................1-11

1.5.2 Project Web Site .........................................................................................................1-11

1.5.3 Newsletter and Mailing List.......................................................................................1-12

1.5.4 Press Release ................................................................................................................1-13

1.5.5 Newspaper Articles ....................................................................................................1-14

1.5.6 Public Scoping Open Houses....................................................................................1-15

1.6 Collaborative Involvement Process........................................................................................1-17

1.6.1 Cooperating Agencies................................................................................................1-17

1.6.2 Collaboration and Consultation with Tribes........................................................1-28

1.7 Method of Comment Collection and Analysis....................................................................1-31

2. COMMENT SUMMARY.................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Range-Wide Planning Area......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Great Basin Region....................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.2.1 Utah Subregion.............................................................................................................2-15

2.2.2 Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion...............................................................2-20

2.2.3 California/Nevada Subregion ....................................................................................2-25

2.2.4 Oregon Subregion .......................................................................................................2-30

2.3 Rocky Mountain Region............................................................................................................2-36

2.3.1 Colorado........................................................................................................................2-43

2.3.2 Wyoming .......................................................................................................................2-48

2.3.3 North Dakota/South Dakota....................................................................................2-53

2.3.4 Eastern Montana ..........................................................................................................2-58

3. ISSUE SUMMARY............................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Planning Issue Development ...................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Range-Wide Planning Issue Statements................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Great Basin Region Planning Issue Statements....................................................................3-12
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

ii Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

3.3.1 Utah Subregion Planning Issue Statements............................................................3-13

3.3.2 Idaho/Southwestern Montana Planning Issue Statements..................................3-14

3.3.3 California/Nevada Subregion Planning Issue Statements....................................3-15

3.3.4 Oregon Subregion Planning Issue Statements......................................................3-16

3.4 Rocky Mountain Region Planning Issue Statements...........................................................3-18

3.4.1 Colorado Planning Issue Statements.......................................................................3-18

3.4.2 Wyoming Planning Issue Statements ......................................................................3-20

3.4.3 North Dakota/South Dakota Planning Issue Statements...................................3-21

3.4.4 Eastern Montana Planning Issue Statements.........................................................3-21

3.5 Issues That Will Not be Addressed in the LUPAs.............................................................3-21

3.5.1 National Policy Decisions..........................................................................................3-21

3.5.2 Outside the Scope of the Planning Effort..............................................................3-22

3.6 Anticipated Decisions................................................................................................................3-23

3.6.1 Future Land Use Plan-level Decisions ....................................................................3-24

3.6.2 Future Implementation-level Decisions..................................................................3-24

3.7 Valid Existing Management.......................................................................................................3-25

4. PLANNING CRITERIA..................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Preliminary Planning Criteria .....................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Additional Suggestions for Planning Criteria..........................................................................4-4

5. DATA SUMMARY/DATA GAPS ...................................................................................... 5-1

6. FUTURE STEPS .............................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Summary of Future Steps and Public Participation Opportunities...................................6-1

6.2 Contact Information ....................................................................................................................6-2

7. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 7-1
Table of Contents

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs iii 

Scoping Summary Report

TABLES Page

1-1 Great Basin Region, Potential Land Use Plan Amendments............................................................. 1-6

1-2 Rocky Mountain Region, Potential Land Use Plan Amendments..................................................... 1-8

1-3 Press Releases.............................................................................................................................................1-13

1-4 Newspaper Articles ..................................................................................................................................1-14

1-5 Great Basin Region Scoping Open Houses.........................................................................................1-15

1-6 Rocky Mountain Region Scoping Open Houses ................................................................................1-16

1-7 Great Basin Region Cooperating Agency Participation....................................................................1-18

1-8 Rocky Mountain Region Cooperating Agency Participation...........................................................1-24

1-9 Great Basin Region Tribal Consultation ..............................................................................................1-29

1-10 Rocky Mountain Region Tribal Consultation......................................................................................1-30

2-1 Range-Wide Planning Area Commenters by Affiliation ..................................................................... 2-2

2-2 Range-Wide Planning Area Commenters by Geographic Area ....................................................... 2-4

2-3 Range-Wide Planning Area Agency-Specific Comments.................................................................... 2-5

2-4 Range-Wide Planning Area Comments by Issue or Other Category............................................. 2-6

2-5 Range-Wide Planning Area Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue 

Category ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-7

2-6 Great Basin Planning Area Commenters by Affiliation ...................................................................... 2-9

2-7 Great Basin Planning Area Commenters by Geographic Area1.....................................................2-11

2-8 Great Basin Planning Area Agency-Specific Comments...................................................................2-12

2-9 Great Basin Planning Area Comments by Issue or Other Category............................................2-13

2-10 Great Basin Planning Area Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue 

Category ......................................................................................................................................................2-14

2-11 Utah Subregion Commenter Affiliation ...............................................................................................2-16

2-12 Utah Subregion Agency-Specific Comments.......................................................................................2-17

2-13 Utah Subregion Comments by Issue or Other Category ...............................................................2-18

2-14 Utah Subregion Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category.......................2-19

2-15 Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion Commenter Affiliation .................................................2-21

2-16 Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion Agency-Specific Comments.........................................2-23

2-17 Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion Comments by Issue or Other Category..................2-23

2-18 Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion Number of Individual Comments per 

Planning Issue Category ...........................................................................................................................2-24

2-19 California/Nevada Subregion Commenter Affiliation .......................................................................2-26

2-20 California/Nevada Subregion Agency-Specific Comments..............................................................2-27

2-21 California/Nevada Subregion Comments by Issue or Other Category .......................................2-28

2-22 California/Nevada Subregion Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue 

Category ......................................................................................................................................................2-29

2-23 Oregon Subregion Commenter Affiliation..........................................................................................2-31

2-24 Oregon Subregion Agency-Specific Comments.................................................................................2-32

2-25 Oregon Subregion Comments by Issue or Other Category..........................................................2-34

2-26 Oregon Subregion Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category .................2-35
Table of Contents

iv Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

2-27 Rocky Mountain Planning Area Commenter Affiliation ...................................................................2-37

2-28 Rocky Mountain Planning Area Submissions by Geographic Area ................................................2-39

2-29 Rocky Mountain Planning Area Agency-Specific Comments..........................................................2-40

2-30 Rocky Mountain Planning Area Comments by Issue or Other Category ...................................2-41

2-31 Rocky Mountain Planning Area Number of Individual Comments per Planning 

Issue Category............................................................................................................................................2-42

2-32 Colorado Commenter Affiliation.........................................................................................................2-44

2-33 Colorado Agency-Specific Comments................................................................................................2-45

2-34 Colorado Comments by Issue or Other Category.........................................................................2-46

2-35 Colorado Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category ................................2-47

2-36 Wyoming Commenter Affiliation.........................................................................................................2-49

2-37 Wyoming Agency-Specific Comments................................................................................................2-50

2-38 Wyoming Comments by Issue or Other Category.........................................................................2-51

2-39 Wyoming Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category ................................2-52

2-40 North Dakota/South Dakota Commenter Affiliation .....................................................................2-54

2-41 North Dakota/South Dakota Agency-Specific Comments............................................................2-55

2-42 North Dakota/South Dakota Comments by Issue or Other Category .....................................2-56

2-43 North Dakota/South Dakota Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue 

Category ......................................................................................................................................................2-57

2-44 Eastern Montana Commenter Affiliation............................................................................................2-59

2-45 Eastern Montana Agency-Specific Comments...................................................................................2-60

2-46 Eastern Montana Comments by Issue or Other Category............................................................2-61

2-47 Eastern Montana Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category ...................2-62

3-1 Planning Issue Categories and Statements.............................................................................................3-3
Table of Contents

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs v 

Scoping Summary Report

FIGURES Page

1-1 Planning Boundaries and Surface Administration.................................................................................1-5

2-1 Range-Wide Planning Area Commenters by Commenter Affiliation.............................................2-3

2-2 Range-Wide Planning Area Commenters by Geographic Area .......................................................2-4

2-3 Range-Wide Planning Area Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue 

Category ........................................................................................................................................................2-8

2-4 Great Basin Region Commenters by Affiliation.................................................................................2-10

2-5 Great Basin Planning Area Commenters by Geographic Area ......................................................2-11

2-6 Great Basin Planning Area Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue 

Category ......................................................................................................................................................2-15

2-7 Utah Subregion Commenters by Affiliation........................................................................................2-17

2-8 Utah Subregion Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category.......................2-20

2-9 Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion Commenter Affiliation .................................................2-22

2-10 Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion Number of Individual Comments per 

Planning Issue Category ...........................................................................................................................2-25

2-11 California/Nevada Subregion Commenter Affiliation .......................................................................2-27

2-12 California/Nevada Subregion Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue 

Category ......................................................................................................................................................2-30

2-13 Oregon Subregion Commenter Affiliation..........................................................................................2-32

2-14 Oregon Subregion Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category .................2-36

2-15 Rocky Mountain Planning Area Commenter Affiliation ...................................................................2-38

2-16 Rocky Mountain Planning Area Commenters by Geographic Area..............................................2-39

2-17 Rocky Mountain Planning Area Number of Individual Comments per Planning 

Issue Category............................................................................................................................................2-43

2-18 Colorado Commenter Affiliation.........................................................................................................2-45

2-19 Colorado Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category..................................2-48

2-20 Wyoming Commenter Affiliation.........................................................................................................2-50

2-21 Wyoming Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category ................................2-53

2-22 North Dakota/South Dakota Commenter Affiliation .....................................................................2-55

2-23 North Dakota/South Dakota Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue 

Category ......................................................................................................................................................2-58

2-24 Eastern Montana Commenter Affiliation............................................................................................2-60

2-25 Eastern Montana Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category ...................2-63
Table of Contents

vi Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

APPENDICES

A Scoping Materials

B List of Commenters

C Comments by Resource Planning Issue
May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs vii

Scoping Summary Report

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EIS environmental impact statement

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

IM Bureau of Land Management Instruction Memorandum

IMP Interim Management Policy

LMP land and resource management plan

LUP land use plan

LUPA land use plan amendment

MOU Memoranda of Understanding

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NFMA National Forest Management Act of 1976

NFS National Forest System

NOI Notice of Intent

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NTT Sage-Grouse National Technical Team

PGH Preliminary General Habitat

PPH Preliminary Priority Habitat

RMP resource management plan

RMPA resource management plan amendment

ROD record of decision

ROW right-of-way

S&G standards and guidelines

US United States

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued) Full Phrase

viii Greater Sage-Grouse RMPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

WSA Wilderness Study Area
Executive Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs ES-1

Scoping Summary Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary

ES-2 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Do not delete this page from MS Word file.
May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs ES-1

Scoping Summary Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This initiative to conserve, enhance, and restore greater sage-grouse habitat is 

the result of the March 2010, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 12-Month 

Finding for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as 

Threatened or Endangered (75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010). In that 

finding, the USFWS concluded that greater sage-grouse was “warranted, but 

precluded” for listing as a threatened or endangered species. The USFWS 

reviewed the status and threats to the greater sage-grouse in relation to the 

five Listing Factors provided in Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (ESA). Of the five Listing Factors reviewed, the USFWS determined that 

Factor A, “the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 

of the habitat or range of the Greater Sage-Grouse,” and Factor D, “the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms” posed “a significant threat to the 

Greater Sage-Grouse now and in the foreseeable future”. The USFWS 

identified the principal regulatory mechanisms for the BLM and Forest Service 

as conservation measures in land use plans (LUPs). The BLM is the lead federal

agency for this national planning effort and the Forest Service is a cooperating 

agency. 

In response to the USFWS findings, the BLM and Forest Service intend to 

prepare plan amendments with associated environmental impact statements 

(EISs) or other National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis to 

incorporate specific conservation measures across the range of the greater 

sage-grouse, consistent with national BLM and Forest Service policies. These 

EISs will be coordinated under two administrative planning regions: the Rocky 

Mountain Region and the Great Basin Region. These regions are drawn roughly 

to correspond with the threats identified by the USFWS in the 2010 listing 

decision, along with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(WAFWA) Management Zones framework (Stiver et al. 2006). The Rocky 

Mountain Region consists of LUPs in the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Wyoming, Colorado, and portions of Utah and Montana. The Great Basin 
Executive Summary

ES-2 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Region consists of LUPs in California, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, and portions of 

Utah and Montana. A separate EIS or other NEPA analysis will be prepared for 

each state or subregion above. Each EIS will have its own strategy to address 

greater sage-grouse habitat issues and will address the impacts of amending all 

pertinent LUPs with that guidance. Only LUPs that cover planning areas 

containing greater sage-grouse habitat (Preliminary Priority Habitat or 

Preliminary General Habitat) will be included for amendment. Each EIS will have 

its own record of decision (ROD), which comes at the end of the EIS process 

and will amend the LUPs to include the new management direction. In addition, 

the BLM and Forest Service will issue separate RODs for each EIS process

Public involvement is a vital component of an effective LUP amendment

(LUPA)/EIS process. Public involvement for the LUPAs/EISs includes public 

scoping and outreach; collaboration with federal, state, local, and tribal 

governments; and public review of and comment on the Draft LUPAs/EISs. This 

report documents the results of the public and agency scoping and outreach 

process.

PUBLIC SCOPING ACTIVITIES

Public outreach during the public scoping period has included: 1) press releases

announcing the original and extended scoping period for the EIS process; 2) a 

newsletter mailed in December 2011 to over 14,000 agency officials, 

organizations, and members of the public in the Great Basin Region; 3) 26 open 

houses throughout the Great Basin Region and 13 open houses throughout the 

Rocky Mountain Region; and 4) a National greater sage-grouse conservation 

Web site, http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html, and 

regional Web sites for the Great Basin 

(http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/western.html) and Rocky 

Mountain (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/eastern.html) 

regions, which provides access to materials distributed at scoping meetings, as 

well as information on the public involvement process. The formal public

comment period as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(Public Law 91-190) began on December 9, 2011, with the publication of a 

Notice of Intent in the Federal Register and ended on March 23, 2012.

PUBLIC SCOPING RESULTS

A total of 585 unique written submissions for the Great Basin Region and 272 

unique written submissions for the Rocky Mountain Region were received 

during the public scoping period. Submissions resulted in a total of 7,472 unique 

comments.. In addition, a total of 30,397 form letters were received. 

Comments were categorized, coded, entered into a database, tallied, and 

analyzed. Categories included process categories, planning issues, and 

commenter affiliation.

For the unique written submissions, members of the general public represented 

52 percent of commenters during the scoping period, organizations or non-
Executive Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs ES-3

Scoping Summary Report

profit groups represented 21 percent, and businesses represented 13 percent. 

Federal agencies accounted for two percent of commenters, state agencies 

submitted two percent, and local governmental agencies nine percent, for a 

total of 13 percent of the commenters from government. In addition, one

percent were received from elected officials and less than one percent were 

received from tribal governments. No comments were received from 

educational institutions.

ISSUE SUMMARY

The following planning issues have been identified based on public input 

received during the scoping period. Comments received were classified into the 

planning issues below and into subcategories as appropriate. Issue statements 

are listed based on the number of public comments received for each category, 

in descending order.

1. How would the BLM and Forest Service use the best available 

science to designate preliminary priority habitat, preliminary general 

habitat and non-habitat categories and accurately monitor the 

impact of land uses on greater sage-grouse?

2. How would energy and mineral development, including renewable 

energy, be managed to within greater sage-grouse habitat while 

recognizing valid existing rights? 

3. What measures would the BLM and Forest Service put in place to 

protect and improve greater sage-grouse habitat while maintaining 

grazing privileges?

4. How would the BLM and Forest Service conserve, enhance, or 

restore greater sage-grouse habitat such as sagebrush communities 

and minimize or prevent the introduction or spread of noxious 

weeds and invasive species?

5. What measures would be put in place to manage habitat for other 

wildlife species and reduce conflicts with greater sage-grouse?

6. What opportunities exist to adjust public land ownership that 

would increase management efficiency for greater sage-grouse and -

sage-grouse habitat?

7. How could the BLM and Forest Service promote or maintain 

activities that provide social and economic benefit to local 

communities while providing protection for greater sage-grouse 

habitat?

8. How would motorized, non-motorized, and mechanized travel be 

managed to provide access to federal lands and a variety of 

recreation opportunities while protecting greater sage-grouse and 

sage-grouse habitat?
Executive Summary

ES-4 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

9. What measures should be undertaken to manage fuels and wildland 

fires, while protecting greater sage-grouse habitat?

10. What special management areas would be designated by the BLM 

or Forest Service to benefit the conservation, enhancement, and 

restoration of greater sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat?

11. How would the BLM and Forest Service protect water and soil 

resources in order to benefit greater sage-grouse habitat?

12. What measures would the BLM and Forest Service put in place to 

to reduce the impacts of wild horses and burros on greater sagegrouse habitat?

13. How would the BLM and Forest Service incorporate the analysis of 

the impacts of a changing climate on greater sage-grouse habitat?

The BLM and Forest Service will use the planning issues to help guide the 

development of a reasonable range of alternative management strategies for the 

LUPAs. In addition to planning issues, comments also addressed issues that are 

policy or administrative actions; issues that have been or will be addressed by 

the BLM or Forest Service outside of the LUPAs; and issues that are outside the

scope of the LUPAs.

FUTURE STEPS

Scoping is the first opportunity for public involvement in the LUPA process. The

BLM and Forest Service will use the information collected during the scoping 

period to formulate alternatives and prepare the Draft LUPAs/EISs for each 

subregion in the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain regions, which are anticipated 

to be published in the spring of 2013. Release of the Draft RMPAs/EISs will be 

announced in a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register and in the local 

media, and additional public meetings will be held to solicit public comment on 

the draft document. At the conclusion of the public comment period, the Draft 

LUPAs/EISs will be revised, and Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs will be published and 

made available for public review. While these are the specific opportunities for 

public involvement during the LUPA process, the BLM and Forest Service

welcomes input from the public throughout the LUPA process.
May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-1

Scoping Summary Report

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

This initiative to conserve, enhance, and restore greater sage-grouse habitat is 

the result of the March 2010, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

12-Month Finding for Petitions to List the Greater SageGrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or 

Endangered (75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 

2010). In that finding, the USFWS concluded that 

greater sage-grouse was “warranted, but precluded” for

listing as a threatened or endangered species. The 

USFWS reviewed the status and threats to the greater 

sage-grouse in relation to the five Listing Factors 

provided in Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (ESA). Of the five Listing Factors reviewed, 

the USFWS determined that Factor A, “the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 

the habitat or range of the greater sage-grouse,” and 

Factor D, “the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms” posed “a significant threat to the greater 

sage-grouse now and in the foreseeable future”. The 

USFWS identified the principal regulatory mechanisms for the US Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) as conservation measures in land 

use plans (LUPs).

BLM has issued an Instruction Memorandum (IM) (2012-044) that provides 

direction for considering sage-grouse conservation measures in the land use 

planning process (BLM 2011a). The IM requires that BLM consider conservation 

measures when revising or amending resource management plans (RMPs) in 

greater sage-grouse habitat. The conservation measures that should be 

considered were developed by the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA) directs the United States (US) Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 

develop and periodically revise or amend its resource 

management plans (RMPs), which guide management 

of BLM-administered public lands (for the purpose of 

this document, the term RMP applies to all BLM land 

use plans [LUPs], including BLM’s older Management 

Framework Plans). The National Forest Management 

Act of 1976 (NFMA) directs the US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service to develop and periodically 

revise or amend its Land and Resource Management 

Plans (LMPs), which guide management of National 

Forest System (NFS) lands. These two agencies’ plans 

will be generically referred to as LUPs throughout the 

remainder of this document.
1. Introduction

1-2 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

(NTT), a group of resource specialists, land use planners, and scientists from 

the BLM, state fish and wildlife agencies, the USFWS, the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), and the US Geological Survey (USGS). The 

report drafted by the NTT, titled “A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures,” provides the latest science and best biological 

judgment to assist in making management decisions relating to the sage-grouse 

(BLM 2011b). The IM requires that BLM consider all applicable conservation 

measures developed by the NTT when revising or amending its RMPs in greater 

sage-grouse habitat.

In response to the USFWS findings, and in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 

(NFMA), the BLM and Forest Service intend to prepare plan amendments with 

associated environmental impact statements (EISs) or other NEPA analysis to 

incorporate specific conservation measures across the range of the greater 

sage-grouse, consistent with national BLM and Forest Service policies. For plans 

already undergoing amendment or revisions the BLM and Forest Service will 

consider incorporating conservation measures either through the ongoing 

amendment or revision process, or through supplemental environmental 

analyses as appropriate. The BLM will be the lead agency and the Forest Service

will be a cooperating agency in the development of these EISs. Each EIS will have 

its own strategy to address greater sage-grouse habitat issues and will address 

the impacts of amending all pertinent LUPs with that guidance. Only LUPs that 

cover planning areas containing greater sage-grouse classified as Preliminary 

Priority Habitat or Preliminary General Habitat will be included for amendment. 

Refer to Section 1.3.1, Greater Sage-Grouse Range-wide Planning Area, for 

further details of habitat classification. The BLM and Forest Service will issue 

separate records of decision (RODs) for each EIS which comes at the end of 

the EIS process and will amend the LUPs to include the new management 

direction.

These EISs will be coordinated under two administrative planning regions: the 

Rocky Mountain Region and the Great Basin Region. These regions are drawn 

roughly to correspond with the threats identified by the USFWS in the 2010 

listing decision, along with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zones framework (Stiver et al. 2006).

The Great Basin Region consists of LUPs in California, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, 

and portions of Utah and Montana. This comprises the WAFWA Management 

Zones III (Southern Great Basin), IV (Snake River Plain), and V (Northern Great 

Basin). The USFWS has identified a number of threats in this region, the major 

ones being wildfire, loss of native habitat to invasive species, and habitat 

fragmentation. The Rocky Mountain Region consists of LUPs in the states of 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, and portions of Utah and 

Montana. This region comprises the WAFWA Management Zones I (Great 
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-3

Scoping Summary Report

Plains), II (Wyoming Basin), and a portion of VII (Colorado Plateau). The 

USFWS has identified a number of threats in this region, the major ones being 

habitat loss and fragmentation caused by development (for example, oil and gas 

development, transmission, and wind energy development). Both the Rocky 

Mountain and Great Basin regions are further divided into sub-regions, which is 

the level of this NEPA analysis. These sub-regions are generally based on the 

identified threats to the greater sage-grouse and the WAFWA Management 

Zones.

As required under NEPA, the BLM and Forest Service conducted public 

outreach (scoping) activities for the EISs from December 9, 2011, through 

March 23, 2012. This report summarizes the scoping activities conducted and 

the results of those outreach efforts.

1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS

The BLM and the Forest Service are preparing LUP amendments (LUPA) with 

associated EISs for LUPs containing greater sage-grouse habitat. This effort 

responds to the USFWS’s March 2010 “warranted, but precluded” ESA listing 

petition decision. Inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms was identified as a 

significant threat in the USFWS finding on the petition to list the greater sagegrouse. The USFWS identified the principal regulatory mechanisms for the BLM 

and the Forest Service as conservation measures embedded in LUPs. Changes in 

management of greater sage-grouse habitats are necessary to avoid the 

continued decline of populations that are anticipated across the species’ range. 

These plan amendments will focus on areas affected by threats to greater sagegrouse habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision.

The purpose for the LUPAs is to identify and incorporate appropriate 

conservation measures in LUPs to conserve, enhance, and restore greater sagegrouse habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat. 

