Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment M-1 

APPENDIX M—WILDLIFE AND BOTANY REPORT AND 

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES REPORT
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 1 

Wildlife and Botany Report

for the

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Effort to Amend the

Bridger-Teton and Medicine Bow National Forest Plans

And

Thunder Basin National Grassland Management Plan

December 13, 2013 

Prepared by:

Tim Byer, Wildlife Biologist

tbyer@fs.fed.us 

Steve Loose, Wildlife Biologist

sloose@fs.fed.us 

Katharine Haynes

katharinemhaynes@fs.fed.us 

Chris Colt, Wildlife Biologist

ccolt@fs.fed.us 
Appendix M Draft EIS

2 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 4

II. PROJECT HISTORY............................................................................................................................................ 5

III. PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................................... 6

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................................... 6

Alternative A: No-action.................................................................................................................................. 6

Alternative B: .................................................................................................................................................... 7

Alternative C:..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Alternative D: .................................................................................................................................................... 8

Alternative E:..................................................................................................................................................... 9

V. ANALYSIS AREA...............................................................................................................................................10

VII. SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS...............................................................................................10

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES.......................................................10

FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES ..............................................................................................................12

VII. SPECIES INFORMATION AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (DIRECT, INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE)....28

A. GREATER SAGE-GROUSE (CENTROCERCUS UROPHASIANUS)..............................................................................28

Alternative A - No Action...............................................................................................................................35

Alternative B ...................................................................................................................................................41

Alternative C....................................................................................................................................................43

Alternative D ...................................................................................................................................................46

Alternative E....................................................................................................................................................47

B. SAGEBRUSH ASSOCIATED SPECIES....................................................................................................................50

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) ......................................................................................................50

Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) .............................................................................................................51

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus).............................................................................................................52

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)...............................................................................................................53

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) ................................................................................................. 53

Sage sparrow (Amphispiza bellii) ...............................................................................................................53

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella brewerii)........................................................................................................54

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) ....................................................................55

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Canadensis canadensis)............................................................55

White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) ..........................................................................................56

Wyoming Pocket Gopher (Thomomys clusius) ........................................................................................57

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) ..........................................................................................................57

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) .........................................................................58

Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) ............................................................................................................59

Habitat Associations and Threats ...............................................................................................................59

Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus).....................................................................................................................60

Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas) ...............................................................................................................60

Alternative A - No Action...............................................................................................................................61

Alternative B ...................................................................................................................................................63

Alternative C....................................................................................................................................................65

Alternative D ...................................................................................................................................................66

Alternative E....................................................................................................................................................68

C. GRASSLAND ASSOCIATED SPECIES....................................................................................................................69

Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) ...................................................................................70

Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)................................................................................................................................70

Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) ............................................................................................71

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) .........................................................................................................72

Chestnut-Collared Longspur (Calicarius ornatus) ...................................................................................72

McCown’s Longspur (Calcarius mccownii) ................................................................................................73
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 3 

Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) ................................................................................................. 74

Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)..............................................................................75

D. PLANTS...........................................................................................................................................................76

Astragalus barrii (Barr’s milkvetch) ..........................................................................................................77

Astragalus diversifolius var. diversifolius (Meadow milkvetch) ..........................................................77

Astragalus paysonii (Payson’s milkvetch)................................................................................................. 78

Eriogonum exifolium (Dropleaf {slender leaved} buckwheat) ............................................................78

Lesquerella paysonii (Payson’s bladderpod) ...........................................................................................79

Machaeranthera coloradoensis (Colorado tansy aster) .........................................................................79

Symphyotrichum molle (Soft aster)............................................................................................................80

Triteleia grandiflora (Largeflower Triteleia) ..........................................................................................80

Alternative A - No Action...............................................................................................................................80

Alternative B ...................................................................................................................................................82

Alternative C....................................................................................................................................................84

Alternative D ...................................................................................................................................................86

Alternative E....................................................................................................................................................87

VIII. CONTACTS...................................................................................................................................................89

IX. LITERATURE CITED........................................................................................................................................89
Appendix M Draft EIS

4 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this biological evaluation is to identify the likely effects of management 

decisions associated with the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Planning Decision, specifically for 

the Bridger-Teton National Forest (BT) on USDA Forest Service Region 4 sensitive species and 

for the Medicine Bow National Forest (MB) and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) on 

USDA Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species. Regional sensitive species lists are comprised 

of plants, birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fish, and invertebrates. 