Because BLM and Forest Service administer a large portion of greater sagegrouse habitat within the affected states, changes in BLM and Forest Service

management of greater sage-grouse habitats and proactive steps to rehabilitate 

sagebrush habitat are anticipated to have a considerable beneficial impact on 

present and future greater sage-grouse populations and could reduce the need 

to list the species as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREAS

1.3.1 Greater Sage-Grouse Range-wide Planning Area

The greater sage-grouse range-wide planning area encompasses millions of acres 

comprised of federal, state, and private lands in the Great Basin and Rocky 

Mountain regions (Figure 1-1, Planning Boundaries and Surface 

Administration). The plan amendments will address only conservation and 

management of greater sage-grouse habitat, as defined below, on BLMadministered surface- and split-estate lands and Forest Service-administered 
1. Introduction

1-4 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

surface lands. Any decisions in the LUPAs will apply only to the BLM- and 

Forest Service- administered surface and subsurface estate.

For the purpose of the LUPAs, greater sage-grouse habitat falls into one of the 

two following categories identified by the BLM in coordination with respective 

state wildlife agencies:

• Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH): Areas that have been identified 

as having the highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable 

greater sage-grouse populations. These areas would include 

breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.

• Preliminary General Habitat (PGH): Areas of occupied seasonal or 

year-round habitat outside of priority habitat.

Through this land use planning process, the BLM and Forest Service will 

continue to refine PPH and PGH data to: (1) identify priority habitat and analyze 

actions within priority habitat to conserve greater sage-grouse habitat 

functionality, and/or where appropriate, improve habitat functionality, and (2) 

identify general habitat and analyze actions within general habitat that provide 

for major life history function (e.g., breeding, migration, or winter survival) in 

order to maintain genetic diversity needed for sustainable greater sage-grouse 

populations.

The BLM expects to evaluate conservation measures in 68 LUPs, and the Forest 

Service expects to evaluate conservation measures in 20 LUPs. The applicable 

plans are listed in Section 1.3.2, Great Basin Region, and Section 1.3.3, 

Rocky Mountain Region. For plans already undergoing amendment or revision, 

the BLM and Forest Service will consider incorporating conservation measures 

either through the ongoing amendment or revision processes, or through 

supplemental environmental analyses as appropriate. Plans undergoing revision 

are noted in Section 1.3.2 and Section 1.3.3, below. 

1.3.2 Great Basin Region

The Great Basin Region planning area encompasses greater sage-grouse habitat 

on federal, state, and private lands in northeastern California, Nevada, Oregon, 

Idaho, southwestern Montana, and western Utah (Figure 1-1, Planning 

Boundaries and Surface Administration). The BLM will evaluate greater sagegrouse conservation measures in 41 LUPs, and the Forest Service will evaluate 

greater sage-grouse conservation measures in 12 LUPs. The plans applicable to 

each agency in the Great Basin Region, including the four subregions (Utah; 

Idaho/Southwestern Montana; California/Nevada; and Oregon), are provided 

below in Table 1-1, Great Basin Region, Potential Land Use Plan Amendments. 

Management direction outlined in the LUPAs will apply to public lands 

administered by the BLM and Forest Service (the decision area).
Caribou-Targhee

National Forest

.

Uinta-WasatchCache National

Forest

Sawtooth

National

Forest

Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest Medicine Bow-Routt

National Forest

Fishlake

National Forest

Dixie

National 

Forest

SOUTH DAKOTA

DISTRICT OFFICE

MILES CITY

DISTRICT OFFICE

SALT LAKE

FIELD

OFFICE

IDAHO FALLS

DISTRICT OFFICE

MALTA

DISTRICT OFFICE

VALE

DISTRICT

OFFICE

RAWLINS

FIELD OFFICE

LEWISTOWN

DISTRICT OFFICE

PRINEVILLE

DISTRICT

OFFICE

ELY

DISTRICT

OFFICE

BATTLE

MOUNTAIN

DISTRICT

OFFICE

BOISE

DISTRICT

OFFICE

ELKO

DISTRICT OFFICE

WINNEMUCCA

DISTRICT

OFFICE

BILLINGS

DISTRICT OFFICE

CASPER

FIELD OFFICE

BUFFALO

FIELD OFFICE

TWIN FALLS

DISTRICT OFFICE

CARSON CITY

DISTRICT OFFICE

NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA

DISTRICT

OFFICE

FILLMORE

FIELD OFFICE

LANDER

FIELD

OFFICE

CODY

FIELD OFFICE

BUTTE

DISTRICT OFFICE

RICHFIELD

FIELD OFFICE

VERNAL

FIELD

OFFICE

ROCK

SPRINGS

FIELD

OFFICE

LAKEVIEW

DISTRICT

OFFICE

PINEDALE

FIELD

OFFICE

DILLON

DISTRICT

OFFICE

BURNS

DISTRICT

OFFICE

LITTLE SNAKE

FIELD OFFICE

KEMMERER

FIELD

OFFICE

PRICE

FIELD

OFFICE

WORLAND

FIELD

OFFICE

CEDAR CITY

FIELD OFFICE

WHITE

RIVER FIELD

OFFICE COLORADO

RIVER VALLEY

FIELD OFFICE

NEWCASTLE

FIELD

OFFICE

KREMMLING

FIELD

OFFICE

GRAND

JUNCTION

FIELD OFFICE

KANAB

FIELD

OFFICE

GRAND STAIRCASEESCALANTE NATIONAL

MONUMENT FIELD OFFICE

MOAB

FIELD

OFFICE

NORTH DAKOTA

DISTRICT OFFICE

SOUTH DAKOTA

DISTRICT OFFICE

NE

ND

SD

NM

CO UT

WY

OR

ID

MT

WA

AZ

NV

CA

Ely

Reno

Elko

Tonopah

Las Vegas

Winnemucca

Battle Mountain

Alturas

Cedarville

Denver

Fort Collins

Grand Junction

Cody

Buffalo

Laramie

Dillon

Bozeman Billings

Missoula

Miles City

Boise

Salmon

Pocatello

Twin Falls

Idaho Falls

Spokane

Bend

Ontario

Lakeview

Prineville Baker City

Price

Kanab

Vernal

Randolph

Snowville

Richfield

Cedar City

Susanville

Burns

0 100

Miles

No warranty is made by the

BLM for the use of the data 

for purposes not intended 

by the BLM.

Bureau of Land

Management (BLM)

USDA Forest Service

(USFS) priority forest

USFS priority grassland

USFS non-priority forest

Other land

Planning Region

Great Basin

Rocky Mountain

Wyoming,

Utah and

Colorado

Montana, North Dakota,

South Dakota,

and Wyoming Idaho and

southwestern

Montana

Oregon

Nevada and

northeastern

California Utah

Planning Boundaries and Surface Administration

Curlew

National

Grassland

Humboldt-Toiyabe

National Forest Priority

NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PUBLIC LANDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

May 2012

Source: BLM 2012

Figure 1-1

Salmon- Challis

National Forest

Boise

National

Forest

Manti-La Sal

National

Forest

Priority

Bridger- Teton

National Forest

Routt

National

Forest

Beaverhead-Deerlodge

National Forest

Thunder Basin

National Grassland
1. Introduction

1-6 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-1

Great Basin Region, Potential Land Use Plan Amendments

Utah

BLM

Box Elder RMP (1986)

Cedar-Beaver-Garfield-Antimony RMP (1986)* and Pinyon RMP (1983)*, under revision as Cedar City 

RMP

Grand Staircase-Escalante NM RMP (1999)

House Range RMP (1987)

Kanab RMP (2008)

Pony Express RMP (1990)

Richfield RMP (2008)

Warm Springs RMP (1986)

Forest Service

Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986)

Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986)

Idaho/Southwestern Montana

Idaho

BLM

Birds of Prey National Conservation Area RMP (2008)

Bruneau RMP (1983)*

Challis RMP (1999)

Craters of the Moon NM RMP (2006)

Cascade(1988)* and Kuna RMP (1983)*, under revision as Four Rivers RMP

Jarbidge RMP (1987)*

Lemhi RMP (1987)

Owyhee RMP (1999)

Pocatello RMP (1988)*

Cassia RMP (1985)*, Magic MFP (1975)*, Monument RMP (1985)*, Sun Valley MFP (1981)*, and Twin 

Falls MFP (1982)* under revision as Shoshone-Burley RMP 

Big Lost MFP (1983)*, Medicine Lodge RMP (1985)*, Big Desert MFP (1981)*, and Little Lost-Birch 

Creek MFP (1981)* under revision as Upper Snake RMP

Forest Service

Boise National Forest Plan (2003)

Challis National Forest Plan (1987)

Curlew National Grassland Management Plan (2002)

Caribou National Forest Revised Forest Plan (2003)

Salmon National Forest Plan (1988)

Sawtooth National Forest Revised Forest Plan (2003)

Targhee National Forest Plan (1997)
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-7

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-1

Great Basin Region, Potential Land Use Plan Amendments

Montana

BLM

Butte RMP (2009)

Dillon RMP (2006)

Forest Service

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Plan (2009)

California/Nevada

California

BLM

Alturas RMP (2008)

Eagle Lake RMP (2008)

Surprise RMP (2008)

Nevada

BLM

Black Rock Desert National Conservation Area RMP (2004)

Carson City RMP (2001)*

Elko RMP (1987)

Ely RMP (2008)

Tonopah RMP (1997)* and Shoshone-Eureka RMP (1986)* under revision as Battle Mountain RMP

Wells RMP (1985)

Sonoma-Gerlach MFP (1982)* and Paradise-Denio MFP (1982)* under revision as Winnemucca RMP 

Forest Service

Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986)

Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986)

Oregon

BLM

Andrews RMP (2005)

Baker RMP (1989)*

Brothers-Lapine RMP (1989)

Baker RMP (1989)* , Two Rivers RMP (1986)* , and John Day RMP (1985)* under revision as John Day

Basin RMP 

Lakeview RMP (2003) and amendment

Southeastern Oregon RMP (2003) and amendment 

Steens RMP (2005)

Three Rivers RMP (1992)

Two Rivers RMP (1989)

Upper Deschutes RMP (2005)

*Plan currently undergoing revision. BLM and Forest Service will consider incorporating conservation measures,

either through the ongoing amendment or revision processes or through supplemental environmental analyses as 

appropriate.
1. Introduction

1-8 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

1.3.3 Rocky Mountain Region

The Rocky Mountain Region planning area encompasses federal, state, and 

private lands in Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, eastern

Utah, and eastern Montana (Figure 1-1, Planning Boundaries and Surface 

Administration). The BLM will evaluate sage-grouse conservation measures in 

27 LUPs, and the Forest Service will evaluate sage-grouse conservation 

measures in 8 LUPs. The plans applicable to each agency in the Rocky Mountain 

Region, including the four subregions (Colorado, Wyoming, Montana/Dakotas, 

and Utah) are provided below in Table 1-2, Rocky Mountain Region, Potential 

Land Use Plan Amendments. For this planning effort, the Rocky Mountain 

Region portion of Utah is being analyzed as part of the Great Basin Utah 

subregion. Management direction outlined in the LUPAs will apply to public 

lands administered by the BLM and Forest Service (the decision area).

Table 1-2

Rocky Mountain Region, Potential Land Use Plan Amendments

Colorado

BLM

Glenwood Springs RMP (1984)* under revision as Colorado River Valley RMP

Grand Junction RMP (1987)*

Kremmling RMP (1984)*

Little Snake RMP (2011)

White River RMP (1997, White River Oil and Gas amendment in progress)

Forest Service

Routt National Forest Plan (1998)

Wyoming

BLM

Grass Creek RMP (1998)* , Cody RMP (1990)*, and Washaki RMP (1988)*, under revision as 

Bighorn Basin RMP

Buffalo RMP (1985)*

Casper RMP (2007)

Kemmerer RMP (2010)

Lander RMP (1987)*

Newcastle RMP (2000)

Pinedale RMP (2008)

Rawlins RMP (2008)

Green River RMP (1985)*

Forest Service

Thunder Basin National Grassland LMP and amendments (2002 )

Bridger-Teton National Forest Plan (1990)

Medicine Bow National Forest Plan (2004)
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-9

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-2

Rocky Mountain Region, Potential Land Use Plan Amendments

Montana/Dakotas

BLM

Billings RMP (1984)*

Headwaters RMP (1984)

West HiLine RMP (1988)*

Judith, Valley, and Phillips RMP (1992)

Big Dry RMP (1995)* and Powder River RMP (1985)*, under revision as Miles City RMP

North Dakota RMP (1988)

South Dakota RMP (1986)*

Upper Missouri River Breaks NM RMP (2008)

Utah

BLM

Park City Management Framework Plan (MFP) (1975)

Price RMP (2008)

Randolph MFP (1980)

Salt Lake District Isolated Tracts Planning Analysis (1985)

Vernal RMP (2008)

Forest Service

Uinta National Forest Revised Forest Plan (2003)

Ashley National Forest Plan (1986)

Manti-Lasal National Forest Plan (1986)

Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan (2003)

*Plan currently undergoing revision. BLM and Forest Service will consider incorporating conservation 

measures, either through the ongoing amendment or revision processes or through supplemental 

environmental analyses as appropriate.

1.4 OVERVIEW OF THE SCOPING PROCESS AND SCOPING REPORT

Public involvement is a vital and legal component of both the LUP and EIS 

processes. Public involvement vests the public in the decision-making process 

and allows for full environmental disclosure. Guidance for implementing public 

involvement under NEPA is codified in 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)

Section 1506.6, thereby ensuring that federal agencies make a diligent effort to 

involve the public in the NEPA process. Guidance for implementing public 

involvement during land use planning actions on public lands can be found in the 

BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) (BLM 2005) and in the Forest 

Service’s Land Management Planning Handbook (Forest Service Handbook 

1909-12), Chapter 30 – Public Participation and Collaboration (Forest Service

2006). Public involvement requirements of both the BLM and Forest Service will 

be satisfied through the joint LUPA/EIS processes.
1. Introduction

1-10 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Public involvement is being conducted throughout the course of the LUPA/EIS 

processes; however the public will have specific opportunities to comment 

during three phases:

• Public scoping before NEPA analysis begins to determine the scope 

of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the LUPA/EIS (this 

occurred during the December 9, 2011 – March 23, 2012 scoping 

period);

• Public review and comment on the Draft LUPAs/EISs; and

• Public review and comment on the Final LUPAs/EISs.

This scoping summary report documents the results of the first phase of the 

public involvement process.

Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be 

addressed and identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. 

Information collected during scoping may also be used to develop the 

alternatives to be addressed in a NEPA document. The process has two 

components: internal scoping and external scoping. Internal scoping is

conducted within an agency or cooperating agencies to determine preliminary 

and anticipated issues and concerns. An interdisciplinary team of the BLM and 

Forest Service resource specialists held internal scoping meetings to identify the 

anticipated planning issues and the methods, procedures, and data to be used in 

developing the LUPAs/EISs.

External scoping is a public process designed to reach beyond the BLM and 

Forest Service, and attempts to identify the concerns of high importance to the 

public. External scoping helps ensure that real problems are identified early and 

properly studied, that issues of no concern do not consume time and effort, and

that the proposed action and alternatives are balanced, thorough, and able to be

implemented.

In accordance with 43 CFR 1610.2(d), the BLM and Forest Service must 

document the public scoping results. The BLM’s and Forest Service land use 

planning guidance (BLM 2005; Forest Service 2006) also requires the 

documentation of public involvement. This scoping report summarizes the 

public scoping process, and the separate comments received during the formal 

external scoping period. It also describes the issues from public scoping 

meetings and internal scoping meetings, and includes a discussion of how these 

comments will be incorporated into the LUPAs/EISs.

1.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCOPING PROCESS

As required by NEPA and the BLM and Forest Service public involvement 

guidance, the BLM and Forest Service with the assistance of the contractor 

Environmental Management and Planning Solutions inc., solicited comments 
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-11

Scoping Summary Report

from relevant agencies and the public, organized and analyzed all comments 

received, and then distilled them to identify issues that will be addressed during 

the planning process. These issues define the scope of analysis for the LUPAs

and are used to develop the project alternatives.

1.5.1 Notice of Intent

As defined under NEPA, the scoping period began with the publication of the 

Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on December 9, 2011. The NOI 

published was entitled “Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact 

Statements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements to Incorporate 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures into Land Use Plans and Land 

Management Plans” and acknowledged that the EISs were going to be a joint 

effort of the BLM and the Forest Service. The NOI:

• Noted that the scoping period would continue through February 7, 

2012;

• Indicated that the scoping meetings would be announced at least 15 

days in advance in local media;

• Provided the project Web site and the BLM Project Manager 

contact information;

• Provided information on how to submit comments;

• Provided a summary of the information to be included on the 

project Web site;

• Provided a brief overview of the USFWS listing decision that 

spurred the EIS projects;

• Stated the goal of the EISs and the purposes the EISs would serve;

• Provided a list of RMPs and Land and Resource Management Plans 

(LMPs) that the BLM and Forest Service intend to evaluate; and

• Stated the purpose of the public scoping process.

A notice of correction to the NOI was released on February 10, 2012. The 

notice of correction changed/clarified the names of the regions coordinating the 

EISs, extended the scoping period until March 23, 2012, and added 11 Forest 

Service LMPs (five LMPs in the Great Basin Region and six in the Rocky 

Mountain Region) to this process. A copy of the NOI is posted on the project 

Web site (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html) and is 

included in Appendix A, Scoping Materials.

1.5.2 Project Web Site

The BLM launched a national greater sage-grouse conservation Web site as part 

of the agency's efforts to maintain and restore greater sage-grouse habitat on 

public lands. The site is intended to make it easy to find out about how the BLM 

is working on maintaining and restoring greater sage-grouse habitat, and 
1. Introduction

1-12 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

includes background information related to governmental and the BLM roles in 

sage-grouse conservation. The Web site is available on the Internet at

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html. 

The BLM has also launched regional Web sites for the Great Basin and Rocky 

Mountain regions. These sites are regularly updated to provide the public with 

the latest information about the EIS processes in each region. The regional Web 

sites provide background information about the project, a public involvement 

timeline, maps of the planning areas, and copies of public information 

documents such as the newsletter and NOI. The sites also provide a description

of how to submit comments about the EIS process, including a link to the 

scoping comment email address. The dates and locations of scoping open 

houses were also announced on the regional Web sites. The Great Basin 

Region Web site is available on the Internet at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/western.html and the 

Rocky Mountain Region Web site is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/eastern.html. Links to 

these Web sites are also provided on the National Web site.

The subregions in both regions have or will have sites in the BLM’s ePlanning

system to make planning information, documents, and materials available to the 

public, and to facilitate comment analysis during public review of the draft and 

final LUPAs/EISs. Sites will be linked from the regional Web sites as they 

become available.

1.5.3 Newsletter and Mailing List

In December 2011, the BLM and Forest Service mailed a newsletter announcing 

the start of the public scoping period for the Great Basin EISs to more than 

14,000 individuals from the public, agencies, and organizations who had 

participated in past BLM and Forest Service activities and had been included on 

past BLM and Forest Service distribution lists. The newsletter provided

background information and an overview of the National Greater Sage-Grouse

Planning Strategy, the dates and venues for the 26 scoping open houses (see 

Section 1.5.6, Public Scoping Open Houses), and described the various 

methods for submitting comments, including dedicated email and postal 

addresses. The Rocky Mountain Region did not mail a newsletter as part of the 

scoping outreach.

The BLM and Forest Service will publish future newsletters at major project 

milestones and will mail them to individuals and organizations that have 

requested to remain on or be added to the project mailing list. All newsletters 

will be made available on the national, regional, or subregional project Web 

sites. Participants may request to receive newsletters and other project 

information through electronic or postal mail. The Great Basin Region scoping 

newsletter is included in Appendix A.
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-13

Scoping Summary Report

1.5.4 Press Release

A press release was made available on the national, Great Basin Region, and 

Rocky Mountain Region Web sites on December 8, 2011, announcing the 

scoping period for the EIS process. Press releases were also distributed within

subregions announcing the scoping period for the EIS process (see Table 1-3, 

Press Releases). The press releases provided information on the scoping open 

houses being held (see Section 1.5.6, Scoping Open Houses) and described 

the various methods for submitting comments. A second press release was 

posted on the project Web sites on February 7, 2012, announcing the 

extension of the public scoping period to March 23, 2012.

Table 1-3

Press Releases

Agency/ 

Location Title Release Date

BLM – Washington 

Office

Federal Agencies Announce Initial Step to Incorporate 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures into Land 

Management Plans

December 8, 2011

BLM – Washington 

Office

Comment Period for Greater Sage-Grouse Scoping 

Extended by BLM and Forest Service

February 7, 2012

BLM – Washington 

Office

National Forests Added and Comment Period Formally 

Extended on Planning for Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Measures

February 9, 2012

Great Basin Region

BLM – California 

State Office

Scoping Meetings Set in Alturas, Susanville on Sage Grouse 

Conservation

January 4, 2012

BLM – Nevada 

State Office

Scoping Meetings Start Planning Process for Sage-Grouse January 4, 2012

BLM – Idaho State 

Office

Idaho BLM Invites Public to Sage-Grouse Scoping Meetings January 5, 2012

BLM – Utah State 

Office

BLM Utah Invites Public to Sage-Grouse Scoping Meetings January 9, 2012

BLM – Oregon 

State Office

Meetings Engage Public in Planning Process for SageGrouse

January 10, 2012

Rocky Mountain Region

BLM – Lewistown 

Field Office

Bureau of Land Management Begins Scoping in Lewistown 

for Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy

December 22, 2011

BLM – North 

Dakota Field Office

BLM Begins Scoping for Greater Sage-Grouse Planning 

Strategy in North Dakota

December 22, 2011

BLM – Wyoming 

State Office

BLM and Forest Service Schedule Public Meetings on 

Sage-Grouse Conservation

January 18, 2012
1. Introduction

1-14 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-3

Press Releases

Agency/ 

Location Title Release Date

BLM – Northwest 

Colorado District 

Office

BLM begins greater sage-grouse planning effort with public 

open house meetings

January 20, 2012

BLM – Northwest 

Colorado District 

Office

BLM Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse comment period 

extended

February 8, 2012

1.5.5 Newspaper Articles

Given the large, regional scale of the planning area, it was not possible to 

compile all newspaper articles related to the EIS process and scoping period. 

Known local newspaper articles covering the EIS process and scoping period are 

provided in Table 1-4, Newspaper Articles.

Table 1-4

Newspaper Articles

Newspaper Date(s) Article(s) Appeared

Utah

Vernal Express January 11, 2012

Deseret News January 16, 2012

Southern Utah News January 25, 2012

Emery County Progress February 14, 2012

Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion

Idaho

Times News January 28, 2012

Idaho Mountain Express February 29, 2012

California/Nevada Subregion

Nevada

Elko Daily January 9 and 13, and February 14, 2012

Reno Gazette Journal January 30, 2012

Mesquite Local News February 9, 2012

Lincoln County Record February 16, 2012

Oregon

Salem News January 12, 2012

Central Oregonian January 19, 2012

Bend Bulletin January 24, 2012

Colorado

Glenwood Springs Post Independent January 23, 2012
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-15

Scoping Summary Report

1.5.6 Public Scoping Open Houses

The BLM and Forest Service hosted 26 open houses throughout the Great 

Basin Region and 13 open houses throughout the Rocky Mountain Region to 

provide the public with opportunities to become involved, learn about the 

project and the planning process, meet the planning team members, and offer 

comments. Where possible, representatives from the USFWS and state fish and 

game agencies also attended. The open houses were advertised via press 

releases, the project newsletter (Great Basin Region only), and the project Web 

sites. The locations of the open houses are provided in Table 1-5, Great Basin 

Region Scoping Open Houses, and Table 1-6, Rocky Mountain Region Scoping 

Open Houses.

Scoping meetings were held in an open house format to encourage participants 

to discuss concerns and questions with BLM and Forest Service and other 

agency staff representatives. Copies of scoping information, as well as blank 

scoping comment forms, were available at the sign-in station. Resource stations 

displayed maps to illustrate the planning area under consideration, greater sagegrouse habitat and bird densities, resource uses (e.g., rights-of-way, energy, 

livestock grazing, recreation), and resource conditions (e.g., vegetation, wildland 

fire). At those stations, fact sheets for various topics (e.g., planning process, 

purpose and need, preliminary planning issues, preliminary planning criteria, 

greater sage-grouse conservation, biology and habitat, threats to greater sagegrouse) provided an overview of current management practices and issues.

Table 1-5

Great Basin Region Scoping Open Houses

Location Venue Date

Number of 

Attendees

Utah

Price Carbon County Event Center January 17, 2012 39

Vernal Western Park Convention Center January 18, 2012 44

Salt Lake City Hampton Inn & Suites January 19, 2012 67

Randolph Randolph Senior Center January 23, 2012 33

Snowville Snowville Town Hall January 24, 2012 60

Richfield Sevier County Clerks January 30, 2012 58

Kanab Kanab County Library January 31, 2012 56

Cedar City Heritage Center-Festival Hall February 1, 2012 39

Utah Total 396

Idaho

Boise Red Lion Boise Hotel January 9, 2012 110

Idaho Falls Red Lion Hotel January 10, 2012 63

Salmon Salmon Valley Business & Innovation 

Center

January 11, 2012 63

Twin Falls Canyon Springs Red Lion Inn January 25, 2012 87
1. Introduction

1-16 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-5

Great Basin Region Scoping Open Houses

Location Venue Date Number of 

Attendees

Pocatello The Clarion January 26, 2012 58

Idaho Total 381

Montana

Dillon National Guard Armory January 12, 2012 47

Montana Total 47

California

Alturas Sacred Heart Catholic Church Parish 

Hall

January 18, 2012 36

Susanville Jensen Hall, Lassen County Fairgrounds January 19, 2012 48

California Total 84

Nevada

Tonopah Tonopah Station January 9, 2012 23

Ely Ely District BLM Office January 10, 2012 51

Elko Hilton Garden Inn January 11, 2012 102

Winnemucca Winnemucca Inn January 12, 2012 47

Reno Hyatt Place January 30, 2012 62

Nevada Total 285

Oregon

Lakeview BLM Lakeview District Office January 17, 2012 25

Ontario Four Rivers Cultural Center January 23, 2012 41

Baker City Baker County Library January 24, 2012 27

Burns Harney County Senior Center January 25, 2012 46

Prineville Stafford Inn January 26, 2012 62

Oregon Total 201

Great Basin Region Total 1,394

Table 1-6

Rocky Mountain Region Scoping Open Houses

Location Venue Date

Number 

of 

Attendees

Colorado

Walden Wattenberg Center January 31, 2012 36

Lakewood Sheraton Denver West February 1, 2012 17

Silt Colorado River Valley Field Office February 2, 2012 12

Craig Little Snake Field Office February 7, 2012 24
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-17

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-6

Rocky Mountain Region Scoping Open Houses

Location Venue Date

Number 

of 

Attendees

Colorado Total 89

Wyoming

Casper Casper Field Office January 30, 2012 15

Buffalo Buffalo Field Office January 31, 2012 17

Worland Worland Field Office February 1, 2012 8

Rock Springs Rock Springs Field Office February 2, 2012 12

Douglas National Guard Armory February 7, 2012 18

Newcastle USDA Natural Resources Conservation

Service

February 9, 2012 14

Gillete Campbell County Public Library February 15, 2012 14

Wyoming Total 98

Montana/Dakotas

Lewistown, MT Yogo Inn January 10, 2012 38

Bowman, ND Bowman City Hall January 17, 2012 17

Montana/Dakotas Total 55

Rocky Mountain Region Total 242

1.6 COLLABORATIVE INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

In addition to formal scoping, the BLM and Forest Service are implementing 

collaborative outreach and will work closely with cooperating agencies and 

tribes. These efforts are summarized below. The BLM and Forest Service will 

continue to meet with interested agencies and organizations throughout the 

planning process, as appropriate, and will coordinate closely with partners.

1.6.1 Cooperating Agencies

A cooperating agency is any federal, state, or local government agency or 

Native American tribe that enters into a formal agreement with the lead federal 

agency to help develop an environmental analysis. More specifically, cooperating 

agencies and tribes “work with the BLM, sharing knowledge and resources, to 

achieve desired outcomes for public lands and communities within statutory and 

regulatory frameworks” (BLM 2005). The Forest Service defines collaboration 

as, “People working together to share knowledge and resources to describe 

and achieve desired conditions for NFS lands and for associated social, 

ecological, and economic systems in a plan area. Collaboration applies 

throughout the planning process, encompasses a wide range of external and 

internal relationships, and entails formal and informal processes” (Forest Service

2006). The benefits of enhanced collaboration among agencies in preparing 

NEPA analyses are:
1. Introduction

1-18 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

• Disclosing relevant information early in the analytical process;

• Applying available technical expertise and staff support;

• Avoiding duplication with other federal, state, tribal, and local 

procedures; and

• Establishing a mechanism for addressing intergovernmental issues.

Each of the subregions invited local, state, federal, and tribal representatives to 

participate as cooperating agencies for their respective LUPA/EIS. Table 1-7, 

Great Basin Region Cooperating Agency Participation, and Table 1-8, Rocky 

Mountain Region Cooperating Agency Participation, provide the status of 

cooperating agency invitations as of April 2012. Agencies accepting invitations to

be cooperating agencies sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the 

BLM. The MOU outlines the interests, expertise, and jurisdictional 

responsibilities of both the agency and its cooperating agency partners and also 

outlines their respective roles and responsibilities in the planning and NEPA 

processes.

Cooperating agencies will be engaged throughout the planning process, including

during alternatives development.

Table 1-7

Great Basin Region Cooperating Agency Participation

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Accepted as of 

April 2012

Utah Subregion

Beaver County Commission

Box Elder County Commission 

Cache County Council

Carbon County Commission 

Daggett County Commission

Duchesne County Commission 

Dugway Proving Grounds 

Eastern Shoshone Business Council 

Emery County Commission 

Environmental Protection Agency

Garfield County Commission 

Goshute Indian Tribe 

Governor's Public Lands Policy Coordination Office 

Grand County Council 

Hill Air Force Base 

Hopi Tribal Council

Iron County Commission 
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-19

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-7

Great Basin Region Cooperating Agency Participation

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Accepted as of 

April 2012

Juab County Commission

Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians

Kane County Commission

Millard County Commission 

Morgan County Commission

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Navajo Nation

Navajo Utah Commission

Northwest Band of Shoshone

Paiute Tribe of Utah

Piute County Commission

Rich County Commission 

Sanpete County Commission 

Sevier County Commission 

Shoshone - Bannock Tribes

Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians

Southern Ute Tribal Council

Summit County Council

Tooele Army Depot

Tooele County Commission 

Uintah County Commission 

US Army

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

US Forest Service 

US Navy

Utah County Commission 

Utah Test and Training Range

Ute Indian Tribe - Ute Tribe 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

Wasatch County Council

Wayne County Commission 

Weber County Commission

Western Shoshone Tribal Council of the Te-Moak

Western Shoshone

White Mesa Ute Tribe

Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion

Adams County Commissioners
1. Introduction

1-20 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-7

Great Basin Region Cooperating Agency Participation

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Accepted as of 

April 2012

Bannock County Commissioners

Bear Lake County Commissioners

Beaverhead County Commissioners 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Bingham County Commissioners 

Blaine County Commissioners

Boise County Commissioners

Boise National Forest 

Bonneville County Commissioners

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Reclamation

Butte County Commissioners

Camas County Commissioners

Canyon County Commissioners

Caribou County Commissioner

Cassia County Commissioners 

Clark County Commissioners

Caribou-Targhee National Forest 

Craters of the Moon National Monument 

Custer County Commissioners

Elmore County Commissioners

Franklin County Commissioners

Fremont County Commissioners

Gem County Commissioners

Gooding County Commissioners

Idaho Association of Counties 

Idaho Department of Agriculture

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Idaho Department of Lands

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation

Idaho Department of Transportation

Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation 

Idaho National Guard 

Jefferson County Commissioners 

Jerome County Commissioners

Lemhi County Commissioners 
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-21

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-7

Great Basin Region Cooperating Agency Participation

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Accepted as of 

April 2012

Lincoln County Commissioners

Madison County Commissioners

Minidoka County Commissioners

Mountain Home Air Force Base

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Nez Perce Tribe

Oneida County Commissioners

Owyhee County Commissioners 

Payette County Commissioners

Power County Commissioners 

Salmon-Challis National Forest 

Sawtooth National Forest 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribe

Shoshone-Bannock Tribe

Teton County Commissioners

Twin Falls County Commissioners

USDA APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine

USDA APHIS Wildlife Services

US Department of Energy (INL) 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS (Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center )

Washington County Commissioners

California/Nevada Subregion

Battle Mountain Band Colony

Churchill County 

County of Carson City 

Douglas County

Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribe

Duckwater Tribe 

Elko Band Colony

Elko County 

Ely Shoshone Tribe

Esmeralda County 

Eureka County 

Fallon Paiute Tribe 

Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation

Humboldt County 
1. Introduction

1-22 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-7

Great Basin Region Cooperating Agency Participation

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Accepted as of 

April 2012

Ibapah Goshute Tribe 

Lander County

Lassen County 

Lincoln County 

Lovelock Colony

Lyon County

Mineral County

Modoc County 

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Nye County 

Office of the Governor

Pershing County

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony

South Fork Band Colony

State Department of Agriculture

State Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources

State Division of Minerals

State Department of Wildlife 

Storey County

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe 

Susanville Indian Rancheria 

Te-Moak Tribe

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

US Forest Service 

Walker River Tribe 

Washoe County

Washoe Tribe

Wells Band Colony

White Pine County 

Winnemucca Indian Colony

Yerington Tribe

Yomba Shoshone Tribe 

Oregon Subregion

Baker County Commissioners

Bureau of Indian Affairs
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-23

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-7

Great Basin Region Cooperating Agency Participation

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Accepted as of 

April 2012

Bureau of Reclamation

Burns-Paiute Tribe

Crook County Commissioners 

Deschutes County Commissioners 

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Highway Administration

Gilliam County Commissioners

Governor's Natural Resources Office

Grant County Commissioners

Harney County Commissioners 

Jefferson County Commissioners

Klamath County Commissioners

Klamath Tribe

Lake County Commissioners 

Malheur County Commissioners 

Morrow County Commissioners

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Oregon Department of Agriculture

Oregon Department of Economic Development

Oregon Department of Energy

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Department of Forestry

Oregon Department of Geology & Mineral Industries

Oregon Department of Land Conservation/Development

Oregon Department of Transportation

Oregon Division of State Lands

Oregon Water Science Center

Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department

Regional Environmental Officer (DOI)

Sherman County Commissioners

Umatilla County Commissioners

Umatilla Tribe

Union County Commissioners

US Army Corps of Engineers

US Attorney’s Office
1. Introduction

1-24 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-7

Great Basin Region Cooperating Agency Participation

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Accepted as of 

April 2012

USDA Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service

USDA Rural Development

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

US Forest Service

Wallowa County Commissioners

Warm Springs Tribe 

Wasco County Commissioners

Table 1-8

Rocky Mountain Region Cooperating Agency Participation

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Accepted as of 

April 2012

Colorado

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge 

Arapahoe/Roosevelt National Forest

City of Fruita

City of Glenwood Springs

City of Grand Junction

Colorado Department of Natural Resources 

Colorado Department of Transportation--State Office 

Colorado Department of Transportation--Region 3 

Colorado Department of Wildlife 

Colorado Oil and Gas Commission 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife--Meeker 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife--Glenwood Springs 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife--Hot Sulphur Springs 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife--Steamboat Springs 

Colorado Public Utilities Commission

Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety 

Colorado River Water Conservation District

Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer

Colorado Water Conservation Board

Colorado Water Science Center

Colorado Air Pollution Control Division

Denver Water Board 

Dinosaur National Monument
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-25

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-8

Rocky Mountain Region Cooperating Agency Participation

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Accepted as of 

April 2012

Eastern Shoshone Tribe--Wind River Reservation

Federal Railway Administration Region 6 HQ

Garfield County Board of Commissioners 

Eagle County Board of Commissioners

Grand County Board of Commissioners 

Jackson County Board of Commissioners 

Juniper Water Conservancy District

Medicine Bow Routt National Forest 

Mesa County Board of Commissioners 

Moffat County Board of Commissioners 

Natural Resource Conservation Service State Office 

Natural Resource Conservation Service Kremmling Field 

Office



Natural Resource Conservation Service Walden Field 

Office



Northern Arapaho Tribe

Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

Routt County Board of Commissioners

Southern Ute Indian Tribe

Summit County Board of Commissioners

Town of Craig

Town of Debeque

Town of Eagle

Town of Gypsum

Town of Hayden

Town of Hot Sulphur Springs

Town of Kremmling

Town of Meeker 

Town of New Castle

Town of Oak Creek

Town of Palisade

Town of Parachute

Town of Rangely

Town of Rifle

Town of Silt
1. Introduction

1-26 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-8

Rocky Mountain Region Cooperating Agency Participation

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Accepted as of 

April 2012

Town of Steamboat Springs

Town of Walden

Town of Yampa

US Army Corp of Engineers

US Bureau of Reclamation

US EPA NEPA Program

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

US Geographical Survey

Ute Indian Tribe--Uintah and Ouray Reservation

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

White River and Douglas Creek Conservation Districts 

White River National Forest

Wyoming

Carbon County Predator Management Damage

City of Laramie 

City of Rawlins 

Crook County Commissioners 

Lincoln CD 

Lincoln County

Lingle-Fort Laramie CD

Little Snake River CD

Medicine Bow CD 

Natrona County Commissioners

Office of Surface Mining

Platte County Commissioner

Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins CD 

South Goshen CD 

Sublette County

Sublette County CD 

Sweetwater County CD 

Sweetwater County Commissioners 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Uinta County CD 

Uinta County Commissioners 

USDA Forest Service 

USDA Wildlife Services

Weston County Natural Resource District
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-27

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-8

Rocky Mountain Region Cooperating Agency Participation

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Accepted as of 

April 2012

WY Department of AG 

WY DEQ 

WY Game & Fish 

WY Governor's Office 

WY Pipeline Authority 

WY State Historic Preservation Office

Western Area Power Administration 

Montana/Dakotas

Anaconda-Deer Lodge Commissioners

Beaverhead County Commissioner 

Beaverhead - Deerlodge National Forest 

Bowman County Commissioners 

Broadwater County Commissioner

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Indian Affairs Great Plains 

Bureau of Reclamation Montana

Bureau of Reclamation North Dakota

Butte-Silver Bow Commissioners

Cascade County Commissioners

Chains Butte Cooperative State Grazing District (CSGD) 

Chouteau County Commissioners

Crooked Creek CSGD

Department of Environmental Quality

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

Fergus County Commissioners 

Golden Valley County Commissioners

Grass Range and Flatwillow CSGD

Indian Butte CSGD 

Jefferson County Commissioner

Judith Basin County Commissioners 

Lewis and Clark County Commissioners

Meagher County Commissioners

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

Montana State Historic Preservation Office

National Park Service, Intermountain Region

North Dakota State Land Department

North Dakota Department of Agriculture 
1. Introduction

1-28 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-8

Rocky Mountain Region Cooperating Agency Participation

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Accepted as of 

April 2012

North Dakota Department of Health

North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

North Dakota Geological Survey

North Dakota Governor’s Office

North Dakota Industrial Commission

North Dakota Public Services Commission

North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office

North Dakota State Historical Society

North Dakota State Water Commission

Pondera County Commissioners

Slope County Commissioners 

Teton County Commissioners

Theodore Roosevelt National Park

US BOR, Great Plains Region, Montana Area Office

USDA, ARS, US Sheep Experiment Station

USDA NRCS Fort Benton Service Center

USDA NRCS Bowman/Slope Conservation District 

USDA NRCS Lewistown Service Center 

USDA NRCS North Dakota State Conservationist

USDA NRCS Winnett Service Center

USDA NRCS Stanford Service Center

USDA NRCS White Sulphur Springs Service Center

US Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8

US EPA Montana Operations

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

US Forest Service 

USFWS Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge

Weede CSGD

Williams Coulee CSGD

Winnett CSGD

1.6.2 Collaboration and Consultation with Tribes

The BLM has initiated consultation with tribes that are identified as having 

interests or Traditional Cultural Properties in each of the subregion planning 

areas. Consultation will be that required by the National Historic Preservation 

Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. The identified tribes to be 

consulted are provided in Table 1-9, Great Basin Region Tribal Consultation, 

and Table 1-10, Rocky Mountain Region Tribal Consultation.
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-29

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-9

Great Basin Region Tribal Consultation

Utah Subregion

Eastern Shoshone Business Council

Goshute Indian Tribe

Hopi Tribal Council

Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians

Navajo Nation

Navajo Utah Commission

Northwest Band of Shoshone

Paiute Tribe of Utah

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians

Southern Ute Tribal Council

Ute Indian Tribe-Ute Business Committee

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

Western Shoshone Tribal Council of the Te-Moak 

White Mesa Ute Tribe

Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion

Blackfeet Tribe

Eastern Shoshone Tribe

Nez Perce Tribe

Salish-Kootenai Tribe

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes

California/Nevada Subregion

Battle Mountain Band Colony

Duck Valley Shoshone Paiute Tribe

Duckwater Tribe

Elko Band Colony

Ely Shoshone Tribe

Fallon Paiute Tribe

Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation

Greenville Rancheria 

Hanylekim Maidu 

Ibapah Goshute Tribe

Lovelock Colony

Pit River Tribe

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony 

South Fork Band Colony

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe

Susanville Indian Rancheria 

Te-Moak Tribe

Walker River Tribe
1. Introduction

1-30 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-9

Great Basin Region Tribal Consultation

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

Wells Band Colony

Winnemucca Indian Colony

Yerington Tribe

Yomba Shoshone Tribe

Oregon Subregion

Burns-Paiute Tribe

Klamath Tribe

Umatilla Tribe

Warm Springs Tribe

Table 1-10

Rocky Mountain Region Tribal Consultation

Colorado

Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

Northern Arapaho Tribe

Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Southern Ute Indian Tribe

Ute Indian Tribe (Uintah & Ouray Reservation)

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

Wyoming

Blackfeet

Cheyenne River Sioux

Crow

Crow Creek Sioux

Eastern Shoshone Tribe

Ft. Peck Assiniboine/Sioux

Lower Brule Sioux

Nez Perce

Northern Arapahoe Tribe

Northern Cheyenne

Northern Ute

Oglala Lakota

Oglala Sioux

Rosebud Sioux

Santee Sioux

Shoshone-Bannock

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate

Standing Rock Sioux

Three Affiliated Tribes – Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation

Yankton Sioux
1. Introduction

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 1-31

Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-10

Rocky Mountain Region Tribal Consultation

Montana/Dakotas

Blackfeet Tribal Business Council

Chippewa Cree Tribe

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation

Fort Belknap Agency

Ft. Peck Tribes

Lower Sioux Indian Community

Nez Perce Tribe

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Three Affiliated Tribes: Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa

Two written comments were received from tribal agencies during the scoping 

period. Government-to-government consultation will continue throughout the 

LUPA/EIS process to ensure that the concerns of tribal groups are considered 

in development of each of the LUPAs.

1.7 METHOD OF COMMENT COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All written submissions received on or before March 23, 2012, were evaluated 

and are documented in this Scoping Summary Report. All comments received 

during the LUPA process will be considered in alternative formulation and 

project planning.

A total of 585 unique written submissions for the Great Basin Region and 272 

unique written submissions for the Rocky Mountain Region were received 

during the public scoping period. Submissions resulted in a total of 7,472 unique 

comments. These numbers include comments received by both regions,. The 

most common format used for submissions was electronic mail. Submissions 

were also hand-delivered to the BLM or Forest Service, mailed via US mail, 

faxed, or comment forms were completed at the public scoping meetings.

In addition to unique submissions, letter campaigns from non-profit 

organizations and individuals resulted in form letter submissions for a number of 

topics. Details of form letter submission are included in Appendix B, List of 

Commenters. Letters that represented slight variations of the form letter 

without significant additional information were treated as form letters. When 

significant unique comments were added to the form letter, these comments 

were entered into the comment-tracking database. In total, 30,397 form letters 

were received based on 14 different form letters. Out of the 14 different form 

letters, 10 were submitted by between 2 and 400 people. The remaining four
1. Introduction

1-32 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

letters were submitted by more substantial numbers of people; the letter

campaign by form letters is not included in the calculations of affiliation and 

geographic location percentages.

A list of commenters who submitted comments on or before March 23, 2012,

and the dates of submittal are provided in Appendix B, List of Commenters. 

The comment forms provided instructions for requesting confidentiality and for 

withholding individual names or addresses from public review or from 

disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Four comments were

submitted anonymously.

To ensure that public comments were properly registered and that none were 

overlooked, a multi-phase management and tracking system was used. First, 

written submissions were given a unique identifier and logged. Each submission 

was then reviewed and individual comments extracted. Each substantive 

comment was reviewed to determine if it pertained to an issue which will be 

resolved though the current planning effort and assigned to one of four planning 

classifications as follows: 

1. General comments related to the RMPA;

2. Issues that will be addressed through BLM policy or administrative 

action (National and BLM policy);

3. Issues that are beyond the scope of this RMPA that will be 

considered but not addressed; and.

4. Planning Issues related to the project.

All comments within category four above were further classified by planning 

issue category as described in detail in Chapter 2, Comment Summary. 

Comments were next entered into the Public Input and Comment Tracking 

database for analysis. 
May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-1

Scoping Summary Report

CHAPTER 2

COMMENT SUMMARY

2.1 RANGE-WIDE PLANNING AREA

Comment analysis for the range-wide planning area, below, includes all 

comments received, including comments specific to each region and subregion, 

comments related to all regions, and comments that did not specify a region or 

sub-region of interest. It should be noted that the majority of comments 

received did not specify a particular subregion.

Commenters by Affiliation

All submissions received were categorized by affiliation of the commenter. 

Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1, Range-Wide Planning Area Commenters by 

Commenter Affiliation, show the number and proportion of commenters by 

affiliation. Letters on business, agency, or organization letterhead or letters 

where the commenter signed using an official agency title were considered to 

represent that organization or agency. All other letters were considered to 

represent individuals. Members of the general public comprised 52 percent of 

the commenters, representatives from the commercial sector accounted for 13

percent, and non-profit or citizen groups represented 21 percent. Federal 

government agencies represented 2 percent of commenters, state government 

agencies 2 percent, and local government agencies 9 percent. Note that these 

calculations do not include submissions of form letters. In addition, some 

commenters made multiple submissions, and some letters had more than one 

signatory, therefore the total for commenters by affiliation is not equal to the 

total letter submissions.
2. Content Summary

2-2 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-1

Range-Wide Planning Area

Commenters by Affiliation1

Affiliation Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of Total 

Commenters

Government 86 13%

Federal 11 2%

State 18 3%

Local 57 9%

Elected Officials 5 1%

Educational 

Institutions 0 0%

Commercial 

Sector/Businesses 81 12%

Organizations/

Non-profits 135 21%

Individuals 338 52%

Tribal Government 2 <1%

Total 647 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-3

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-1

Range-Wide Planning Area

Commenters by Commenter Affiliation

Commenters by Geographical Area

Table 2-2 and Figure 2-2, Range-Wide Planning Area Commenters by 

Geographic Area, show the number and proportion of commenters by their 

geographic location. A total of 47 percent were from within the Great Basin 

planning area, and 18 percent were from within the Rocky Mountain Planning 

Area. The remaining commenters were either outside the planning area (five

percent) or did not indicate a geographic origin (30 percent). Note that these 

calculations do not include submissions of form letters. In addition, some 

commenters made multiple submissions, and some letters had more than one 

signatory, therefore the total for commenters by geographic area is not equal to

the total letter submissions.