This biological evaluation addresses sensitive species that meet the following criteria: 

1) Species that are known to occur on the units based on confirmed sightings. 

2) Species that may occur on the units based on reliable unconfirmed sightings. 

3) Species that may occur on the units based on the presence of potential habitat. 

Forest Service Policy - The USDA Forest Service has developed policy regarding the 

designation of plant and animal species (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670; Supplement 2600-

94-2). The Regional Forester's sensitive species list contains taxa only when they meet one or 

more of the following three criteria:

1) The species is declining in numbers or occurrences and evidence indicates it could be 

proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered if action is not taken to reverse or 

stop the downward trend. 

2) The species' habitat is declining and continued loss could result in population declines that 

lead to federal listing as threatened or endangered if action is not taken to reverse or stop 

the decline.

3) The species' population or habitat is stable but limited. 

Forest Service Objectives- Under FSM 2672.41, the objectives for completing biological 

evaluations for proposed Forest Service programs or activities are: 

1) To ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or 

desired non-native plant or contribute to animal species or trends toward Federal listing of 

any species listed as sensitive by USDA Forest Service Region 2.

2) To comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, actions of Federal 

agencies should not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed 

species.

3) To provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered, 

proposed, and sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision making process, 

and to enhance opportunities for mitigation. 

FSM 2670.22 #2 regarding objectives for sensitive species states, “Maintain viable populations 

of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed 

throughout their geographic range on National Forest System Lands.” FSM 2600, Section 

2671.44 (Supplement 2600-94-2) provides direction on the review of actions and programs 

authorized, funded or implemented by the Forest Service relative to the requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 5 

II. PROJECT HISTORY

Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) have emerged as a significant conservation concern over the last 

10 years. The species is currently a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act inferring that listing is “warranted, but precluded due to higher priorities” because of two 

primary factors: 1) the large-scale loss and fragmentation of habitats across the species range, 

and 2) a lack of regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure the conservation of the species. The 

primary threats to sage-grouse habitat are summarized in the listing decision. The two dominant 

threats are related to infrastructure associated with energy development in the eastern portion of 

the species range, and the conversion of sagebrush communities to annual grasslands associated 

resulting in large uncharacteristic wildfires in the western portion of the species range.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately half of the GRSG habitats, 

whereas the Forest Service manages approximately 8 percent of species habitat, with most of that 

occurring on national forests in the Intermountain Region. The Forest Service manages 

approximately 9 million acres of sage-brush habitats, of which about 7.5 million acres occurring 

in the Intermountain Region. Most habitats on Forest Service-administered lands contribute to 

summer brood-rearing habitats, although some forests and grasslands do contribute important 

breeding nesting and winter habitat.

In 2011 and 2012, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) submitted letters to the 

BLM and Forest Service recommending that the agencies amend Land Use Plans to provide 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve the species. Originally, this recommendation 

identified 10 National Forests viewed as “high priority” to ensure appropriate regulatory 

mechanisms. Following scoping and discussion the Forest Service added an additional 10 Forest 

Plans that would be considered for amendment. The Forest Service is participating in several 

joint Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) with the BLM to develop Records of Decision 

that will be used as a basis for amending Land Use Plans, including Forest Plans. 