Federal 

Government

2%

State 

Government

3%

Local 

Government

9%

Elected Officials

1%

Businesses/

Commerical 

Sector

12%

Organizations/

Non-Profits

21%

Individuals

52%

Tribal 

Government

<1%
2. Content Summary

2-4 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-2

Range-Wide Planning Area

Commenters by Geographic Area1

Location Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of 

Total 

Commenters

Within Great Basin Region 498 47%

Within Rocky Mountain Region 191 18%

Outside of the Planning Area 55 5%

Unknown 324 30%

Total 1,068 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.

some commenters submitted comments to both the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin Regions.

Figure 2-2

Range-Wide Planning Area

Commenters by Geographic Area1

Within Great 

Basin Planning 

Area

47%

Within Rocky 

Mountain Planning 

Area

18%

Outside of Project 

Area

5%

Unknown

30%
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-5

Scoping Summary Report

Number of Comments by Agency

Table 2-3, Range-Wide Planning Area Agency-Specific Comments, shows the 

number of comments received by the agency to which they were addressed. Of 

the 7,472 comments received, 1,003 (13 percent) were addressed to the BLM,

and 101 (one percent) were addressed to the Forest Service. The remaining

6,368 (85 percent) did not specify an agency or were addressed to both 

agencies.

Table 2-3

Range-Wide Planning Area

Agency-Specific Comments

Agency Total Percent of 

Total

BLM 1,003 13%

Forest Service 101 1%

Both Agencies 6,368 86%

Total Comments 7,472 100%

Number of Comments by Process Category

Table 2-4, Range-Wide Planning Area Comments by Issue or Other Category, 

shows the number of comments on issues raised that will or will not be 

addressed in the EISs. Of the 7,472 comments received, 5,129 (71 percent of 

comments on issues that will be addressed) were related to a planning issue 

that will be addressed in the EISs. It should be noted that some comments 

addressed multiple planning issues. These comments are discussed in detail 

below and in Chapter 3, Issue Summary. In addition, 2,122 comments (29 

percent of comments on issues that will be addressed) were related to issues 

that will be addressed in the EISs but do not fall within a specific planning issue 

category. These comments included general comments on the EIS planning 

process, alternatives development, collaboration, and requirements of NEPA 

and other regulations. The remaining comments were and issues that will be 

resolved through national policy or administrative action (107 comments, 50 

percent of comments on issues that will not be addressed), and issues beyond 

the scope of the EISs (109 comments, 50 percent of comments on issues that 

will not be addressed). See Section 3.5, Issues That Will Not Be Addressed in 

the EISs, for more detail.
2. Content Summary

2-6 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-4

Range-Wide Planning Area

Comments by Issue or Other Category

Issue or Other Category Total Percent of 

Total

Issues that will be addressed in the EISs

Planning issues to be addressed in the EISs 5,129 71%

General project planning issues 2,122 29%

Total Comments Addressed 7,251 100%

Issues that will not be addressed in the EISs

BLM administrative or policy issue 107 50%

Issues outside the scope of the EISs 109 50%

Total Comments not Addressed 216 100%

Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category

Table 2-5 and Figure 2-3, Range-Wide Planning Area Number of Individual 

Comments per Planning Issue Category, show the number and proportion of 

comments received by planning issue category. The BLM received 5,129

planning issue comments and categorized them into 13 planning issue 

categories. Chapter 3, Issue Summary, provides a detailed analysis of the 

comments received for each planning issue category. 

Comments are provided in Appendix C, Comments by Resource Planning 

Issue. Comment letters can be viewed in their entirety at 

https://connect.doi.gov/uniquesig9a79b9d61a63982645fad83233d9ce7a/uniquesig

0/InternalSite/Login.asp?resource_id=A59F1E5B16ED4320A717A2AD0F62F245

&login_type=2&site_name=sharepoint&secure=1&orig_url=https%3a%2f%2fcon

nect.doi.gov%2f.
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-7

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-5

Range-Wide Planning Area

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

Planning Issue Category

Number of 

Individual 

Comments

Percent 

of Total 

Greater sage–grouse and sage-grouse habitat 970 19%

Energy and mineral development 900 18%

Livestock grazing 866 17%

Vegetation management 493 10%

Fish and wildlife 396 8%

Lands and realty 287 6%

Social, and economic, and environmental justice 

considerations 287 6%

Recreation and travel management 265 5%

Wildland fire management 233 5%

Special management areas 229 4%

Water and soils 85 2%

Drought management and climate change 73 1%

Wild horse and burros 53 1%

Total 5,137 100%
2. Content Summary

2-8 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-3

Range-Wide Planning Area

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

2.2 GREAT BASIN REGION

Details are provided below for submissions and comments specific to the Great 

Basin region and all Great Basin sub-regions. All comments below are also 

included in totals for the range-wide planning area, above. It should be noted 

that some letters were submitted to both the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain 

regions; therefore, the total for each region and sub-region may not accurately 

represent the range-wide total.

Commenters by Affiliation

Table 2-6 and Figure 2-4, Great Basin Planning Area Commenters by 

Affiliation, show the number and proportion of commenters from each type of 

affiliation for submissions within the Great Basin region. Members of the general 

public provided 35 percent of the comments received during the scoping 

period, representatives from the commercial sector accounted for 14 percent, 

and non-profit or citizen groups represented 26 percent. Federal government 

agencies represented two percent of commenters, state government agencies 

five percent, and local government agencies 16 percent.

970

900

866

493

396

287

287

265

233

229

85

73

53

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse...

 Energy and Mineral Development

Livestock Grazing

Vegetation Management

Fish and Wildlife

Lands and Realty

Social and Economic Concerns

Recreation and Travel Management

Wildland Fire Management

Special Management Areas

Water and Soil

Climate Change

Wild Horse and Burros

Number of Comments Received
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-9

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-6

Great Basin Planning Area

Commenters by Affiliation1

Affiliation

Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of 

Total 

Commenters

Government 45 23%

Federal 4 2%

State 10 5%

Local 31 16%

Elected Officials 1 1%

Educational Institutions 0 0%

Commercial Sector/Businesses 27 14%

Organizations/Non-profits 49 26%

Individuals 66 35%

Tribal Government 1 1%

Total 189 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.
2. Content Summary

2-10 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-4

Great Basin Region

Commenters by Affiliation1

Commenters by Geographical Area

Table 2-7 and Figure 2-5, Great Basin Planning Area Commenters by 

Geographic Area, show the number and proportion of commenters who 

submitted comments specific to the Great Basin region by their geographic 

location. A total of 11 percent were from the Utah subregion, 22 percent from

the Idaho/Southwestern Montana subregion, 29 percent from the 

California/Nevada subregion, and 7 percent from the Oregon subregion. The 

remaining commenters who submitted comments specific to the Great Basin 

Region reside outside the planning area (4 percent) or did not indicate their 

location (26 percent). 

Federal 

Government

2%

State 

Government

5%

Local 

Government

16%

Elected Officials

1%

Businesses/

Commerical 

Sector

14%

Organizations/

Non-Profits

26%

Individuals

35%

Tribal 

Government

1%
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-11

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-7

Great Basin Planning Area

Commenters by Geographic Area1

Location Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of 

Total 

Commenters

Utah Subregion 24 11%

Idaho/Southwestern Montana 

Subregion

48 22%

California/Nevada Subregion 63 29%

Oregon Subregion 16 7%

Outside Great Basin planning area 8 4%

Unknown 55 26%

Total 214 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.

Figure 2-5

Great Basin Planning Area

Commenters by Geographic Area1

Utah Subregion

11%

Idaho/Montana 

Subregion

22%

California/Nevada 

Subregion

29%

Oregon Subregion

8%

Outside of GB 

Planning Area

4%

Unknown

26%
2. Content Summary

2-12 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Number of Comments by Agency

Table 2-8, Great Basin Planning Area Agency-Specific Comments, shows the 

number of comments received by the agency to which they were addressed. Of 

the 1,023 comments specific to the Great Basin Region, 48 (five percent) were 

addressed to the BLM, and six (one percent) were addressed to the Forest 

Service. The remaining 969 (95 percent) did not specify an agency or were 

addressed to both agencies.

Table 2-8

Great Basin Planning Area

Agency-Specific Comments

Agency Total Percent of 

Total

BLM 48 4.5%

Forest Service 6 .5%

Both Agencies 969 95%

Total Comments 1,023 100%

Number of Comments by Process Category

Table 2-9, Great Basin Planning Area Comments by Issue or Other Category, 

shows the number of issues raised that will or will not be addressed in the EISs.

Of the 1,023 comments specific to the Great Basin Region, 733 (74 percent of 

comments on issues that will be addressed) were related to a planning issue 

that will be addressed in the EISs. It should be noted that some comments 

addressed multiple planning issues. These comments are discussed in detail 

below and in Chapter 3, Issue Summary. In addition, 256 comments (26

percent of comments on issues that will be addressed) were related to issues 

that will be addressed in the EISs but do not fall within a specific planning issue 

category. These comments included general comments on the EIS planning 

process, alternatives development, collaboration, and requirements of NEPA 

and other regulations. The remaining comments were related to issues beyond 

the scope of the EISs (59 percent of comments on issues that will not be 

addressed) and issues that to be resolved through national policy or 

administrative action (41 percent of issues that will not be addressed). See 

Section 3.5, Issues That Will Not Be Addressed in the EISs, for more detail.
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-13

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-9

Great Basin Planning Area

Comments by Issue or Other Category

Issue or Other Category Total Percent of 

Total

Issues that will be addressed in the EISs

Planning issues to be addressed in the EISs 733 74%

General project planning issues 256 26%

Total Comments Addressed 989 100%

Issues that will not be addressed in the EISs

BLM administrative or policy issue 14 41%

Issues outside the scope of the EISs 20 59%

Total Comments not Addressed 34 100%

Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category

Table 2-10 and Figure 2-6, Great Basin Planning Area Number of Individual 

Comments per Planning Issue Category, show the number and proportion of 

comments received specific to the Great Basin Region by planning issue 

category. The BLM and Forest Service received 989 planning issue comments 

and categorized them into 13 planning issue categories. Chapter 3, Issue 

Summary, provides a detailed analysis of the comments received for each 

planning issue category. 

Comments are provided in Appendix C, Comments by Resource Planning 

Issue. Comment letters can be viewed in their entirety at 

https://connect.doi.gov/uniquesig9a79b9d61a63982645fad83233d9ce7a/uniquesig

0/InternalSite/Login.asp?resource_id=A59F1E5B16ED4320A717A2AD0F62F245

&login_type=2&site_name=sharepoint&secure=1&orig_url=https%3a%2f%2fcon

nect.doi.gov%2f.
2. Content Summary

2-14 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-10

Great Basin Planning Area

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

Planning Issue Category

Number of 

Individual 

Comments

Percent 

of Total 

Greater sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat 144 20%

Livestock grazing 125 17%

Energy and mineral development 100 14%

Vegetation management 79 11%

Social, economic, and environmental justice 

considerations 61 8%

Lands and realty 49 7%

Fish and wildlife 44 6%

Recreation and travel management 39 5%

Special management areas 38 5%

Wildland fire management 29 4%

Water, soil, and riparian areas 11 2%

Drought management and climate change 7 1%

Wild horse and burros 7 1%

Total 733 100%
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-15

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-6

Great Basin Planning Area

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

2.2.1 Utah Subregion

Details are provided below for submissions and comments specific to the Utah

subregion. All comments below are also included in totals for the range-wide

planning area and Great Basin Region, above.

Commenters by Affiliation

Table 2-11 and Figure 2-7, Utah Subregion Commenters by Affiliation, shows

the number and proportion of commenters from each type of affiliation for 

submissions specific to the Utah subregion. Members of the general public 

represented 48 percent of the comments during the scoping period, 

representatives from the commercial sector accounted for six percent, and 

non-profit or citizen groups represented 19 percent. Federal government 

agencies submitted no comments, state government agencies represented one

percent of commenters, and local government agencies 45 percent.

144

125

100

79

61

49

44

39

38

29

11

7

7

0 50 100 150 200

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat...

Livestock Grazing

 Energy and Mineral Development

Vegetation Management

Social and Economic Concerns

Lands and Realty

Fish and Wildlife

Recreation and Travel Management

Special Management Areas

Wildland Fire Management

Water and Soil

 Climate Change

Wild Horse and Burros

Number of Comments Received
2. Content Summary

2-16 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-11

Utah Subregion

Commenter Affiliation1

Affiliation

Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of

Total 

Commenters

Government 15 48%

Federal 0 0%

State 1 3%

Local 14 45%

Elected Officials 0 0%

Educational Institutions 0 0%

Commercial Sector/Businesses 2 6%

Organizations/Non-profits 6 19%

Individuals 8 26%

Tribal Government 0 0%

Total 31 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-17

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-7

Utah Subregion

Commenters by Affiliation

Number of Comments by Agency

Table 2-12, Utah Subregion Agency-Specific Comments, shows the number of 

comments received by the agency to which they were addressed. Of the 152

comments addressed specifically to Utah, four (three percent) were addressed

to the BLM, and none were addressed to the Forest Service. The remaining 148

(97 percent) did not specify an agency or were addressed to both agencies.

Table 2-12

Utah Subregion

Agency-Specific Comments

Agency Total Percent of Total

BLM 4 3%

Forest Service 0 0%

Both Agencies 148 97%

Total Comments 152 100%

State 

Government

3%

Local 

Government

45%

Businesses/

Commerical 

Sector

7%

Organizations/

Non-Profits

19%

Individuals

26%
2. Content Summary

2-18 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Number of Comments by Process Category

Table 2-13, Utah Subregion Comments by Issue or Other Category, shows 

the number of issues raised that will or will not be addressed in the EISs. Of the 

150 comments received, 94 (63 percent of comments on issues that will be 

addressed) were related to a planning issue that will be addressed in the EISs. 

These comments are discussed in detail below and in Chapter 3, Issue 

Summary. It should be noted that some comments addressed multiple planning 

issues. In addition, 56 comments (37 percent of comments on issues that will be 

addressed) were related to issues that will be addressed in the EISs but do not 

fall within a specific planning issue category. These comments included general 

comments on the EIS planning process, alternatives development, collaboration, 

and requirements of NEPA and other regulations. The remaining two 

comments covered issues that will be resolved through national policy or 

administrative action or issues outside of the scope of the EIS. See Section 3.5,

Issues That Will Not Be Addressed in the EISs, for more detail.

Table 2-13

Utah Subregion

Comments by Issue or Other Category

Issue or Other Category Total Percent of 

Total

Issues that will be addressed in the EISs

Planning issues to be addressed in the EISs 94 63%

General project planning issues 56 37%

Total Comments Addressed 150 100%

Issues that will not be addressed in the EISs

BLM administrative or policy issue 1 50%

Issues outside the scope of the EISs 1 50%

Total Comments not Addressed 2 100%

Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category

Table 2-14 and Figure 2-8, Utah Subregion Number of Individual Comments 

per Planning Issue Category, show the number and proportion of comments 

received specific to the Utah subregion by planning issue category. The BLM and 

Forest Service received 56 planning issue comments and categorized them into 

13 planning issue categories. Chapter 3, Issue Summary, provides a detailed 

analysis of the comments received for each planning issue category. 

Comments are provided in Appendix C, Comments by Resource Planning 

Issue. Comment letters can be viewed in their entirety at 

https://connect.doi.gov/uniquesig9a79b9d61a63982645fad83233d9ce7a/uniquesig

0/InternalSite/Login.asp?resource_id=A59F1E5B16ED4320A717A2AD0F62F245

&login_type=2&site_name=sharepoint&secure=1&orig_url=https%3a%2f%2fcon

nect.doi.gov%2f.
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-19

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-14

Utah Subregion

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

Planning Issue Category

Number of 

Individual 

Comments

Percent 

of Total 

Livestock Grazing 20 21%

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management

17 18%

Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice 

Concerns

14 15%

Fish and Wildlife 12 13%

Energy and Mineral Development 8 9%

Vegetation Management 7 7%

Recreation and Travel Management 7 7%

Lands and Realty 5 5%

Wildland Fire Management 2 2%

Drought Management and Climate Change 1 1%

Special Management Areas 1 1%

Water and Soil 0 0%

Wild Horse and Burros 0 0%

Total 94 100%
2. Content Summary

2-20 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-8

Utah Subregion

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

2.2.2 Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion

Details are provided below for submissions and comments addressed 

specifically to the Idaho/Southwestern Montana subregion. All comments below 

are also included in totals for the range-wide planning area and the Great Basin 

Region, above.

Commenters by Affiliation

Table 2-15 and Figure 2-9, Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion 

Commenter Affiliation, show the number and proportion of commenters from 

each type of affiliation for submissions addressed specifically to the 

Idaho/Southwestern Montana subregion. Members of the general public 

represented 48 percent of the commenters for Idaho/Montana during the 

scoping period, representatives from the commercial sector accounted for five

percent, and non-profit or citizen groups represented 35 percent. Federal 

government agencies represented five percent of commenters, state 

government agencies three percent, and local government agencies eight

percent.

20

17

14

12

8

7

7

5

2

1

1

0

0

0 10 20 30

Livestock Grazing

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat...

Social and Economic Concerns

Fish and Wildlife

 Energy and Mineral Development

Vegetation Management

Recreation and Travel Management

Lands and Realty

Wildland Fire Management

Climate Change

Special Management Areas

Water and Soil

Wild Horse and Burros

Number of Comments Received
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-21

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-15

Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion

Commenter Affiliation1

Affiliation

Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of 

Total 

Commenters

Government 6 15%

Federal 2 5%

State 1 3%

Local 3 8%

Elected Officials 0 0%

Educational Institutions 0 0%

Commercial Sector/Businesses 2 5%

Organizations/Non-profits 14 35%

Individuals 18 45%

Tribal Government 0 0%

Total 40 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.
2. Content Summary

2-22 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-9

Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion

Commenter Affiliation

Number of Comments by Agency

Table 2-16, Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion Agency-Specific 

Comments, shows the number of comments received by the agency to which 

they were addressed. Of the 159 comments received, 28 (18 percent) were 

addressed to the BLM, and one was addressed to the Forest Service. The 

remaining 130 (82 percent) did not specify an agency or were addressed to 

both agencies. 

Federal 

Government

5%

State 

Government

2%

Local 

Government

8%

Businesses/

Commerical 

Sector

5%

Organizations/

Non-Profits

35%

Individuals

45%
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-23

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-16

Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion

Agency-Specific Comments

Agency Total Percent of 

Total

BLM 28 18%

Forest Service 1 0%

Both Agencies 130 82%

Total Comments 159 100%

Number of Comments by Process Category

Table 2-17, Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion Comments by Issue or 

Other Category, shows the number of issues raised that will or will not be 

addressed in the EISs. Of the 152 comments received that will be addressed in 

the planning process, 105 (69 percent) were related to a planning issue that will 

be addressed in the EISs. These comments are discussed in detail in Chapter 3, 

Issue Summary. It should be noted that some comments addressed multiple 

planning issues. In addition, 47 comments (31 percent) were related to issues 

that will be addressed in the EISs but do not fall within a specific planning issue 

category. These comments included general comments on the EIS planning 

process, alternatives development, collaboration, and requirements of NEPA 

and other regulations. In addition, seven total comments specific to the 

Idaho/Southwestern Montana subregion were received that would not be 

addressed in the EISs. See Section 3.5, Issues That Will Not Be Addressed in 

the EISs, for more detail.

Table 2-17

Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion

Comments by Issue or Other Category

Issue or Other Category Total Percent of 

Total

Issues that will be addressed in the EISs

Planning issues to be addressed in the EISs 105 69%

General project planning issues 47 31%

Total Comments Addressed 152 100%

Issues that will not be addressed in the EISs

BLM administrative or policy issue 2 29%

Issues outside the scope of the EISs 5 71%

Total Comments not Addressed 7 100%

Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category

Table 2-18 and Figure 2-10, Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category, show the number 

and proportion of comments received specific to the Idaho/Southwestern
2. Content Summary

2-24 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Montana subregion by planning issue category. The BLM and Forest Service 

received 47 planning issue comments and categorized them into 13 planning

issue categories. Chapter 3, Issue Summary, provides a detailed analysis of the 

comments received for each planning issue category.

Comments are provided in Appendix C, Comments by Resource Planning 

Issue. Comment letters can be viewed in their entirety at 

https://connect.doi.gov/uniquesig9a79b9d61a63982645fad83233d9ce7a/uniquesig

0/InternalSite/Login.asp?resource_id=A59F1E5B16ED4320A717A2AD0F62F245

&login_type=2&site_name=sharepoint&secure=1&orig_url=https%3a%2f%2fcon

nect.doi.gov%2f.

Table 2-18

Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

Planning Issue Category

Number of 

Individual 

Comments

Percent 

of Total 

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management

37 35%

Livestock Grazing 17 16%

Recreation and Travel Management 14 13%

Vegetation Management 8 8%

Energy and Mineral Development 7 7%

Wildland Fire Management 7 7%

Lands and Realty 6 6%

Water and Soil 4 4%

Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice 

Concerns

3 3%

Drought Management and Climate Change 1 1%

Fish and Wildlife 1 1%

Special Management Areas 0 0%

Wild Horse and Burros 0 0%

Total 105 100%
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-25

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-10

Idaho/Southwestern Montana Subregion

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

2.2.3 California/Nevada Subregion

Details are provided below for submissions and comments specific to the 

California/Nevada subregion. All comments below are also included in totals for 

the range-wide planning area and Great Basin Region above.

Commenters by Affiliation

Table 2-19 and Figure 2-11, California/Nevada Subregion Commenter 

Affiliation, show the number and proportion of commenters by affiliation for 

submissions specific to the California/Nevada subregion. Members of the 

general public represented 31 percent of the commenters who submitted

comments specific to the California/Nevada subregion, representatives from the 

commercial sector represented 30 percent, and non-profit or citizen groups 

accounted for 16 percent. Federal government agencies represented one 

percent of comments, state government agencies seven percent, and local 

government agencies 11 percent.

37

17

14

8

7

7

6

4

3

1

1

0

0

0 10 20 30 40

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat...

Livestock Grazing

Recreation and Travel Management

Vegetation Management

 Energy and Mineral Development

Wildland Fire Management

Lands and Realty

Water, Soil and Riparian Areas

Social and Economic Concerns

Climate Change

Fish and Wildlife

Special Management Areas

Wild Horse and Burros

Number of Comments Received
2. Content Summary

2-26 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-19

California/Nevada Subregion

Commenter Affiliation1

Affiliation Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of 

Commenters

Government 14 20%

Federal 1 1%

State 5 7%

Local 8 11%

Elected Officials 1 1%

Educational Institutions 0 0%

Commercial Sector/Businesses 21 30%

Organizations/Non-profits 11 16%

Individuals 22 31%

Tribal Government 1 1%

Total 70 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-27

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-11

California/Nevada Subregion

Commenter Affiliation

Number of Comments by Agency

Table 2-20, California/Nevada Subregion Agency-Specific Comments, shows 

the number of comments received by the agency to which they were addressed.

Of the 429 comments received specific to the California/Nevada subregion, 15

(three percent) were addressed to the BLM, and four (one percent) were 

addressed to the Forest Service. The remaining 410 (96 percent) did not 

specify an agency or were addressed to both agencies. 