Since half of all GRSG habitat occurs on BLM-administered lands, the BLM is leading the effort 

to amend or revise land use plans, with the Forest Service as a cooperating agency. The purpose 

is to provide direction in land management plans that conserve and protect sage-grouse habitat 

and to provide assurances to the USFWS that adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place to 

ensure the conservation of the species. EISs will be completed for seven sage-grouse planning 

sub-regions: 1) eastern Montana and portions of North and South Dakota, 2) Idaho and 

southwest Montana, 3) Oregon, 4) Wyoming, 5) northwest Colorado, 6) Utah, and 7) Nevada 

and northern California. The Forest Service is participating in six of these EISs (excluding 

Eastern Montana/Dakotas and some of the areas in Wyoming). The EISs will include joint 

agency signatures, but separate Records of Decision.” The Forest Service is involved in five of 

these efforts (http://fsweb.r4.fs.fed.us/unit/nr/sagegrouse/index.shtml) 

This specialist report was prepared in support of the Wyoming 9 Plan EIS. The BT, MB, and 

TBNG are planning to amend respective Land and Resource Management Plans for the GRSG. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

6 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

III. PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the Land and Resource Management Plan amendment for the GRSG is to 

identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures to conserve, enhance, and/or restore 

sage-grouse habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to their habitat. The need to 

create this amendment arose when the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms was identified as a 

significant threat in the USFWS finding on the petition to list the GRSG. The USFWS identified 

conservation measures within Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans (as well as 

BLM Land Use Plans) as the principal regulatory mechanisms for habitat conservation. 

Therefore, the Land and Resource Management Plan amendment will focus on areas affected by 

threats to sage-grouse habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision 

(USFWS 2010). 

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

The BLM and Forest Service are developing a range of alternatives that are specifically 

structured to identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures in Land Use Plans to 

conserve, enhance or restore GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to 

that habitat. There are currently five alternatives to consider under this analysis: Alternative A - 

No action, Alternative B – National Technical Team (NTT) alternative, Alternative C – 

Conservation groups (citizen’s based) alternative, Alternative D – Wyoming sub-regional 

alternative, and Alternative E – Wyoming sub-regional combination of Governor’s Executive 

Order and NTT measures. A brief description of each of the alternatives is provided below. For 

a full description of the alternatives, as well as project design criteria, mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, please refer to chapter 2 of the EIS prepared for this project. 

One of the key differences among the alternatives is the type of designated habitat applicable to 

each. Designated sage-grouse habitat is divided into two main categories—preliminary priority 

habitat (PPH) and preliminary general habitat (PGH). PPH is defined as areas that have been 

identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable GRSG 

populations. These areas include breeding, late brood-rearing and winter concentration areas. 

PGH is defined as areas of occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PPH. A third 

category of linkage areas is also present. Within the document, all designated habitat (ADH) 

refers to all PPH, PGH, and connectivity habitat. 

Alternative A: No-action

Under the no-action alternative the Land and Resource Management Plans would not be 

amended. The existing management direction set for sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat would 

continue. New road construction would be allowed near leks, in PPH, and in PGH with few 

limitations. There are no specific limitations on upgrading roads. There are few limitations on 

recreation special uses. Some Rights-of-way would be allowed in sage-grouse habitat for 

powerlines. Mineral and energy development is allowed in most PPH and PGH with some 

limitations. Wind energy development is allowed in some PPH with some limitations. 

Disturbances from new facilities would be limited from 0.25 to 2 miles from active leks or 

nesting habitat. Disturbance of nesting habitat is prohibited on the Medicine Bow and Thunder 

Basin Grassland within 2 miles of leks. Some noise restrictions apply for the Medicine Bow and 

Thunder Basin Grassland. Livestock grazing will retain herbaceous material to provide cover 

and forage for GRSG (MB). GRSG needs will be addressed in allotment management plans 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 7 

(BT). Livestock grazing will retain nesting cover within 2-3 miles of leks. There are some 

limitations on shrub treatments in the Medicine Bow and Thunder Basin Plans. Treatments in 

winter range would be limited but permitted. Treated areas would be rested from grazing. Post 

treatment rehabilitation includes native plants or seed.

Alternative B: 

All applicable and appropriate conservation measures that were developed in the NTT’s 2011 

report (Sage Grouse National Technical Team 2011) would be considered and incorporated into 

this alternative. These conservation measures would apply most often to GRSG PPH, less often 

to PGH, and, rarely, to connectivity habitat. There would be a 3% cap on disturbance in these 

areas. 