Table 2-20

California/Nevada Subregion

Agency-Specific Comments

Agency Total Percent of Total

BLM 15 3%

Forest Service 4 1%

Both Agencies 410 96%

Total Comments 429 100%

Federal 

Government

2%

State 

Government

7%

Local 

Government

12%

Elected Officials

1%

Businesses/

Commerical 

Sector

30%

Organizations/

Non-Profits

16%

Individuals

31%

Tribal 

Government

1%
2. Content Summary

2-28 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Number of Comments by Process Category

Table 2-21, California/Nevada Subregion Comments by Issue or Other 

Category, shows the number of issues raised that will or will not be addressed 

in the EISs. Of the 428 comments received specific to California/Nevada, 323

(79 percent of comments on issues that will be addressed) were related to a 

planning issue that will be addressed in the EISs. These comments are discussed 

in detail below and in Chapter 3, Issue Summary. It should be noted that some 

comments addressed multiple planning issues. In addition, 87 comments (21

percent of comments on issues that will be addressed) were related to issues 

that will be addressed in the EISs but do not fall within a specific planning issue 

category. These comments included general comments on the EIS planning 

process, alternatives development, collaboration, and requirements of NEPA 

and other regulations. The remaining 18 of the comments were related to

issues beyond the scope of the EISs, 10 comments (44 percent of comments on 

issues that will not be addressed), and issues that will be resolved through 

national policy or administrative, action eight comments (56 percent of 

comments on issues that will not be addressed). See Section 3.5, Issues That 

Will Not Be Addressed in the EISs, for more detail.

Table 2-21

California/Nevada Subregion

Comments by Issue or Other Category

Issue or Other Category Total Percent of Total

Issues that will be addressed in the EISs

Planning issues to be addressed in the EISs 87 21%

General project planning issues 323 79%

Total Comments Addressed 410 100%

Issues that will not be addressed in the EISs

BLM administrative or policy issue 8 44%

Issues outside the scope of the EISs 10 56%

Total Comments not Addressed 18 100%

Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category

Table 2-22 and Figure 2-12, California/Nevada Subregion Number of 

Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category, show the number and 

proportion of comments received specific to the California/Nevada subregion 

by planning issue category. The BLM and Forest Service received 323 planning 

issue comments and categorized them into 13 planning issue categories. 

Chapter 3, Issue Summary, provides a detailed analysis of the comments 

received for each planning issue category.

Comments are provided in Appendix C, Comments by Resource Planning 

Issue. Comment letters can be viewed in their entirety at 

https://connect.doi.gov/uniquesig9a79b9d61a63982645fad83233d9ce7a/uniquesig

0/InternalSite/Login.asp?resource_id=A59F1E5B16ED4320A717A2AD0F62F245
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-29

Scoping Summary Report

&login_type=2&site_name=sharepoint&secure=1&orig_url=https%3a%2f%2fcon

nect.doi.gov%2f.

Table 2-22

California/Nevada Subregion

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

Planning Issue Category

Number of 

Individual 

Comments

Percent 

of Total 

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management

60 19%

Energy and Mineral Development 58 18%

Livestock Grazing 53 16%

Vegetation Management 33 10%

Special Management Areas 30 9%

Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice 

Concerns

25 8%

Lands and Realty 17 5%

Fish and Wildlife 17 5%

Wildland Fire Management 14 4%

Recreation and Travel Management 6 2%

Wild Horse and Burros 5 2%

Water, Soil and Riparian Areas 4 1%

Drought Management and Climate Change 1 0%

Total 323 100%
2. Content Summary

2-30 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-12

California/Nevada Subregion

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

2.2.4 Oregon Subregion

Details are provided below for submissions and comments specific to the 

Oregon subregion. All comments below are also included in totals for the 

range-wide planning area and Great Basin Region, above.

Written Submissions by Affiliation

Table 2-23 and Figure 2-13, Oregon Subregion Commenter Affiliation, show 

the number and proportion of commenters from each type of affiliation for 

submissions specific to the Oregon subregion. Members of the general public 

represented 34 percent of the commenters for the Oregon subregion, 

representatives from the commercial sector accounted for three percent, and 

non-profit or citizen groups represented three percent. Federal government 

agencies represented one percent of commenters, state government agencies 

three percent, and local government agencies 17 percent.

60

58

53

33

30

25

17

17

14

6

5

4

1

0 20 40 60 80

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat...

 Energy and Mineral Development

Livestock Grazing

Vegetation Management

Special Management Areas

Social and Economic Concerns

Lands and Realty

Fish and Wildlife

Wildland Fire Management

Recreation and Travel Management

Wild Horse and Burros

Water and Soil

Drought Management and Climate Change

Number of Comments Received
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-31

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-23

Oregon Subregion

Commenter Affiliation1

Affiliation Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of 

Commenters

Government 7 24%

Federal 1 3%

State 1 3%

Local 5 17%

Elected Officials 0 0%

Educational Institutions 0 0%

Commercial Sector/Businesses 1 3%

Organizations/Non-profits 11 38%

Individuals 10 35%

Tribal Government 0 0%

Total 29 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.
2. Content Summary

2-32 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-13

Oregon Subregion

Commenter Affiliation

Number of Comments by Agency

Table 2-24, Oregon Subregion Agency-Specific Comments, shows the number 

of comments received by the agency to which they were addressed. Of the 169

comments specific to the Oregon subregion, one (less than one percent) was 

addressed to the BLM, and none were addressed to the Forest Service. The 

remaining 168 percent did not specify an agency or were addressed to both 

agencies. As a matter of note, no Forest Service LUPs in the Oregon subregion 

are currently being evaluated for amendment in this LUPA/EIS process.

Table 2-24

Oregon Subregion

Agency-Specific Comments

Agency Total Percent of Total

BLM 1 <1%

Forest Service 0 0%

Both Agencies 168 99%

Total Comments 169 100%

Federal 

Government

4%

State 

Government

3%

Local 

Government

17%

Businesses/

Commerical 

Sector

3%

Organizations/

Non-Profits

38%

Individuals

35%
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-33

Scoping Summary Report

Number of Comments by Process Category

Table 2-25, Oregon Subregion Comments by Issue or Other Category, shows 

the number of issues raised that will or will not be addressed in the EISs. Of the 

169 comments specific to the Oregon subregion, 128 (78 percent of comments 

on issues that will be addressed) were related to a planning issue that will be 

addressed in the EISs. These comments are discussed in detail below and in 

Chapter 3, Issue Summary. It should be noted that some comments addressed 

multiple planning issues. In addition, 37 comments (22 percent of comments on 

issues that will be addressed) were related to issues that will be addressed in 

the EISs but do not fall within a specific planning issue category. These 

comments included general comments on the EIS planning process, alternatives 

development, collaboration, and requirements of NEPA and other regulations. 

The remaining four comments were issues beyond the scope of the EISs (75 

percent of comments on issues that will not be addressed) and issues that will 

be resolved through national policy or administrative action (25 percent of 

comments on issues that will not be addressed). See Section 3.5, Issues That 

Will Not Be Addressed in the EISs, for more detail.
2. Content Summary

2-34 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-25

Oregon Subregion

Comments by Issue or Other Category

Issue or Other Category Total Percent of Total

Issues that will be addressed in the EISs

Planning issues to be addressed in the EISs 128 78%

General project planning issues 37 22%

Total Comments Addressed 165 100%

Issues that will not be addressed in the EISs

BLM administrative or policy issue 1 25%

Issues outside the scope of the EISs 3 75%

Total Comments not Addressed 4 100%

Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category

Table 2-26 and Figure 2-14, Oregon Subregion Number of Individual 

Comments per Planning Issue Category, show the number and proportion of 

comments received specific to the Oregon subregion by planning issue category. 

The BLM and Forest Service received 128 planning issue comments specific to 

the Oregon Subregion and categorized them into 13 planning issue categories. 

Chapter 3, Issue Summary, provides a detailed analysis of the comments 

received for each planning issue category. 

Comments are provided in Appendix C, Comments by Resource Planning 

Issue. Comment letters can be viewed in their entirety at 

https://connect.doi.gov/uniquesig9a79b9d61a63982645fad83233d9ce7a/uniquesig

0/InternalSite/Login.asp?resource_id=A59F1E5B16ED4320A717A2AD0F62F245

&login_type=2&site_name=sharepoint&secure=1&orig_url=https%3a%2f%2fcon

nect.doi.gov%2f.
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-35

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-26

Oregon Subregion

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

Planning Issue Category

Number of 

Individual 

Comments

Percent 

of Total 

Livestock Grazing 24 19%

Vegetation Management 21 16%

Energy and Mineral Development 16 13%

Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice 

Concerns

16 13%

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management

15 12%

Lands and Realty 14 11%

Fish and Wildlife 8 6%

Recreation and Travel Management 6 5%

Wildland Fire Management 3 2%

Drought Management and Climate Change 2 2%

Special Management Areas 2 2%

Water, Soil and Riparian Areas 1 1%

Wild Horse and Burros 0 0%

Total 128 100%
2. Content Summary

2-36 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-14

Oregon Subregion

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

2.3 ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION

Details are provided below for submissions and comments specific to the Rocky 

Mountain Region and all subregions. All comments below are also included in 

totals for the range-wide planning area above. It should be noted that some

letters were submitted to both the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain regions, 

therefore the total for each region and subregion may not accurately represent 

the range-wide total.

Commenter Affiliation

Table 2-27 and Figure 2-15, Rocky Mountain Planning Area Commenter 

Affiliation, show the number and proportion of commenters by affiliation for 

submissions within the Rocky Mountain Region. Members of the general public 

represented 32 percent of the commenters who submitted comments 

applicable to the Rocky Mountain Region, representatives from the commercial 

sector accounted for 32 percent, and non-profit or citizen groups represented

37 percent. State government agencies accounted for five percent of 

commenters, and local government agencies nine percent No representatives 

from Federal government submitted comments.

24

21

16

16

15

14

8

6

3

2

2

1

0

0 10 20 30

Livestock Grazing

Vegetation Management

 Energy and Mineral Development

Social and Economic Concerns

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat...

Lands and Realty

Fish and Wildlife

Recreation and Travel Management

Wildland Fire Management

 Climate Change

Special Management Areas

Water and Soil

Wild Horse and Burros

Number of Comments Received
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-37

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-27

Rocky Mountain Planning Area

Commenter Affiliation1

Affiliation

Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of 

Total 

Commenters

Government 16 14%

Federal 0 0%

State 6 5%

Local 10 9%

Elected Officials 1 1%

Educational Institutions 0 0%

Commercial Sector/Businesses 20 17%

Organizations/Non-profits 43 37%

Individuals 37 32%

Tribal Government 0 0%

Total 117 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.
2. Content Summary

2-38 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-15

Rocky Mountain Planning Area

Commenter Affiliation1

Commenters by Geographic Area

Table 2-28 and Figure 2-16, Rocky Mountain Planning Area Commenters by 

Geographic Area, show the number and proportion of commenters who 

submitted comments specific to the Rocky Mountain Region by their geographic 

location. A total of 29 percent were from Colorado, 22 percent from 

Wyoming, four percent from North and South Dakota, and 13 percent from 

Eastern Montana. The remaining commenters resided outside the planning area 

(11 percent) or did not indicate their location (21 percent).

State 

Government

5%

Local 

Government

8%

Elected Officials

1%

Businesses/

Commerical 

Sector

17%

Organizations/

Non-Profits

37%

Individuals

32%
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-39

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-28

Rocky Mountain Planning Area

Submissions by Geographic Area1

Location Number of 

Commenters

Percentage 

of Total 

Commenters

Colorado 36 51%

Wyoming 27 22%

North and South Dakota 5 4%

Eastern Montana 16 13%

Outside planning area 14 11%

Unknown 26 21%

Total 124 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.

Figure 2-16

Rocky Mountain Planning Area

Commenters by Geographic Area1

Eastern Montanta 

Subregion

13%

Colorado 

Subregion

29%

Wyoming 

Subregion

22%

North and South 

Dakota Subregion

4%

Outside of RM 

Planning Area

11%

Unknown

21%
2. Content Summary

2-40 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Number of Comments by Agency

Table 2-29, Rocky Mountain Planning Area Agency-Specific Comments, shows 

the number of comments received by the agency to which they were addressed.

Of the 1,196 comments received specific to the Rocky Mountain Region, 344

(29 percent) were addressed to the BLM, and 84 (seven percent) were 

addressed to the Forest Service. The remaining 64 percent did not specify an 

agency or were addressed to both agencies.

Table 2-29

Rocky Mountain Planning Area

Agency-Specific Comments

Agency Total Percent of 

Total

BLM 344 29%

Forest Service 84 7%

Both Agencies 768 64%

Total Comments 1,196 100%

Number of Comments by Process Category

Table 2-30, Rocky Mountain Planning Area Comments by Issue or Other 

Category, shows the number of issues raised that will or will not be addressed 

in the EISs. Of the 1,196 comments received specific to the Rocky Mountain 

Region, 801 (68 percent of comments on issues that will be addressed) were 

related to a planning issue that will be addressed in the EISs. It should be noted 

that some comments addressed multiple planning issues. These comments are 

discussed in detail below and in Chapter 3, Issue Summary. In addition, 371

comments (32 percent of comments on issues that will be addressed) were 

related to issues that will be addressed in the EISs but do not fall within a 

specific planning issue category. These comments included general comments 

on the EIS planning process, alternatives development, collaboration, and 

requirements of NEPA and other regulations. The remaining 24 comments 

were issues beyond the scope of the EISs (nine comments, 38 percent of 

comments on issues that will not be addressed) and issues that will be resolved 

through national policy or administrative action (15 comments, 63 percent of 

issues that will not be addressed). See Section 3.5, Issues That Will Not Be 

Addressed in the EISs, for more detail.
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-41

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-30

Rocky Mountain Planning Area

Comments by Issue or Other Category

Issue or Other Category Total Percent of Total

Issues that will be addressed in the EISs

Planning issues to be addressed in the EISs 801 68%

General project planning issues 371 32%

Total Comments Addressed 1,172 100%

Issues that will not be addressed in the EISs

BLM administrative or policy issue 9 38%

Issues outside the scope of the EISs 15 63%

Total Comments not Addressed 24 100%

Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category

Table 2-31 and Figure 2-17, Rocky Mountain Planning Area Number of 

Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category, show the number and 

proportion of comments received specific to the Rocky Mountain Region by 

planning issue category. The BLM received 801 planning issue comments 

relevant for the Rocky Mountain Region and categorized them into 13 planning 

issue categories. Chapter 3, Issue Summary, provides a detailed analysis of the 

comments received for each planning issue category. 

Comments are provided in Appendix C, Comments by Resource Planning 

Issue. Comment letters can be viewed in their entirety at 

https://connect.doi.gov/uniquesig9a79b9d61a63982645fad83233d9ce7a/uniquesig

0/InternalSite/Login.asp?resource_id=A59F1E5B16ED4320A717A2AD0F62F245

&login_type=2&site_name=sharepoint&secure=1&orig_url=https%3a%2f%2fcon

nect.doi.gov%2f.
2. Content Summary

2-42 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-31

Rocky Mountain Planning Area

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

Planning Issue Category

Number of 

Individual 

Comments

Percent 

of Total 

Energy and Mineral Development 218 27%

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management

177 22%

Livestock Grazing 94 12%

Special Management Areas 69 9%

Fish and Wildlife 64 8%

Vegetation Management 38 5%

Lands and Realty 36 4%

Social and Economic Concerns 33 4%

Recreation and Travel Management 26 3%

Wildland Fire Management 22 3%

Water and Soil 16 2%

Drought Management and Climate Change 6 1%

Wild Horse and Burros 2 0%

Total 801 100%
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-43

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-17

Rocky Mountain Planning Area

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

2.3.1 Colorado

Details are provided below for submissions and comments specific to Colorado. 

All comments below are also included in totals for the range-wide planning area 

and Rocky Mountain Region above.

Written Submissions by Affiliation

Table 2-32 and Figure 2-18, Colorado Commenter Affiliation, show the 

number and proportion of commenters by affiliation for submissions specific to 

Colorado. Members of the general public represented 48 percent of the 

commenters on the Colorado subregion, representatives from the commercial 

sector accounted for 13 percent, and non-profit or citizen groups represented

22 percent. Federal government agencies submitted no comments, state 

government agencies represented three percent of commenters, and local 

government agencies 11 percent.

218

177

94

69

64

38

36

33

26

22

16

6

2

0 100 200 300

 Energy and Mineral Development

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse...

Livestock Grazing

Special Management Areas

Fish and Wildlife

Vegetation Management

Lands and Realty

Social and Economic Concerns

Recreation and Travel Management

Wildland Fire Management

Water and Soil

Climate Change

Wild Horse and Burros

Number of Comments Received
2. Content Summary

2-44 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-32

Colorado

Commenter Affiliation1

Affiliation Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of Total 

Commenters

Government 131 16%

Federal 15 2%

State 28 3%

Local 88 11%

Elected Officials 6 1%

Educational Institutions 0 0%

Commercial Sector/Businesses 108 13%

Organizations/Non-profits 184 22%

Individuals 404 48%

Tribal Government 3 <1%

Total 836 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-45

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-18

Colorado

Commenter Affiliation

Number of Comments by Agency

Table 2-33, Colorado Agency-Specific Comments, shows the number of 

comments received by the agency to which they were addressed. Of the 527

comments received specific to Colorado, 286 (54 percent) were addressed to 

the BLM, and 37 (seven percent) were addressed to the Forest Service. The 

remaining 204 (39 percent) percent did not specify an agency or were 

addressed to both agencies.

Table 2-33

Colorado 

Agency-Specific Comments

Agency Total Percent of Total

BLM 286 54%

Forest Service 37 7%

Both Agencies 204 39%

Total Comments 527 100%

Federal 

Government

2% State 

Government

3% Local 

Government

11%

Elected Officials

1%

Businesses/

Commerical 

Sector

13%

Organizations/

Non-Profits

22%

Individuals

48%

Tribal 

Government

<1%
2. Content Summary

2-46 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Number of Comments by Process Category

Table 2-34, Colorado Comments by Issue or Other Category, shows the 

number of issues raised that will or will not be addressed in the EISs. Of the 

527 comments received specific to Colorado, 340 (66 percent of comments on 

issues that will be addressed) were related to a planning issue that will be 

addressed in the EISs. These comments are discussed in detail below and in 

Chapter 3, Issue Summary. It should be noted that some comments addressed 

multiple planning issues. In addition, 176 comments (34 percent of comments 

on issues that will be addressed) were related to issues that will be addressed in 

the EISs but do not fall within a specific planning issue category. These 

comments included general comments on the EIS planning process, alternatives 

development, collaboration, and requirements of NEPA and other regulations. 

The remaining 11 comments covered issues beyond the scope of the EISs (six

comments, 55 percent of comments on issues that will not be addressed) and 

issues that will be resolved through national policy or administrative action (five

comments, 45 percent of comments on issues that will not be addressed). See 

Section 3.5, Issues That Will Not Be Addressed in the EISs, for more detail.

Table 2-34

Colorado 

Comments by Issue or Other Category

Issue or Other Category Total Percent of Total

Issues that will be addressed in the EISs

Planning issues to be addressed in the EISs 340 66%

General project planning issues 176 34%

Total Comments Addressed 516 100%

Issues that will not be addressed in the EISs

BLM administrative or policy issue 5 45%

Issues outside the scope of the EISs 6 55%

Total Comments not Addressed 11 100%

Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category

Table 2-35 and Figure 2-19, Colorado Number of Individual Comments per 

Planning Issue Category, show the number and proportion of comments received 

specific to Colorado by planning issue category. The BLM and Forest Service 

received 340 planning issue comments specific to Colorado and categorized them 

into 13 planning issue categories. Chapter 3, Issue Summary, provides a detailed 

analysis of the comments received for each planning issue category. 

Comments are provided in Appendix C, Comments by Resource Planning 

Issue. Comment letters can be viewed in their entirety at 

https://connect.doi.gov/uniquesig9a79b9d61a63982645fad83233d9ce7a/uniquesig

0/InternalSite/Login.asp?resource_id=A59F1E5B16ED4320A717A2AD0F62F245

&login_type=2&site_name=sharepoint&secure=1&orig_url=https%3a%2f%2fcon

nect.doi.gov%2f.
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-47

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-35

Colorado 

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

Planning Issue Category

Number of 

Individual 

Comments

Percent 

of Total 

Energy and Mineral Development 109 32%

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management

80 24%

Special Management Areas 37 11%

Livestock Grazing 26 8%

Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice 

Concerns

25 7%

Lands and Realty 17 5%

Fish and Wildlife 14 4%

Recreation and Travel Management 12 4%

Wildland Fire Management 9 3%

Vegetation Management 9 3%

Drought Management and Climate Change 1 0%

Wild Horse and Burros 1 0%

Water and Soil 0 0%

Total 340 100%
2. Content Summary

2-48 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-19

Colorado

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

2.3.2 Wyoming

Details are provided below for submissions and comments specific to Wyoming. 

All comments below are also included in totals for the range-wide planning area 

and Rocky Mountain Region above.

Commenters by Affiliation

Table 2-36 and Figure 2-20, Wyoming Submissions by Commenter 

Affiliation, show the number and proportion of written submissions received 

from each type of affiliation for submissions specific to Wyoming. Members of 

the general public represented 37 percent of the commenters who submitted

comments specific to Wyoming, representatives from the commercial sector 

accounted for 10 percent, and non-profit or citizen groups represented 14

percent. State government agencies represented seven percent of commenters, 

and local government agencies 10 percent. Federal government agency 

representatives did not submit any comments

109

80

37

26

25

17

14

12

9

9

1

1

0

0 50 100 150

 Energy and Mineral Development

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat...

Special Management Areas

Livestock Grazing

Social and Economic Concerns

Lands and Realty

Fish and Wildlife

Recreation and Travel Management

Wildland Fire Management

Vegetation Management

 Climate Change

Wild Horse and Burros

Water and Soil

Number of Comments Received
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-49

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-36

Wyoming

Commenter Affiliation1

Affiliation

Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of 

Total 

Commenters

Government 7 17%

Federal 0 0%

State 3 7%

Local 4 10%

Elected Officials 1 2%

Educational Institutions 0 0%

Commercial Sector/Businesses 4 10%

Organizations/Non-profits 14 34%

Individuals 15 37%

Tribal Government 0 0%

Total 41 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.
2. Content Summary

2-50 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-20

Wyoming

Commenter Affiliation

Number of Comments by Agency

Table 2-37, Wyoming Agency-Specific Comments, shows the number of 

comments received by the agency to which they were addressed. Of the 347

comments specific to Wyoming received, 44 (13 percent) were addressed to 

the BLM, and 43 (12 percent) were addressed to the Forest Service. The 

remaining 260 (75 percent) did not specify an agency or were addressed to 

both agencies.

Table 2-37

Wyoming 

Agency-Specific Comments

Agency Total Percent of Total

BLM 44 13%

Forest Service 43 12%

Both Agencies 260 75%

Total Comments 347 100%

State 

Government

7% Local 

Government

10%

Elected Officials

2%

Businesses/

Commerical 

Sector

10%

Organizations/

Non-Profits

34%

Individuals

37%
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-51

Scoping Summary Report

Number of Comments by Process Category

Table 2-38, Wyoming Comments by Issue or Other Category, shows the 

number of issues raised that will or will not be addressed in the EISs. Of the 

347 comments specific to Wyoming received, 249 (73 percent of comments on 

issues that will be addressed) were related to a planning issue that will be 

addressed in the EISs. These comments are discussed in detail below and in 

Chapter 3, Issue Summary. It should be noted that some comments addressed 

multiple planning issues. In addition, 93 comments (27 percent of comments on 

issues that will be addressed) were related to issues that will be addressed in 

the EISs but do not fall within a specific planning issue category. These 

comments included general comments on the EIS planning process, alternatives 

development, collaboration, and requirements of NEPA and other regulations. 

The remaining five comments comments covered issues beyond the scope of 

the EISs. See Section 3.5, Issues That Will Not Be Addressed in the EISs, for 

more detail.

Table 2-38

Wyoming 

Comments by Issue or Other Category

Issue or Other Category Total Percent of Total

Issues that will be addressed in the EISs

Planning issues to be addressed in the EISs 249 73%

General project planning issues 93 27%

Total Comments Addressed 342 100%

Issues that will not be addressed in the EISs

BLM administrative or policy issue 0 0%

Issues outside the scope of the EISs 5 100%

Total Comments not Addressed 5 100%

Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category

Table 2-39 and Figure 2-21, Wyoming Number of Individual Comments per 

Planning Issue Category, show the number and proportion of comments 

received specific to the Wyoming subregion by planning issue category. The 

BLM and Forest Service received 249 planning issue comments specific to the 

Wyoming subregion and categorized them into 13 planning issue categories. 

Chapter 3, Issue Summary, provides a detailed analysis of the comments 

received for each planning issue category. 

Comments are provided in Appendix C, Comments by Resource Planning 

Issue. Comment letters can be viewed in their entirety at 

https://connect.doi.gov/uniquesig9a79b9d61a63982645fad83233d9ce7a/uniquesig

0/InternalSite/Login.asp?resource_id=A59F1E5B16ED4320A717A2AD0F62F245

&login_type=2&site_name=sharepoint&secure=1&orig_url=https%3a%2f%2fcon

nect.doi.gov%2f.
2. Content Summary

2-52 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-39

Wyoming

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

Planning Issue Category

Number of 

Individual 

Comments

Percent 

of Total 

Energy and Mineral Development 57 23%

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management

53 21%

Fish and Wildlife 37 15%

Livestock Grazing 36 14%

Vegetation Management 18 7%

Lands and Realty 12 5%

Water and Soil 12 5%

Recreation and Travel Management 10 4%

Wildland Fire Management 6 2%

Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice 

Concerns

3 1%

Special Management Areas 3 1%

Drought Management and Climate Change 2 1%

Wild Horse and Burros 0 0%

Total 249 100%
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-53

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-21

Wyoming

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

2.3.3 North Dakota/South Dakota

Details are provided below for submissions and comments specific to North 

and South Dakota. All comments below are also included in totals for the 

range-wide planning area and Rocky Mountain Region above.

Commenter Affiliation

Table 2-40 and Figure 2-22, North Dakota/South Dakota Commenter 

Affiliation, show commenter affiliation for submissions specific to North and 

South Dakota. Members of the general public did not submit any comments 

specific to North and South Dakota during the scoping period, representatives 

from the commercial sector accounted for 25 percent of the commenters, and 

non-profit or citizen groups represented 63 percent. Federal and local 

government agencies submitted no comments, and state government agencies 

represented 13 percent of commenters.

57

53

37

36

18

12

12

10

6

3

3

2

0

0 20 40 60

 Energy and Mineral Development

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat...

Fish and Wildlife

Livestock Grazing

Vegetation Management

Lands and Realty

Water and Soil

Recreation and Travel Management

Wildland Fire Management

Social and Economic Concerns

Special Management Areas

 Climate Change

Wild Horse and Burros

Number of Comments Received
2. Content Summary

2-54 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-40

North Dakota/South Dakota

Commenter Affiliation1

Affiliation

Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of 

Total 

Commenters

Government 1 12%

Federal 0 0%

State 1 12%

Local 0 0%

Elected Officials 0 0%

Educational Institutions 0 0%

Commercial Sector/Businesses 2 25%

Organizations/Non-profits 5 63%

Individuals 0 0%

Tribal Government 0 0%

Total 8 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-55

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-22

North Dakota/South Dakota

Commenter Affiliation

Number of Comments by Agency

Table 2-41, North Dakota/South Dakota Agency-Specific Comments, shows 

the number of comments specific to North and South Dakota received by the 

agency to which they were addressed. Of the 14 comments specific to North 

and South Dakota, two (14 percent) were addressed to the BLM, and one

(seven percent) was addressed to the Forest Service. The remaining 79 percent 

did not specify an agency or were addressed to both agencies. 

Table 2-41

North Dakota/South Dakota 

Agency-Specific Comments

Agency Total Percent of Total

BLM 2 14%

Forest Service 1 7%

Both Agencies 11 79%

Total Comments 14 100%

State 

Government

12%

Businesses/

Commerical 

Sector

25%

Organizations/

Non-Profits

63%
2. Content Summary

2-56 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Number of Comments by Process Category

Table 2-42, North Dakota/South Dakota Comments by Issue or Other 

Category, shows the number of issues raised that will or will not be addressed 

in the EISs. Of the 14 comments specific to North and South Dakota received, 

9 (64 percent) were related to a planning issue that will be addressed in the 

EISs. These comments are discussed in detail below and in Chapter 3, Issue 

Summary. It should be noted that some comments addressed multiple planning 

issues. In addition, five comments (36 percent) were related to issues that will 

be addressed in the EISs but do not fall within a specific planning issue category. 

These comments included general comments on the EIS planning process, 

alternatives development, collaboration, and requirements of NEPA and other 

regulations. No comments specific to North and South Dakota were received 

on issues that will not be addressed in the EISs. See Section 3.5, Issues That 

Will Not Be Addressed in the EISs, for more detail.

Table 2-42

North Dakota/South Dakota 

Comments by Issue or Other Category

Issue or Other Category Total Percent of Total

Issues that will be addressed in the EISs

Planning issues to be addressed in the EISs 9 64%

General project planning issues 5 36%

Total Comments Addressed 14 100%

Issues that will not be addressed in the EISs

BLM administrative or policy issue 0 0%

Issues outside the scope of the EISs 0 0%

Total Comments not Addressed 0 0%

Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category

Table 2-43 and Figure 2-23, North Dakota/South Dakota Number of 

Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category, show the number and 

proportion of comments received specific to North and South Dakota by 

planning issue category. The BLM and Forest Service received nine planning 

issue comments specific to North and South Dakota and categorized them into 

13 planning issue categories. Chapter 3, Issue Summary, provides a detailed 

analysis of the comments received for each planning issue category. 

Comments are provided in Appendix C, Comments by Resource Planning 

Issue. Comment letters can be viewed in their entirety at 

https://connect.doi.gov/uniquesig9a79b9d61a63982645fad83233d9ce7a/uniquesig

0/InternalSite/Login.asp?resource_id=A59F1E5B16ED4320A717A2AD0F62F245

&login_type=2&site_name=sharepoint&secure=1&orig_url=https%3a%2f%2fcon

nect.doi.gov%2f.
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-57

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-43

North Dakota/South Dakota 

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

Planning Issue Category

Number of 

Individual 

Comments

Percent 

of Total 

Energy and Mineral Development 3 33%

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management

3 33%

Special Management Areas 2 22%

Livestock Grazing 1 11%

Wildland Fire Management 0 0%

Drought Management and Climate Change 0 0%

Vegetation Management 0 0%

Lands and Realty 0 0%

Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice 

Concerns

0 0%

Fish and Wildlife 0 0%

Recreation and Travel Management 0 0%

Water and Soil 0 0%

Wild Horse and Burros 0 0%

Total 9 100%
2. Content Summary

2-58 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-23

North Dakota/South Dakota

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

2.3.4 Eastern Montana

Details are provided below for submissions and comments specific to Eastern 

Montana. All comments below are also included in totals for the range-wide

planning area and Rocky Mountain Region above.

Commenter Affiliation

Table 2-44 and Figure 2-24, Eastern Montana Commenter Affiliation, show 

the number and proportion of commenters by affiliation for submissions specific 

to Eastern Montana. Members of the general public represented 50 percent of 

the commenters with submissions specific to Eastern Montana, representatives 

from the commercial sector accounted for eight percent, and non-profit or 

citizen groups represented 33 percent. Local government agencies submitted 

eight percent of comments specific to Eastern Montana.

3

3

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1 2 3 4

 Energy and Mineral Development

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat...

Special Management Areas

Livestock Grazing

Wildland Fire Management

Climate Change

Vegetation Management

Lands and Realty

Social and Economic Concerns

Fish and Wildlife

Recreation and Travel Management

Water and Soil

Wild Horse and Burros

Number of Comments Received
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-59

Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-44

Eastern Montana

Commenter Affiliation1

Affiliation

Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of 

Total 

Commenters

Government 1 8%

Federal 0 0%

State 0 0%

Local 1 8%

Elected Officials 0 0%

Educational Institutions 0 0%

Commercial Sector/Businesses 1 8%

Organizations/Non-profits 4 33%

Individuals 6 50%

Tribal Government 0 0%

Total 12 100%

1

Calculations do not include form letters.
2. Content Summary

2-60 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-24

Eastern Montana

Commenter Affiliation

Number of Comments by Agency

Table 2-45, Eastern Montana Agency-Specific Comments, shows the number 

of comments specific to Eastern Montana received by the agency to which they 

were addressed. Of the 67 comments received specific to Eastern Montana,11

(16 percent) were addressed to the BLM, and none were addressed to the 

Forest Service. The remaining 56 (84 percent) did not specify an agency or 

were addressed to both agencies. 

Table 2-45

Eastern Montana 

Agency-Specific Comments

Agency Total Percent of Total

BLM 11 16%

Forest Service 0 0%

Both Agencies 56 84%

Total Comments 67 100%

Local 

Government

8% Businesses/

Commerical 

Sector

8%

Organizations/

Non-Profits

34%

Individuals

50%
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-61

Scoping Summary Report

Number of Comments by Process Category

Table 2-46, Eastern Montana Comments by Issue or Other Category, shows 

the number of issues raised specific to Eastern Montana that will or will not be 

addressed in the EISs. Of the 67 comments received, 52 (85 percent of 

comments on issues that will be addressed) were related to a planning issue 

that will be addressed in the EISs. These comments are discussed in detail 

below and in Chapter 3, Issue Summary. It should be noted that some 

comments addressed multiple planning issues. In addition, nine comments (15

percent of comments on issues that will be addressed) were related to issues 

that will be addressed in the EISs but do not fall within a specific planning issue 

category. These comments included general comments on the EIS planning 

process, alternatives development, collaboration, and requirements of NEPA 

and other regulations. The remaining six comments were issues beyond the 

scope of the EISs (four comments, 67 percent of comments on issues that will 

not be addressed) and issues that will be resolved through national policy or 

administrative action (two comments, 33 percent of comments on issues that 

will not be addressed). See Section 3.5, Issues That Will Not Be Addressed in 

the EISs, for more detail.

Table 2-46

Eastern Montana

Comments by Issue or Other Category

Issue or Other Category Total Percent of Total

Issues that will be addressed in the EISs

Planning issues to be addressed in the EISs 52 85%

General project planning issues 9 15%

Total Comments Addressed 61 100%

Issues that will not be addressed in the EISs

BLM administrative or policy issue 2 33%

Issues outside the scope of the EISs 4 67%

Total Comments not Addressed 6 100%
2. Content Summary

2-62 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category

Table 2-47 and Figure 2-25, Eastern Montana Number of Individual 

Comments per Planning Issue Category, show the number and proportion of 

comments received specific to Eastern Montana by planning issue category. The 

BLM and Forest Service received 52 planning issue comments specific to Eastern 

Montana and categorized them into 13 planning issue categories. Chapter 3, 

Issue Summary, provides a detailed analysis of the comments received for each 

planning issue category. 

Comments are provided in Appendix C, Comments by Resource Planning 

Issue. Comment letters can be viewed in their entirety at 

https://connect.doi.gov/uniquesig9a79b9d61a63982645fad83233d9ce7a/uniquesig

0/InternalSite/Login.asp?resource_id=A59F1E5B16ED4320A717A2AD0F62F245

&login_type=2&site_name=sharepoint&secure=1&orig_url=https%3a%2f%2fcon

nect.doi.gov%2f.

Table 2-47

Eastern Montana 

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

Planning Issue Category

Number of 

Individual 

Comments

Percent 

of Total 

Livestock Grazing 21 40%

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management

11 21%

Energy and Mineral Development 6 12%

Fish and Wildlife 4 8%

Wildland Fire Management 3 6%

Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice 

Concerns

3 6%

Vegetation Management 2 4%

Recreation and Travel Management 1 2%

Special Management Areas 1 2%

Drought Management and Climate Change 0 0%

Lands and Realty 0 0%

Water and Soil 0 0%

Wild Horse and Burros 0 0%

Total 52 100%
2. Content Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 2-63

Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-25

Eastern Montana

Number of Individual Comments per Planning Issue Category

21

11

6

4

3

3

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

0 10 20 30

Livestock Grazing

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat...

 Energy and Mineral Development

Fish and Wildlife

Wildland Fire Management

Social and Economic Concerns

Vegetation Management

Recreation and Travel Management

Special Management Areas

Climate Change

Lands and Realty

Water and Soil

Wild Horse and Burros

Number of Comments Received

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 3-1

Scoping Summary Report

CHAPTER 3

ISSUE SUMMARY

Issue identification is the first of the nine-step BLM planning process. As defined 

in the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) (BLM 2005), planning 

issues are concerns or controversies about existing and potential land and 

resource allocations, levels of resource use, production, and related 

management practices. Issues include resource use, development, and 

protection opportunities to consider in RMP preparation. These issues may 

stem from new information or changed circumstances and from the need to 

reassess the appropriate mix of allowable uses.

Similar to the BLM’s issue identification process, the Forest Service develops

initial options for desired condition statements early in the collaborative and 

participatory planning process (Forest Service 2006). Examples of specific topics 

to address include existing conditions and trends, available scientific or other 

information, perceptions of risk to social, economic, or ecological systems, and 

concerns about existing conditions and trends.

3.1 PLANNING ISSUE DEVELOPMENT

The BLM and Forest Service enacted a multi-step issue identification process for 

the EISs. The process began with internal scoping between the BLM and Forest 

Service to develop the initial purpose of and need for the LUPAs. Internal 

scoping also highlighted anticipated planning issues, management concerns, and 

preliminary planning criteria.

The BLM and Forest Service issued the NOI to prepare LUPAs in December 

2011. The NOI initiated the formal scoping period as required by NEPA, and 

solicited written comments from the public (further discussed in Section 1.5,

Description of the Scoping Process). Scoping is a collaborative public 

involvement process implemented to identify and refine planning issues to 

address in the planning process. During the scoping period, the BLM and Forest 

Service also engaged tribes and cooperating agencies, as discussed in Section
3. Issue Summary

3-2 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

1.6, Collaborative Involvement Process. The BLM and Forest Service hosted 26

open houses throughout the Great Basin Region and 13 open houses 

throughout the Rocky Mountain Region and continued to solicit written 

comments from the public during the scoping period. Comments received 

during the scoping period provided the BLM and Forest Service additional 

information on the public’s concerns and suggestions regarding the planning 

area.

Information accepted during internal and external scoping was compiled to 

develop discrete planning issue statements; these are discussed below. The BLM 

and Forest Service will use the planning issue statements, planning criteria, and 

other information collected in the early planning and scoping phases of the 

LUPA process to help formulate a reasonable range of alternative management 

strategies that will be analyzed during the LUPA/EIS process.

Planning issue statements presented below are intended to reflect the main issues 

brought forward by public commenters. Due to the diverse interests and 

priorities of commenters, issues statements reflect a balance between greater 

sage-grouse habitat protection and multiple land use. Issues as stated in public 

comments align with many of the habitat threats as identified by the USFWS in 

the 2010 12-month finding (USFWS 2010). Relevant threats are aligned with each 

issues statement in Table 3-1, Planning Issue Categories and Statements, below.

The issue statements are preliminary and are based on the information received

to date. The process of developing the LUPAs will afford many opportunities 

for collaboration with local, state, federal, and tribal governments; landmanagement agencies; public interest groups; and public land users. As a result, 

these issues and concerns may need to be refined to reflect public comments 

and concerns. These preliminary issue categories were expected to encompass 

most public issues and concerns and to serve as a starting point to spark public 

consideration; they were not meant to be all-inclusive.

The overarching planning issues the BLM and Forest Service will address in the 

LUPAs are provided in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. Each overarching issue, in 

turn, has several sub-topics, issue questions, and management concerns which 

address more specific uses and resources. As applicable, items listed in 

Appendix C of the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) (BLM 2005) 

will be addressed, and decisions will be made. 

3.2 RANGE-WIDE PLANNING ISSUE STATEMENTS

Planning issues are displayed in Table 3-1, Planning Issue Categories and 

Statements. Issue statements are listed based on the number of public 

comments received for each category, in descending order. Additional issues 

related to the project that do not fall within a planning issue category are 

discussed in detail in under the Other Issues to be Addressed in the LUPAs 

subheading, below.
3. Issue Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 3-3

Scoping Summary Report

Table 3-1

Planning Issue Categories and Statements

Planning Issue 

Category

Planning Issue 

Statement

USFWS Threats 

to Greater 

Sage-Grouse 

Habitat

1. Greater Sage-Grouse and 

Sage-Grouse Habitat 

How would the BLM 

and Forest Service use 

the best available 

science to designate 

preliminary priority 

habitat, preliminary 

general habitat and nonhabitat categories and 

accurately monitor the 

impact of land uses on 

greater sage-grouse?

All

2. Energy and Mineral 

Development

How would energy and 

mineral development, 

including renewable 

energy, be managed to 

within greater sagegrouse habitat while 

recognizing valid existing 

rights?

Energy-Mining

Energynonrenewable 

energy sources

Energy-renewable 

energy sources

Energytransmission 

corridors

3. Livestock Grazing What measures would 

the BLM and Forest 

Service put in place to 

protect and improve 

greater sage-grouse 

habitat while maintaining 

grazing privileges?

Grazing-livestock

Infrastructurefences
3. Issue Summary

3-4 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 3-1

Planning Issue Categories and Statements

Planning Issue 

Category

Planning Issue 

Statement

USFWS Threats 

to Greater 

Sage-Grouse 

Habitat

4. Vegetation Management How would the BLM 

and Forest Service

conserve, enhance, or 

restore greater sagegrouse habitat such as 

sagebrush communities 

and minimize or prevent 

the introduction or 

spread of noxious 

weeds and invasive 

species?

Pinyon-juniper 

encroachment

Invasive plants 

(annual grasses and 

other noxious 

weeds)

5. Fish and Wildlife What measures would 

be put in place to 

manage habitat for other 

wildlife species and 

reduce conflicts with 

greater sage-grouse?

Grazing-wild 

ungulate herbivory

6. Lands and Realty What opportunities 

exist to adjust public 

land ownership that 

would increase 

management efficiency 

for greater sage-grouse 

and -sage-grouse 

habitat?

Urbanization

Habitat conversion 

for agriculture

Infrastructurecommunication 

towers, power 

lines, transmission 

corridors

7. Social, Economic, and 

Environmental Justice

Considerations

How could the BLM and 

Forest Service promote 

or maintain activities 

that provide social and 

economic benefit to 

local communities while 

providing protection for 

greater sage-grouse

habitat?

All
3. Issue Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 3-5

Scoping Summary Report

Table 3-1

Planning Issue Categories and Statements

Planning Issue 

Category

Planning Issue 

Statement

USFWS Threats 

to Greater 

Sage-Grouse 

Habitat

8. Recreation and Travel 

Management

How would motorized, 

non-motorized, and 

mechanized travel be 

managed to provide 

access to federal lands 

and a variety of 

recreation opportunities 

while protecting greater 

sage-grouse and sagegrouse habitat?

Infrastructureroads

9. Fire Management What measures should 

be undertaken to 

manage fuels and 

wildland fires, while 

protecting greater sagegrouse habitat?

Fire

10. Special Management 

Areas

What special 

management areas 

would be designated by 

the BLM or Forest 

Service to benefit the 

conservation, 

enhancement, and 

restoration of greater 

sage-grouse and sagegrouse habitat?

All

11. Water and Soil How would the BLM 

and Forest Service

protect water and soil 

resources in order to 

benefit greater sagegrouse habitat?

Grazing - livestock

12. Drought Management / 

Climate Change

How would the BLM 

and Forest Service 

incorporate the analysis 

of the impacts of a 

changing climate on 

greater sage-grouse 

habitat?

Climate change
3. Issue Summary

3-6 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table 3-1

Planning Issue Categories and Statements

Planning Issue 

Category

Planning Issue 

Statement

USFWS Threats 

to Greater 

Sage-Grouse 

Habitat

13. Wild Horse and Burros What measures would 

the BLM and Forest 

Service put in place to 

to reduce the impacts of 

wild horses and burros 

on greater sage-grouse 

habitat?

Grazing- Wild 

horse and burros

Issue Statement details and Summary of Public Comments by Issue 

Statement

Some planning issues as defined above encompass a number of subcategories of 

issues. Comments received during the public scoping period were classified into 

these subcategories below. In addition, a summary of comments is provided for 

each planning issue. Comments for each planning issue can be viewed in their 

entirety in Appendix C. 

Category 1: Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat 

• Disturbance limits - What limitation, if any, will be put in place for 

greater sage-grouse habitat cumulative disturbance?

• Habitat categories - What level of protection will be given to key 

habitat, general habitat, priority habitat or other habitat 

designations?

• Existing greater sage-grouse conservation measures - What 

conservation existing measures will be incorporated into the 

planning process?

• Location-specific measures - How will regional differences in 

greater sage-grouse habitat requirements and conditions be

addressed in the planning process?

Comment subcategories for sage-grouse and habitat management included 

general comments on the science used to determine population density habitat 

requirements and connectivity, migration patterns, and other components of 

species biology. Commenters urged the agencies to use best available science 

and allow for incorporation of new data as it becomes available. In addition, 

commenters requested specific definitions of habitat categories and the 

rationale used for development of these areas. Comments were also received 

related to the NTT strategy and interim management and components of these 
3. Issue Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 3-7

Scoping Summary Report

documents that should be included or revised. Finally, monitoring of 

management and populations was recommended.

Comments were also received on lek definitions and buffer distances and 

flexibility in timing restrictions to protect leks. Some comments provided

management recommendations for preserving vegetation cover at lek sites.

Comments on specific leks will be described under the relevant subregion.

Category 2: Energy Development

• Renewable energy development - How should renewable energy 

development be managed to minimize conflict with greater sagegrouse, and what guidelines should be developed or implemented

to guide siting of renewable energy resources?

• Mitigation measures - To what extent will mitigation of impacts be 

allowed as an alternative to restrictions or closures applied to 

certain activities or in certain areas? 

• Design features/Best Management Practices - What features will be 

incorporated to aid in conservation of greater sage-grouse and 

sage-grouse habitat?

• Restoration requirements - What restoration requirements would 

be required?

• Transmission and Utilities - How will transmission and utility 

corridors be managed and leased?

Comments on energy development ranged from individuals requesting 

restrictions on development to industry representatives and local government 

requesting continued development rights. Key energy development issue

subcategories included the following:

The use of mitigation measures such as off-site habitat restoration or 

reclamation requirements was suggested as an alternative to closing areas to an 

activity altogether or severely limiting it. Commenters from the energy industry 

noted that best management practices, mitigation measures or other 

requirements should be both technically and financially feasible, and that such 

measures may increase costs to rate-payers or impact local economies should 

energy development be delayed or reduced.

Some comments considered the impacts of infrastructure associated with 

energy development, including transmission lines, roads, and other 

development. Commenters were concerned about habitat fragmentation 

associated with this development and urged the agencies to consider best 

management practices or other criteria to reduce impacts, including those 

associated with ravens and other avian predators of sage-grouse which may use 

towers and other structures as perches.
3. Issue Summary

3-8 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Comments asked that the agencies consider indirect effects of development 

such as fragmentation, edge effects, and displacement, as well as cumulative 

impacts.