Travel construction would be limited in PPH, minimum standards would be applied and there 

would be no upgrading of roads. Travel would be limited to existing roads. Recreation special 

use permits in PPH would only be allowed if they are deemed to have a neutral or beneficial 

effect on GRSG. All GRSG core habitat areas and Important Bird Areas could be designated as 

SIAs.

Rights-of-way would be excluded in PPH. The Forests and Grassland would aim to keep and 

acquire PPH. 

PPH would be closed to new fluid minerals leases; existing leases would have a 4-mile no 

surface occupancy buffer around leks. Exceptions and modifications to leases would not be 

considered in PPH. Geophysical exploration is prohibited in PPH with few exceptions. Most 

coal and non-energy mineral leasing is unsuitable in PPH. Wind energy development would be 

allowed but met towers are prohibited in PPH. There is a seasonal restriction on disturbance of 

nesting habitat in PPH. Noise restrictions are 10 dB above ambient during elk season. 

Only light grazing is allowed in PPH in allotments not meeting standards. Grazing direction 

would be adjusted to improve management for GRSG. Planning efforts will identify grazing 

allotments where permanent retirement of grazing privileges is beneficial to GRSG. Water 

developments are authorized only when beneficial to upland and riparian GRSG habitat. 

Wildfire/Fuels would aim to protect sagebrush habitats in PPH. No prescribed fire treatment is 

allowed in PPH in < 12” precipitation zone. Habitat restoration would be a priority, with a focus 

on native species. Treatments in sage-grouse winter range would be very limited. Fuels 

treatments in PPH would retain 15% sagebrush cover. Treatments would be rested from grazing 

for 2 growing seasons. Post treatment rehabilitation includes native plants. 

Alternative C: 

During scoping, conservation groups had the opportunity to submit suggestions on how to define 

PPH and PGH areas and developed their own conservation measures that would be applied to 

those areas (proposing more stringent management). All of the reasonable conservation measures 

across the sage grouse range have been consolidated into one alternative which each sub-region 

will analyze in detail. This alternative would apply to all designated GRSG habitat, including 

PPH, PGH, and connectivity habitat. There would be a 3% cap on disturbance in these areas. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

8 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Travel construction would be limited in all designated habitat and no new roads would be 

constructed within 4 miles of a lek or occupied habitat. Travel would be limited to existing 

roads. No road upgrading would be allowed in designated habitat. Recreation special use 

permits in PPH would only be allowed if they are deemed to have a neutral or beneficial effect 

on GRSG. Recreation would seasonally prohibit camping and non-motorized recreation within 4 

miles of a lek. Designate SCAs for GRSG.

All designated habitat would be exclusion areas for rights-of-way and special use permits. The 

Forests and Grassland would aim to keep and acquire all designated habitat. 

Wind and solar installations would not be allowed to be sited in designated habitat. All 

designated habitat would be closed to new fluid minerals leases; existing leases would have a 4-

mile no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Exceptions and modifications to leases would not 

be considered in PPH. Geophysical exploration is prohibited in PPH. Most coal and non-energy 

mineral leasing is unsuitable in PPH. There is a seasonal restriction on disturbance in nesting 

habitat in all designated habitat. Noise restrictions are 10 dB above ambient during lek season. 

PPH would be closed to livestock grazing. Grazing direction would be adjusted to improve 

management for GRSG on other habitat. Planning efforts will identify grazing allotments where 

permanent retirement of grazing privileges is beneficial to GRSG. No water developments are 

permitted within PPH or PGH. 

Wildfire/Fuels would aim to protect and restore sagebrush habitats in PPH and PGH; areas 

would be closed to grazing after wildfire. No prescribed fire treatment is allowed in <12” 

precipitation zone in PPH or PGH. Treatments in sage-grouse winter range would be very 

limited. Post treatment rehabilitation will include native plants including sagebrush. 

Alternative D: 

In this alternative, sub-regions will have the opportunity to make changes to the 

recommendations from the NTT report and adjust habitat boundaries based on science, resource 

trade-offs, scoping comments, and internal staff expertise. In Wyoming, this alternative 

incorporates comments from Wyoming cooperators. Conservation measures would apply to 

GRSG PPH and PGH and, rarely, to connectivity habitat. There would be a 9% cap on 

disturbance in PPH. 