Comments included concerns about recommendations from the NTT report 

and the science used to develop this report, specifically related to limitations on 

disturbance and buffer distances. Commenters urged the agencies to consider 

allowing for differences in regional management to suit site conditions.

Protection of valid exiting rights and access to existing leases was a concern.

Comments also addressed right-of-way (ROW) permitting. Individual 

commenters were both in favor and opposed to permitting along existing 

corridors. Energy companies requested renewal of existing -ROW grants or 

special use permits for those transmission and distribution facilities.

Renewable energy, in particular wind power and geothermal development, was

noted for potential conflicts with sage-grouse management. Commenters 

requested that the EISs specifically address renewable energy and consider 

guidelines for siting and development.

Category 3: Livestock Grazing

• Livestock management recommendations - How will livestock 

grazing be managed in a way that ensures protection of greater 

sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat?

• Livestock infrastructure - How will infrastructure associated with 

grazing, including fences, range improvements, and water 

developments, be managed?

Subcategories of livestock grazing comments included comments on the 

beneficial impacts of well-managed grazing on greater sage-grouse habitat, 

specifically by reducing the risk of wildfire through reduction in fuels and limiting 

juniper encroachment. Commenters also included information on the historical 

use of cattle to indicate that it does not adversely impact sage-grouse. 

Conversely, some commenters stated that restrictions must be put on grazing 

in greater sage-grouse habitat in order to preserve land health conditions. 

Similarly, livestock grazing infrastructure, including fences and water 

developments, were discussed regarding their potential risks and benefits to the 

sage-grouse. The social and economic importance of grazing and agriculture was

also discussed.

Category 4: Vegetation Management

• Noxious and Invasive Species - How will noxious weeds and 

invasive species be managed to limit impacts on greater sage-grouse 

habitat?
3. Issue Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 3-9

Scoping Summary Report

• Sage-brush and desert scrub (sage-scrub) - How will sage-scrub 

habitat be restored and managed to provide necessary habitat 

components for the greater sage-grouse?

• Riparian Areas - How will riparian areas and wet meadows be 

managed to maintain or improve greater sage-grouse habitat while 

limiting impacts on other resources or resource uses?

Vegetation management concerns include management of noxious weeds and 

invasive species such as cheatgrass, juniper encroachment onto sage-scrub 

ecosystems, and resource uses that may impact this vegetation community. 

Additional concerns include management recommendations for greater sagegrouse habitat, such as sagebrush grassland, including herbaceous cover and 

specific habitat requirements for life-stages of the greater sage-grouse.

Category 5: Fish and Wildlife 

• How will the BLM and Forest Service work with wildlife 

management agencies in order to manage and mitigate impacts of 

other wildlife (e.g., predators and competitors for habitat and food) 

on greater sage-grouse? 

• How will the BLM and Forest Service manage greater sage-grouse 

habitat for the protection of other sagebrush obligate species?

Commenters recognized the BLM and Forest Service’s limited role in wildlife 

management and suggested collaborative efforts with the USFWS and state 

agencies and project design features to limit impacts on the sage-grouse. Many 

commenters felt that that the agencies are overlooking predation, namely by 

ravens, eagles, hawks, and other bird species, as a key cause of greater sagegrouse population decline. Other predators mentioned included coyotes and 

foxes. Commenters also suggested that competition with other wildlife (e.g., 

increasing numbers of elk) for food and habitat is a cause of greater sage-grouse 

population decline. Finally commenters suggested that the protection of other 

sage-grouse obligate species be incorporated into the planning effort.

Category 6: Lands and Realty

• Private lands - What measures can be undertaken to encourage 

protection of greater sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat on 

adjacent non-federal lands while protecting land owners rights?

• Public lands - How can federal lands be transferred, exchanged or 

otherwise consolidated to conserve greater sage-grouse habitat?

Lands and realty comments primarily addressed the concerns of private and 

split estate land owners regarding their vested rights. Additional concerns 

included management recommendations for the federal agencies to consolidate 

land parcels to better manage for important habitat areas for the greater sagegrouse. ROW concerns are addressed under energy and mineral development.
3. Issue Summary

3-10 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Category 7: Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice Considerations

• How will mineral and energy development be managed to protect 

sage-grouse and limit economic impacts on local communities?

• How will livestock grazing be managed to protect sage-grouse and 

limit social and economic impacts on local communities?

Comments related to social and economic conditions primarily addressed 

concerns about restrictions on public land resource use and related impacts on

communities, including but not limited to mineral and energy development, 

livestock grazing, and recreation on BLM and Forest Service lands. Additionally,

recommendations addressed studies and methodology to incorporate in the 

analysis.

Category 8: Recreation and Travel Management

No distinct subcategories were identified for comments related to travel and 

recreation management. Comments were primarily concerned with access to 

BLM and Forest Service lands. Most commenters were concerned that access 

or activities would be limited by measures imposed for sage-grouse protection. 

Other commenters were concerned about the impacts of recreational activities, 

including but not limited to OHV use and recreational viewing of sage-grouse 

leks, on sage-grouse populations.

Category 9: Fire Management

• Wildland fire - How will wildland fire be managed to maintain 

adequate greater sage-grouse habitat?

• Fuels treatments - What restrictions will be put in place on 

prescribed fire or fuels treatments in greater sage-grouse habitats?

Comments on fire management primarily related to the present future potential 

for impacts of severe wildland fires on greater sage-grouse habitat. 

Commenters requested an assessment of the amount of habitat modified from 

wildfire. In addition, commenters were concerned that fuels management 

techniques, including prescribed fire, are detrimental to greater sage-grouse 

habitat and stated that restoring ecosystems will require a new approach to 

natural disturbance processes. Commenters also mentioned the interrelation of 

livestock grazing, invasive plant species management, and wildland fire 

management.

Category 10: Special Management Areas

No distinct subcategories were identified for comments on special management 

areas. Comments addressed conservation of greater sage-grouse and sagegrouse habitat utilizing existing or newly designated special management areas. 

Specific categories of areas addressed included Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACECs), Research Natural Areas, Wilderness, Wilderness Study 

Areas, and areas with wilderness characteristics and inventoried roadless areas.
3. Issue Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 3-11

Scoping Summary Report

Category 11: Water and Soil

• Soils - How will soils be managed to maintain or improve greater 

sage-grouse habitat?

• Water - How will water resources be managed to maintain or 

improve greater sage-grouse habitat while limiting impacts on other 

resources or resource uses?

Comments on soils and water primarily addressed the impacts of resource uses 

on these resources and provided recommendations for management to limit 

impacts on greater sage-grouse or restore habitat. Additional water concerns 

included the impact of anthropogenic water sources on the spread of West 

Nile virus in greater sage-grouse.

Category 12: Drought Management / Climate Change

No distinct subcategories were identified for comments related to drought 

management and climate change. The majority of commenters stated that the 

BLM and Forest Service need to address changing climate and drought 

conditions in the EISs, specifically, the impacts of a changing climate on sagegrouse population, distribution, and habitat. Some commenters stated that 

climate change is an ongoing process, outside of human control and should not 

be addressed in this process.

Category 13: Wild Horse and Burros

No distinct subcategories were identified for comments related to wild horse 

and burros. Commenters requested management for wild horse and burros in 

greater sage-grouse habitat. In particular, those from the livestock grazing 

industry wanted the restrictions on wild horses and burros to be at least as 

strict as any restrictions put in place on domestic grazing within the greater 

sage-grouse habitat.

Other Issues to be Addressed in the LUPAs

In addition to comments described above, commenters addressed issues that 

do not relate the scope of environmental analysis for alternative development, 

but will be addressed in the LUPA process. 

Commenters reminded the agencies to follow the requirements of FLPMA, the 

BLM planning handbook, the ESA, and state laws, as applicable. Additional 

specific concerns included the following:

• Issue 1. How will local working groups, local government, and 

other stakeholders be involved in the planning process?

• Issue 2. How will the BLM and Forest Service address site-specific 

conditions as related to greater sage-grouse habitat and 

management? How will LUP revisions allow for flexibility in regional 

or local management as appropriate for local conditions?
3. Issue Summary

3-12 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

• Issue 3. How will the BLM and Forest Service allow for flexibility in 

LUPs to incorporate information from new scientific studies, a 

change in listing status, or other changing circumstances in the 

future?

• Issue 4. How will current management, Interim Management 

Policies and Procedures, management recommendations in the NTT

report, and other existing measures for greater sage-grouse 

protection be incorporated into the planning process?

Commenters requested clarification of how the NTT report will be 

used in the planning process.

• Issue 5. How will the BLM and Forest Service ensure consistent 

management at all levels of the agencies and avoid ambiguity in 

management terms?

Commenters suggested clarification of any terms that are 

potentially ambiguous, including, but not limited to, “habitat 

fragmentation,” “large in-tact sage-grouse communities,” and 

“connectivity corridor.”

• Issue 6. What measures will the BLM and Forest Service take to 

ensure that data, models, and maps used in decision making are 

available to the public, and that decisions made in the planning 

process are transparent?

Commenters requested transparency and access to all maps, 

models, and data used in decision making.

3.3 GREAT BASIN REGION PLANNING ISSUE STATEMENTS

All planning issue statements stated under Section 3.2, Range-Wide Planning 

Issue Statements are also applicable for the Great Basin Region. In addition, the 

following issue was identified specific to the region:

• Energy development: How will planning efforts protect against 

habitat fragmentation from traditional and renewable energy 

sources at the ecosystem level?

Summary of Public Comments by Issue Statement

Summaries are provided below for resource issues which differed in content or 

emphasis from those presented in the range-wide discussion, above. 

Energy development: Continued traditional energy development and wind and 

geothermal energy development are increasing in portions of the Great Basin 

Region. Commenters expressed concerns about managing these resources at 

the regional ecosystem level, including analysis of cumulative impacts.
3. Issue Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 3-13

Scoping Summary Report

Resource concerns, and site specific recommendations and habitat areas by 

subregion within the Great Basin Region are included in the following subregion 

analyses.

3.3.1 Utah Subregion Planning Issue Statements

Planning issue statements stated under Section 3.2, Range-Wide Planning Issue 

Statements as related to socioeconomics and climate and management of 

vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, recreation, and greater sage-grouse 

habitat and climate are also applicable for the Utah subregion. In addition, the 

following issue was identified:

• Livestock grazing: How will the BLM and Forest Service manage 

livestock grazing on public lands to protect greater sage-grouse 

while allowing ranchers to maintain their livelihoods and 

contribution to the local economy?

Summary of Public Comments by Issue Statement

General themes of comments were similar to the content provided in the 

range-wide discussion above. Summaries are provided below for unique 

subregion-specific information or emphasis. 

Livestock grazing: Commenters from organizations requested that the agencies 

recognize existing livestock grazing privileges and cautioned against the use of 

vegetation management techniques that would not conform to multiple use 

principals. Specific conservation efforts recommended as examples for 

management strategies include measures taken by Deseret Land and Livestock 

located mainly in Rich County, Utah (along the Utah-Wyoming border), and the 

Utah Grazing Improvement Program.

Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations: Commenters from local 

organizations and local and state agencies requested that the agencies consider 

the importance of the ranching and agricultural sector to local communities and 

stressed the importance of public lands for these sectors due the high 

percentage of federal lands in many counties. In addition, commenters 

requested a detailed social and economic analysis. One commenter stressed the 

importance of utilizing realistic input data for IMPLAN modeling.

Energy Development: Concerns for energy development included adherence to 

local plans, including energy zones developed in Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett

counties. Energy corridors were a concern expressed by local government 

agencies and developers; commenters requested that existing energy corridors 

and proposed Energy Gateway South and TransWest Express corridors should 

be recognized and considered for exclusion from -sage-grouse preliminary 

priority or preliminary general habitat designation.
3. Issue Summary

3-14 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Fish and Wildlife: The impact of predators on sage-grouse was noted. Requests 

included analysis of existing predator control efforts, and all reasonable 

predator management options as they relate to sage-grouse populations. 

Competing wildlife interests within greater sage-grouse habitat, specifically from 

big game, were noted as an additional concern.

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse habitat: Local organizations and state 

governments questioned the data used to develop population estimates and 

determine the need for additional conservation efforts. Ongoing conservation 

efforts were noted, including those in southern Utah and within the Kane 

County Conservation District. Specific population or habitat areas for greater 

sage-grouse recommended for further examination included the Blue Mountain 

population in north-eastern Utah and the Parker Mountain population.

3.3.2 Idaho/Southwestern Montana Planning Issue Statements

Key issues discussed in Idaho/Montana comments included travel management, 

greater sage-grouse habitat, lands and realty, and socioeconomics. Comments 

were also included on wildlife, vegetation, energy, and water resources. All 

general planning issue statements stated under Section 3.2, Range-Wide

Planning Issue Statements related to these resources are also applicable for the 

Idaho/Southwestern Montana subregion. In addition, the following planning issue 

was identified:

• Lands and Realty: How will the BLM and Forest Service manage 

lands and realty decisions to reduce habitat fragmentation and 

conversion of greater sage-grouse habitat?

Summary of Public Comments by Issue Statement

General themes of comments were similar to the content provided in the 

range-wide discussion, above. Summaries are provided below for unique 

subregion-specific information or emphasis.

Recreation and Travel Management: Commenters asked the BLM and Forest 

Service to include analysis of increased recreational activity in planning 

documents and to work with local recreational groups. The Forest Service has 

recently completed travel management route designation in areas and 

commenters urged the BLM to avoid additional road closures.

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat: Specific geographic locations 

mentioned in comments as requiring further analysis are potential priority 

habitat areas or other key habitat components include the Tex Creek Wildlife 

Management Area; upper Birch Creek and upper Lemhi Valleys; Kilgore/Shotgun 

Valley areas; southeast Idaho Uplands area; areas south and west of the Big 

Desert area; Salmon-Challis National Forest; Pioneer Mountains, the last River 

Range; Leadore, including the Timber Creek, Eighteen Mile Creek, Hawley 

Creek, Railroad Canyon Creek; and Mill Creek drainages. Commenters 
3. Issue Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 3-15

Scoping Summary Report

suggested including and analyzing specific planning documents or data, including

the -sage-grouse conservation plan for the Jarbidge planning area, University of 

Montana Western -sage-grouse data, and Montana Audubon in the Dillon Local 

Working Group Area -sage-grouse data. 

Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations: Comments focused on the 

importance of livestock grazing and agriculture to the planning area. 

Commenters were concerned that restrictions on grazing would impact local 

economies in Magic Valley and the Twin Cities.

Lands and Realty: Comments for lands and realty addressed concerns about 

impacts of management actions on private lands, and development of private 

land and lands and realty actions that would increase development or 

subdivision.

Livestock grazing: Concerns included impacts of sheep and cattle grazing, 

specifically around key habitat areas including leks. Comments urged the 

agencies to examine the Grazing Policy adopted by the Custer County 

Commissioners.

3.3.3 California/Nevada Subregion Planning Issue Statements

Relevant issues in the California/Nevada subregion included energy and mineral 

development, livestock grazing, socioeconomics, greater sage-grouse habitat 

management, fire management and wild-horse and burros. Additional comments 

were received on land and realty, special management areas, riparian areas, 

drought and climate change. All general planning issue statements stated under 

Section 3.2, Range-Wide Planning Issue Statements for these resources are 

also applicable for the California/Nevada subregion. In addition, the following 

issues were identified:

• Fire Management: How will wildland fire and post-burn restoration 

be managed to conserve greater sage-grouse habitat? 

• Mining: How will the BLM and Forest Service manage greater sagegrouse and sage-grouse habitat without imposing prohibitive 

limitations on mining?

Summary of Public Comments by Issue Statement

General themes of comments were similar to the content provided in the 

range-wide discussion, above. Summaries are provided below for unique 

subregion-specific information or emphasis. 

Energy and Mineral Development: Energy companies expressed concerns with 

cumulative limitations on development, including concerning limitations on 

private lands. Some individuals requested that energy and mineral development 

be limited, including specific requests to restrict oil and gas leases and, 

specifically in Nye County, to permanently withdraw the remaining land parcels 
3. Issue Summary

3-16 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

in Nye County from oil and gas development. Conversely, other individuals 

expressed doubts that oil and gas development has impacts on sage-grouse 

populations and stated that limitations on oil and gas development are 

unnecessary and would have impacts on the local and state economy. Mineral 

development concerns included a request to not prohibit or withdraw mineral 

development in priority or general habitat.

Livestock Grazing: Comments on livestock grazing were concerned with the 

economic impacts on the range industry in Nevada. A local government agency 

recommended working collaboratively with grazing permittees to examine 

methods of grazing that benefit and enhance greater sage-grouse habitat. 

Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations: Socioeconomic concerns 

included requests to examine the importance of public land use for agriculture, 

recreation, and mineral development to local and state economies.

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat: Comments on greater sage-grouse 

and sage-grouse habitat included requests to confirm population trends. Specific 

geographic areas and populations mentioned include certain leks in the Elko 

District Office.

Fire Management: Concerns related to fire management included the significant 

amount of greater sage-grouse habitat impacted by wildland fire and lack of 

successful restoration efforts on burned lands. Individuals and those in the 

commercial sector recommended improvements to suppression strategies and 

restoration efforts. 

Lands and Realty: Commenters requested that the agencies consider local input 

on lands and realty management decisions; specific plans to consider include the 

Policy Plan for Public Lands of the Churchill County Master Plan.

Special Management Areas: Special Management Area concerns include the 

importance of large blocks of unfragmented lands in Wilderness, BLM and 

USFWS Wilderness Study Areas, and Forest Service Roadless Areas. The 

Burbank Canyons WSA was mentioned as being important greater sage-grouse 

habitat.

3.3.4 Oregon Subregion Planning Issue Statements

Key issues discussed in the Oregon subregion comments included energy and 

mineral development, socioeconomics, fire management, livestock grazing, 

vegetation management, special management areas, wildlife, and recreation. 

General planning issue statements stated under Section 3.2, Range-Wide

Planning Issue Statements, for these resource areas are also applicable for the 

Oregon subregion. In addition, the following issues were identified:
3. Issue Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 3-17

Scoping Summary Report

• Energy and Mineral Development: How will current and potential 

mineral extraction in the planning area be managed to minimize 

economic impacts and allow for sage-grouse conservation?

Summary of Public Comments by Issue Statement

General themes of comments were similar to the content provided in the 

range-wide discussion, above. Summaries are provided below for unique 

subregion-specific information or emphasis. 

Energy and Mineral Development: Comments received included concerns about 

energy development in high desert country and a recommendation to consider 

the impacts of wind farm development on greater sage-grouse habitat, as 

demonstrated in northeast Oregon wind farms in Baker County. In addition, an 

inventory of mineral materials and replacement costs for materials withdrawn 

was requested, specifically as related to local community costs, for the Oregon

EISs. Mining comments related to social and economic impacts of mineral 

materials extraction and recommendations to determine the potential impacts 

on development of industrial mineral and metallic mineral resources located in 

habitat category 1 and 2 areas. Specific deposits mentioned as areas of concern 

by commenters from the mining industry included the Grassy Meadow Gold 

deposit.

Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations: Comments considered

economic and social values of the local agriculture and ranching community in 

the area, specifically in Malheur County. In addition, commenters requested that 

the socioeconomic impacts due to recreation, renewable energy, ranching, and 

mineral extraction be addressed. Specific data sets were recommended to aid in 

analysis.

Fire Management: An individual requested inventory of all treated lands and 

determine the fire risk factors and potential limitations posed to firefighter 

access and safety; fuel loading and potentials for catastrophic fire conditions, and

dangers to public land and private property.

Livestock Grazing: Management actions for livestock grazing are recommended to 

incorporate programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement for public lands 

in development by the Oregon’s Cattlemen Association and the Oregon BLM. 

Some commenters stated that -well-managed grazing is compatible with sagegrouse conservation, while others state that overgrazing is the cause of poor 

conditions of public lands in Central Oregon.

Vegetation: Invasion of exotic annual grasses and encroachment of juniper were 

stated to represent the largest threats to greater sage-grouse habitat in 

Oregon. In addition, commenters provided recommendations for modeling of 

specific vegetation communities.
3. Issue Summary

3-18 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife recommendations included a request to use the 2011

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation

Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance 

Populations and Habitat. In addition, commenters included a request to 

cooperate between wildlife programs to coordinate studies to identify new 

population count methods.

Special Management Areas: Concerns were raised related to the proposed 

Juniper Encroachment management plan and its effects on ACECs in the Vale, 

Lakeview, and BLM Districts.

3.4 ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION PLANNING ISSUE STATEMENTS

Key issues discussed in the Rocky Mountain Region included energy 

development, greater sage-grouse habitat management, livestock grazing, and 

socioeconomics, although comments were received for all resource topics 

General planning issue statements stated under Section 3.2, Range-Wide

Planning Issue Statements for these resource areas are also applicable for the 

Rocky Mountain Region. In addition, the following issues were identified:

• Energy and Mineral Development: How will the BLM and Forest 

Service manage unique energy production techniques including, but 

not limited to, oil shale extraction and wind development in greater 

sage-grouse habitat?

• General Planning: How will the Wyoming planning effort be 

incorporated at the regional level?

Summary of Public Comments by Issue Statement

General themes of comments were similar to the content provided in the 

range-wide discussion, above. Summaries are provided below for unique 

subregion-specific information or emphasis. 

Energy and Mineral Development: Energy development in the subregion has 

played a major role in local economies in the recent past, and different

extraction techniques for traditional fuel sources and expansion of renewable 

energy have expanded. Commenters cited concerns with management of these 

resources.

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat: Commenters in the region 

addressed the recommendations in the Wyoming planning effort and stated 

components to include in a regional and national planning effort and addressed 

concerns about components that would not be appropriate for regions outside 

of Wyoming.

3.4.1 Colorado Planning Issue Statements

Key issues discussed in Colorado comments include an emphasis on energy 

development and socioeconomic impacts. Other concerns include livestock 
3. Issue Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 3-19

Scoping Summary Report

grazing, special management areas, wildlife, and greater sage-grouse habitat. 

General planning issue statements stated under Section 3.2, Range-Wide

Planning Issue Statements for these resource areas are also applicable for 

Colorado. 

Summary of Public Comments by Issue Statement

General themes of comments were similar to the content provided in the 

range-wide discussion, above. Summaries are provided below for unique 

subregion-specific information or emphasis. 

Energy and Mineral Development: Specific concerns in Colorado related to energy 

and mineral development included economic concerns of energy producing 

counties, including Garfield County. Specific impacts of oil shale were 

requested, and recommendations for disturbance limits provided. Additional 

concerns included impacts of development on populations in the Meeker/White 

River and Parachute Piceance/Roan populations Management Zone (MZ) in the 

Uintah-Piceance geologic basin and the Middle Park population, Eagle-South 

Routt population, and populations within the Little Snake Resource Area. In 

addition, protective management of preliminary priority habitat delineated by 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife was recommended. Local counties expressed 

concern about limitations on mineral material extraction.

Lands and Realty: Specific comments related to lands and realty addressed

decisions to promote habitat connectivity specifically for the Meeker/White 

River and Parachute Piceance/Roan populations.

Livestock Grazing; Grazing comments recommended incorporation of local land 

planning effort recommendations on grazing and specific recommendations for 

timing, location, and other restrictions on grazing to protect greater sagegrouse habitat.

Greater-Sage-grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat: Specific concerns in Colorado 

included state maps of habitat management zones in Colorado, the Wyoming 

Basin Management Zone (MZ II) and the Colorado Plateau Management Zone 

(MZ VII), including populations in Northwest Colorado and North Park, the 

Wyoming Basin population, the Middle Park and Northern Eagle/Southern 

Routt populations, the Meeker/White River population, and the Parachute 

Piceance/Roan population. 

Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations: Social and economic concerns 

included the implementation of national policies that are not appropriate to 

local areas, resulting in economic impacts. Suggested references and methods of 

impacts analysis on local conditions were provided. Commenters requested that 

socioeconomic impacts be considered in alternatives development.
3. Issue Summary

3-20 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Special Management Areas: Comments related to ACEC and Research Natural 

Area designation and management. Tyler Mountain is a specific ACEC to 

consider in Colorado.

Recreation and Travel Management: Concerns included increasing recreation in 

important greater sage-grouse habitat areas, notably in Grand County. In 

addition, habitat fragmentation from roads was noted.

3.4.2 Wyoming Planning Issue Statements

Key issues discussed in Wyoming comments included wildlife management, 

greater sage-grouse habitat, energy development, and livestock grazing. 

Comments were also received on vegetation management, riparian areas and 

water, recreation, lands and realty, and water resources. General planning issue 

statements stated under Section 3.2, Range-Wide Planning Issue Statements 

for these resource areas are also applicable for Wyoming. In addition, the 

following issues were identified:

• General Planning: How will the Wyoming approach to sage-grouse 

management be addressed in the national planning effort?

Specific recommendations to follow or depart from the Wyoming approach to -

sage-grouse management were noted throughout comments for this subregion. 

Comments are summarized in the following issue statement:

• Fish and Wildlife: How will the BLM and Forest Service minimize 

conflicts between management objectives for conservation of blacktailed prairie dog and the greater sage-grouse?

Summary of Public Comments by Issue Statement

General themes of comments were similar to the content provided in the 

range-wide discussion above. Summaries are provided below for unique 

subregion-specific information or emphasis. 

Energy and Mineral Development: Specific concerns for Wyoming included 

management on split estate lands, cumulative impacts of development on

greater sage-grouse habitat, particularly for oil and gas, and impacts of wind 

development, as well as specific implementation-level recommendations. 

Development in the Powder River and Hoback Basins was of particular

concern.

Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing comments addressed potential impacts and 

benefits of grazing on greater sage-grouse habitat as described for the rangewide level. Specific recommendations were provided for livestock trailing, 

structural range improvements, and for the Lander RMP. In addition, water, 

riparian, and wetland comments associated with livestock grazing were 

submitted.
3. Issue Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 3-21

Scoping Summary Report

Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife management recommendations include specific design 

features to protect sage-grouse from predators. In addition, comments were 

received on potential conflicts between prairie dog and greater sage-grouse 

management.

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat: Specific concerns included

management recommendations for particular components of habitat as well as 

discussion of specific potential habitat areas. Areas to address include: Thunder 

Basin National Grassland; Upper Snake River Basin; Greys River Ranger District 

of the Bridger-Teton National Forest; Upper Green River core population and 

the Gros Ventre River Valley; Bacon Ridge/Breakneck Flats sage-grouse winter 

use areas; Upper Green River Core population and the Hoback Basin;

connectivity of greater sage-grouse habitat along the Wyoming-Idaho State line 

near Crow, Stump, and Spring Creeks; and habitat connectivity with occupied 

habitat in Star Valley and Southeast Idaho.

Special Management Areas: Special management areas of concern included

ACECs, specifically within the Pinedale Field Office.

3.4.3 North Dakota/South Dakota Planning Issue Statements

Issues discussed in the comments for North and South Dakota included greater

sage-grouse habitat, energy development, livestock grazing, and water 

resources. General planning issue statements stated under Section 3.2, RangeWide Planning Issue Statements for these resource areas are also applicable for 

the Dakotas. No unique comment themes were identified.

3.4.4 Eastern Montana Planning Issue Statements

Issues discussed in the comments for Eastern Montana included greater sagegrouse habitat, livestock grazing, energy development and fire management. 

Comments were also submitted on wildlife (predation) and socioeconomics. 

General planning issue statements stated under Section 3.2, Range-Wide

Planning Issue Statements for these resource areas are also applicable for 

Montana. No unique comment themes were identified.

3.5 ISSUES THAT WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED IN THE LUPAS

Comments related to national policy decisions and issues outside the scope of 

the LUPAs will not be addressed as part of this planning effort, including 

decisions on BLM and Forest Service lands within the purview of other planning 

efforts or decisions managed by other federal, state, or local agencies. 

3.5.1 National Policy Decisions

Commenters addressed concerns with decisions at the national level, including 

but not limited to the :LUP revision process and implementation of NEPA, 

decisions on wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas, and hunting regulations on 

federal lands. 
3. Issue Summary

3-22 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

3.5.2 Outside the Scope of the Planning Effort

Commenters addressed concerns with development and management of sagegrouse on decisions outside of the BLM and Forest Service jurisdiction. Specific 

themes included the following:

• How will the BLM and Forest Service work with wildlife 

management agencies to ensure appropriate management of hunting 

for greater sage-grouse on both public and private lands?

Many commenters questioned why hunting of greater sage-grouse is 

allowed if the bird is in need of protection. Others stated that 

hunting should be utilized as a method to control greater sagegrouse predators.

Hunting is regulated by state wildlife agencies; these comments 

therefore relate to state-regulated actions and are outside the 

scope of the current planning effort.

• How did the USFWS determine the warranted but precluded 

decision?

Commenters questioned population levels and the need to 

incorporate range-wide conservation measures. Others questioned 

the effectiveness of ESA listing as a method of species conservation

These comments relate to decisions under the purview of the 

USFWS and will not be addressed in the current planning effort.

• How can the BLM and Forest Service manage livestock grazing? 

Commenters asked that grazing be limited or completely stopped 

due to detrimental ecosystem effects. Other stated that grazing 

programs should be reformed as the requirements are too limiting 

and impact ranchers’ livelihoods. In addition, some commenters

state that grazing provides habitat enhancements for sensitive 

species. 

Decisions about livestock grazing national policies would not be 

made in this planning effort.

• How should renewable energy be managed and developed?

Commenters stated concerns about renewable energy 

development, including economic instability due to government 

subsidies and risk of wildlife mortality, specifically for bats and birds. 

General decisions about renewable energy management on public 

lands will be determined by national policy and would not be 

determined in this planning effort.
3. Issue Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 3-23

Scoping Summary Report

In addition, comments were received related to other out of scope 

topics that would be determined by national policy, including the 

following:

- Compensation of private land owners for conservation efforts 

and off-site mitigation;

- BLM and the Forest Service funding;

- Designation of Special Management Areas; and 

- NEPA procedure and costs.

3.6 ANTICIPATED DECISIONS

Management direction resulting from the planning process for the LUPAs needs 

to be adaptable to changing conditions and demands. The LUPAs will provide 

management direction and guide decision making for determining appropriate 

multiple uses and allocation of resources to conserve the greater sage-grouse 

and its habitat. Only LUPs that cover planning areas containing greater sagegrouse PHP or GHP will be included for amendment. LUPAs will identify habitat 

within these categories as well as define desired conditions, management 

direction, and standards and guidelines.

The BLM and Forest Service are reviewing the condition of the environment 

and the current management situation to identify which management directions 

provide protections to sage-grouse and habitat should be continued, which 

should be modified, and which should be developed and added.

This scoping report does not change current management direction set forth in 

the BLM and Forest Service LUPs under consideration for amendment. Instead,

it summarizes those issues identified during the scoping period. The BLM and 

Forest Service will use these issues, along with subsequently identified issues, 

planning criteria, and other information (such as occurrence and development 

potential for minerals), to help formulate a reasonable range of alternatives to 

conserve greater sage-grouse during the next phase of the LUPA process. Each 

identified alternative (including continuation of existing management practices) 

will represent a complete plan for conserving greater sage-grouse on BLM- and 

Forest Service-administered lands in the planning area. Future decisions will 

occur at two levels: the LUPA level and the implementation level. These 

decision types are described below. Only land use plan-level decisions will be 

made as part of the LUPA process. The BLM’s and Forest Service’s evaluation of 

identified alternatives will be documented in an EIS prepared as part of the 

LUPA process, as required under NEPA. The BLM will amend LUPAs with the 

signing of the RODs for each EIS, and the Forest Service will utilize the analysis 

within the EISs to sign separate RODs and amend the identified LMPs.
3. Issue Summary

3-24 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

3.6.1 Future Land Use Plan-level Decisions

Future LUP-level decisions will be made on a broad scale. These decisions will 

identify management direction and guide actions for the coming decades within 

the planning area. The LUPA will provide a comprehensive yet flexible 

framework for managing the numerous demands on resources located on public 

lands while conserving sage-grouse.

The vision for the LUPA will be described in terms of two categories of LUPlevel decisions: desired outcomes and allowable uses and actions to achieve 

desired outcomes. 

Desired outcomes will be expressed in terms of specific goals, standards, and 

objectives. Goals are broad statements of desired outcomes, such as managing 

greater sage-grouse and their habitats to provide for their conservation and 

restoration. Standards are descriptions of conditions or the degree of function 

required, such as land health standards. Objectives are specific, quantifiable, and 

measurable desired conditions for resources, such as managing sagebrush 

communities to achieve a certain canopy cover by 2020.

After establishing desired outcomes, the agencies will identify the allowable uses 

(land use allocations) and management actions needed to achieve the goals and 

objectives. Allocations identify areas where uses are allowed and any 

restrictions that may be needed to meet goals and objectives in these areas, and 

areas where uses would be excluded to protect resource values. Management 

actions are similar in that they are actions that are anticipated to achieve the 

desired outcomes and include actions to maintain, restore, or improve land 

health; management actions could be proactive measures, such as measures that 

would be taken to enhance ecosystem function and condition.

3.6.2 Future Implementation-level Decisions

The LUPAs will contain broad-scale decisions that guide future land 

management actions. Subsequent site-specific implementation, often 

characterized as project-level or activity-level decisions, will require the BLM’s 

and Forest Service’s final approval of on-the-ground actions. Implementation 

decisions require a more-detailed, site-specific environmental analysis that tiers 

off of the EIS prepared for the LUPA. These decisions generally constitute final 

approval of on-the-ground actions to proceed (BLM 2005). An example of an 

implementation decision is the development and management of a recreation 

site. They may be incorporated into implementation plans (activity or project 

plans) or may exist as stand-alone decisions.

These types of decisions require site-specific planning and NEPA analysis. 

Where implementation decisions are made as part of a land use planning effort, 

they are still subject to the appeals process or other administrative review as 

prescribed by specific resource program regulations after the BLM resolves the 

protests to land use plan decisions and makes a decision to adopt or amend the 
3. Issue Summary

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 3-25

Scoping Summary Report

RMP (High Desert Multiple Use Coalition, Inc. et al. Keith Collins, 142 IBLA 285 

[1998]).

3.7 VALID EXISTING MANAGEMENT

The BLM- and Forest Service- administered public lands in each subregion’s 

planning areas are managed with direction from their respective existing LUPs 

and subsequent amendments. Preparation of an updated LUP, or amending a 

LUP, is necessary to incorporate specific conservation measures across the 

range of the greater sage-grouse. The LUPAs will establish new land use 

planning decisions to address issues identified through the federal agencies and

public scoping and, where appropriate, may incorporate decisions from the 

exiting LUPs and subsequent amendments. Determining which existing 

management decisions to carry forward is part of the planning process. The 

BLM and Forest Service will review the existing management situation to 

determine which decisions to carry forward and will identify where new 

management guidance should be developed for greater sage-grouse. This review 

will be documented in the EISs.
3. Issue Summary

3-26 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

This page intentionally left blank.
May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 4-1

Scoping Summary Report

CHAPTER 4

PLANNING CRITERIA

During its initial planning sessions, the BLM and Forest Service developed 

preliminary planning criteria. Planning criteria establish constraints, guidelines, 

and standards for the planning process and help planners define the scope of 

the process and estimate the extent of data collection and analysis. Planning 

criteria are based on standards prescribed by applicable laws and regulations; 

agency guidance; results of consultation and coordination with the public, other 

federal, state, and local agencies, and Indian tribes; analysis of information 

pertinent to the planning area; and professional judgment. The plan will be 

completed in compliance with the FLPMA, NEPA, NFMA, and all other 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Impacts from the management 

alternatives considered in the LUPAs will be analyzed in EISs developed in 

accordance with regulations at 43 CFR 1610 and 40 CFR 1500.

The following preliminary criteria were developed internally for the greater 

sage-grouse LUPAs/EISs and presented for public comment during the public 

scoping period. After public input is analyzed, the criteria become proposed 

criteria and can be added to or changed as the issues are addressed or as new 

information is presented. The BLM and Forest Service will approve the issues 

and criteria along with any changes. Additional suggested criteria received in 

public scoping comments are provided in Section 4.2, Additional Suggestions 

for Planning Criteria.

4.1 PRELIMINARY PLANNING CRITERIA

• The BLM and Forest Service will utilize the WAFWA Conservation 

Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly, 

et al. 2004), and any other appropriate resources, to identify 

greater sage-grouse habitat requirements and best management 

practices.
4. Planning Criteria

4-2 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

• The approved RMP amendments/revisions will be consistent with 

the BLM’s National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy.

• The approved RMP amendments/revisions will comply with FLPMA, 

NEPA, and Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR 

1500 - 1508 and Department of the Interior regulations at 43 CFR 

46 and 43 CFR 1600; the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook, 

“Appendix C: Program-Specific and Resource-Specific Decision 

Guidance Requirements” for affected resource programs (BLM 

2005); the BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H1790-1 (BLM 2008), and all other applicable BLM policies and 

guidance. 

• The approved LMP amendments/revisions will comply with NFMA, 

NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR 

1500 – 1508, Regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture at 36 CFR 

219, Forest Service Manual 1920, and Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12.

• The RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will be limited to making 

land use planning decisions specific to the conservation of greater 

sage-grouse habitats.

• The BLM and Forest Service will consider allocative and/or 

prescriptive standards to conserve greater sage-grouse habitat, as 

well as objectives and management actions to restore, enhance, and 

improve greater sage-grouse habitat.

• The RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will recognize valid 

existing rights.

• Lands addressed in the RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will be 

public lands (including surface-estate, split-estate lands) managed by 

the BLM and Forest Service, respectively, in greater sage-grouse 

habitats. Any decisions in the RMP and LMP amendments/revisions 

will apply only to federal lands administered by either the BLM or 

the Forest Service.

• The BLM and Forest Service will use a collaborative and multijurisdictional approach, where appropriate, to determine the 

desired future condition of BLM-administered lands and Forest 

Service lands for the conservation of greater sage-grouse and their 

habitats.

• As described by law and policy, the BLM and Forest Service will 

strive to ensure that conservation measures are as consistent as 

possible with other planning jurisdictions within the planning area 

boundaries.

• The BLM and Forest Service will consider a range of reasonable 

alternatives, including appropriate management prescriptions that 
4. Planning Criteria

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 4-3

Scoping Summary Report

focus on the relative values of resources while contributing to the 

conservation of the greater sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat.

• The BLM and Forest Service will address socioeconomic impacts of

the alternatives. Socio-economic analysis will use accepted inputoutput quantitative models such as IMPLAN, RIMSII, and JEDI for 

renewable energy analysis.

• The BLM and Forest Service will endeavor to use current scientific 

information, research, technologies, and results of inventory, 

monitoring, and coordination to determine appropriate local and 

regional management strategies that will enhance or restore greater 

sage-grouse habitats.

• Management of greater sage-grouse habitat that intersects with 

Wilderness Study Areas on public lands administered by the BLM 

will be guided by the Interim Management Policy for Lands under

Wilderness Review. Land use allocations made for Wilderness 

Study Areas must be consistent with the interim management policy 

and with other laws, regulations, and policies related to Wilderness 

Study Area management.

• For BLM-administered lands, all activities and uses within greater 

sage-grouse habitats will follow existing land health standards.

Standards and guidelines for livestock grazing and other programs 

that have developed standards and guidelines will be applicable to all 

alternatives for BLM lands.

• The BLM and Forest Service will consult with Native American 

Tribes to identify sites, areas, and objects important to their 

cultural and religious heritage within greater sage-grouse habitats.

• The BLM and Forest Service will coordinate and communicate with 

state, local, and tribal governments to ensure that the BLM and 

Forest Service consider provisions of pertinent plans; seek to 

resolve inconsistencies between state, local, and tribal plans; and 

provide ample opportunities for state, local, and tribal governments 

to comment on the development of amendments or revisions.

• The BLM and Forest Service will develop vegetation management 

objectives, including objectives for managing noxious weeds and 

invasive species, including identification of desired future condition 

for specific areas, within greater sage-grouse habitat.

• The RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will be based on the 

principles of adaptive management.

• Reasonable foreseeable development scenarios and planning for 

fluid minerals will follow the BLM Planning for Fluid Mineral 

Resources Handbook H-1624-1 (BLM 1990) and current fluid 

minerals manual guidance for fluid mineral (oil and gas, coal-bed 
4. Planning Criteria

4-4 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

methane, oil shale) and geothermal resources. For NFS lands, the 

Forest Service will use applicable and relevant policy and 

procedures.

• The RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will be developed using an 

interdisciplinary approach to prepare reasonable foreseeable 

development scenarios, identify alternatives, and analyze resource 

impacts, including cumulative impacts on natural and cultural 

resources and the social and economic environment.

• The most current and approved BLM and Forest Service corporate 

spatial data will be supported by current metadata and will be used 

to ascertain greater sage-grouse habitat extent and quality. Data will 

be consistent with the principles of the Information Quality Act of 

2000.

• State game and fish agencies’ greater sage-grouse data and expertise 

will be utilized to the fullest extent practicable in making 

management determinations on federal lands.

4.2 ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS FOR PLANNING CRITERIA

• Expand the criterion to use state game and fish agency data and 

expertise to state that the LUP amendments will recognize the 

states’ responsibility and authority to manage wildlife.

• Include information from Grazing Influence, Objective 

Development, and Management in Wyoming’s Greater Sage-grouse 

Habitat (Cagney et al. 2010) and recommendations developed by 

Local Sage-grouse Working Groups and the forthcoming Greater 

Sage-Grouse Programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement 

with Assurance for Wyoming Ranch Management.
May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 5-1

Scoping Summary Report

CHAPTER 5

DATA SUMMARY/DATA GAPS

As part of the LUPA planning, evaluation, and data-collection process, the BLM 

and Forest Service have inventoried available information and have identified the 

following data needs:

• Draft oil and gas, and wind and solar reasonably foreseeable 

development reports will be completed for each subregion that 

does not have a current report; findings of the oil and gas 

reasonably foreseeable development reports will be incorporated 

into the LUPAs/EISs.

• A socioeconomic analysis will be completed and will be used to 

assess existing socioeconomic conditions and analyze 

socioeconomic impacts from the proposed alternatives.

• Pending reports for special designation areas include ACEC 

evaluations.

• A draft cumulative effects baseline report will be prepared to 

document current conditions and assess past, present, and future 

trends at a range-wide level.

• Information obtained in the ongoing rapid ecological assessments 

will be used in analyzing potential impacts on climate change from 

the proposed alternatives (BLM 2012b).

Both new data and existing resource information will be used in formulating 

management alternatives in the LUPAs. To facilitate this process, information is 

being compiled and put into digital format for use in analysis and map 

production using Geographic Information Systems. Because this information is 

imperative to quantify resources, update maps, and manipulate information 

during alternatives development, this process must be completed before 
5. Data Summary/Data Gaps

5-2 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

analysis can begin. New data generated during the LUPA process will be used to 

address planning issues and will meet applicable established standards.
May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 6-1

Scoping Summary Report

CHAPTER 6

FUTURE STEPS

6.1 SUMMARY OF FUTURE STEPS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES

The next phase of the planning process is to develop draft management 

alternatives based on the issues presented in Sections 3.2 – 3.4 of this scoping 

report. These alternatives will address planning issues identified during scoping 

and will meet goals and objectives to be developed by the BLM’s and Forest 

Service’s interdisciplinary team. In compliance with NEPA, Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations, and BLM and Forest Service planning 

regulations and guidance, alternatives should be reasonable and capable of

implementation. The BLM and Forest Service will also meet with cooperating 

agencies, interested tribes, and community groups and individuals. A detailed 

analysis of the alternatives will be completed, and the BLM’s and Forest 

Service’s preferred alternative will then be identified. The preferred alternative

is often made up of a combination of management option components from 

various alternatives to provide the best mix and balance of multiple land and 

resource uses to resolve the issues.

The analysis of alternatives developed for each of the subregions in the Great 

Basin and Rocky Mountain regions will be documented in a Draft LUP 

Amendment (LUPA)/EIS for each subregion. Although the BLM and Forest 

Service welcomes public input at any time during the planning process, the next 

official public comment period will begin when the Draft LUPAs/EISs are

published, which is anticipated in the spring of 2013. Each of the subregional 

LUPAs/EISs will be developed and released for public review independently. The 

draft documents will be widely distributed to elected officials, regulatory 

agencies, and members of the public, and will be available on the Great Basin 

and Rocky Mountain regions project Web sites. The availability of the draft 

document will be announced via a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, 

and a 90-day public comment period will follow. Public meetings will be held 

throughout the subregions during the 90-day comment period for each EIS.
6. Future Steps

6-2 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

At the conclusion of the public comment period, the Draft LUPAs/EISs will be 

revised. Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs will then be published. The availability of the 

proposed document will be announced in the Federal Register, and a 30-day 

public protest period will follow regarding the proposed planning level decisions 

(43 CFR Part 1610.5.2). If necessary, a notice will be published in the Federal 

Register requesting comments on significant changes made as a result of 

protest.

Concurrently, the governors of each state in the subregions will have a 60-day 

period to review the document for consistency with approved state and local 

plans, policies, and programs.

Under Forest Service regulations, the appeals process occurs as a pre-decisional 

objection process as outlined in Section 105(a) of the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act of 2003 and set forth in 2012 Appropriations Act (16 USC §§ 

1600-14). The objection process will begin after the completion of the EISs and 

will end, at the latest, when the Forest Service issues its ROD. In addition, to 

participate in the administrative review process and object to a project, an 

individual must submit specific written comments regarding the proposed action 

to the Forest Service during the scoping or public comment period

At the conclusion of the public protest period and the governor’s consistency 

review, the BLM and Forest Service will resolve all protests and any 

inconsistencies. Pending resolution of any protects received, the approved 

LUPAs and RODs will be published. The availability of these documents will be 

announced in the Federal Register. Any implementation-level decisions in the 

RMPA are not subject to the protest process but instead are subject to 

administrative remedies set forth in regulations applicable to the specific 

resource management program. These remedies generally take the form of 

appeals to the Office of Hearings and Appeals within 30 days of the effective

date of the ROD or in accordance with the provisions of 43 CFR 4.4.

All publications, including this report, newsletters, Notices of Availability, the 

Draft LUPAs/EISs, and other subsequent documents, will be published on the 

Great Basin and Rocky Mountain region project Web sites. In addition, 

pertinent dates regarding solicitation of public comments will be published on 

the Web sites.

6.2 CONTACT INFORMATION

The public is invited and encouraged to participate throughout the planning 

process for the LUPAs. Some ways to participate include:

• Reviewing the progress of the LUPAs at the project Web sites, 

which will be updated with information, documents, and 

announcements throughout the duration of the LUPA preparation; 

and
6. Future Steps

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs 6-3

Scoping Summary Report

• Requesting to be added to or to remain on the official project 

mailing list in order to receive future mailings and information. 

(email SageQuery@blm.gov)

To request further information, have names added to or removed from the 

mailing list, or update contact information, members of the public may email a 

request to SageQuery@blm.gov, or contact:

Johanna Munson, Rocky Mountain Region Project Manager

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009

Telephone: (307) 775–6329

jmunson@blm.gov 

or

Lauren Mermejo, Great Basin Region Project Manager

Telephone (775) 861–6645 

1340 Financial Boulevard 

Reno, Nevada 89520 

lmermejo@blm.gov.