New roads would not be constructed within 0.25 miles of a lek in PPH. Road upgrades would be 

allowed in PPH and PGH. Recreation special use permits in PPH would be allowed on a case by 

case basis. No GRSG SIAs would be designated. 

Rights-of-way would permit new power lines in PPH within 2 identified transmission line 

corridors, near existing large transmission lines, or areas deemed to have minor impacts on 

GRSG. Other GRSG habitat would be available for Rights-of-way. The Forests and Grassland 

would aim to keep and acquire PPH. Exceptions and modifications to leases would be 

considered in PPH and PGH. Disruptive activities would be precluded within 0.25 miles of 

occupied leks in PPH or connectivity habitat. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 9 

New fluid mineral leases would be allowed. Geophysical exploration is not permitted. Coal and 

non-energy mineral leasing in PPH can be suitable with stipulations. Wind energy development 

would be prohibited in PGH unless there would be no decline in GRSG populations. There is a 

seasonal restriction on nesting habitat in PPH within 2 miles of a lek. Some noise restrictions 

apply for the Medicine Bow and Thunder Basin Grassland. 

Grazing direction would be monitored to meet Wyoming land health standards and consider 

GRSG objectives in PPH. Water developments are authorized as needed for grazing in PPH. 

Wildfire/Fuels treatments in sagebrush in PPH could occur up to a 9% disturbance threshold. 

Prescribed fire would not be limited in <12” precipitation zone. Treatment in sage-grouse winter 

range would be permitted. Treated areas would not be rested from grazing. No rehabilitation is 

identified for prescribed fires or wild fires. 

Alternative E: 

This sub-regional adjustment alternative generally applies to PPH with some measures also 

applying in PGH and connectivity habitat. This alternative includes elements from the BLM IM, 

the Governor’s EO and the NTT alternative in areas not addressed in Wyoming specific 

directives. 

New primary and secondary roads would not be constructed within 1.9 miles of a lek in PPH. 

Other roads would not be constructed within 0.6 miles of a lek in PPH. Some road upgrades 

would be allowed in PPH. Recreation special use permits in PPH would be allowed unless 

impacts cannot be mitigated. No GRSG SIAs would be designated. 

Rights-of-way would permit new power lines in PPH within 2 identified transmission line 

corridors, near existing large transmission lines, or areas deemed to have minor impacts on 

GRSG. Other GRSG habitat would be available for Rights-of-way. GRSG PPH could be sold or 

exchanged for economic benefits. Exceptions and modifications to leases would be considered 

in PPH and PGH. Disruptive activities would be precluded within 0.6 miles of occupied leks in 

PPH or connectivity habitat. 

New fluid mineral leases would be allowed. Geophysical exploration is allowed within PPH 

when fragmentation does not occur. Coal and non-energy mineral leasing in PPH can be suitable 

with stipulations. Wind energy development would be prohibited in PGH unless there would be 

no decline in GRSG populations. There is a seasonal restriction on disturbance in nesting habitat 

in PPH. Noise restrictions would be developed over time. 

Wyoming land health standards would be monitored to determine if grazing is a significant 

factor where unsatisfactory conditions exist and to determine adjustments. Water developments 

are authorized when beneficial to upland and riparian habitat in PPH. 

The BTNF currently utilizes the full spectrum of fire management practices. Wildfires on the 

BTNF are assessed according to their location, current conditions, Forest Plan objectives, values, 

and current and projected fire behavior to determine the most appropriate response to ensure 

firefighter and public safety, protect values, and manage for ecosystem health. Fires, or portions 

thereof, that pose significant threat to values are suppressed as safely and quickly as possible. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

10 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

For wildland fires, management action points are utilized as planning tools to inform actions that 

may need to occur based on values for a specific fire. The BTNF also utilizes prescribed fires to 

treat fuels in pre-identified areas to either reduce fuel build up or create diversity in age classes 

of vegetation types. 

V. ANALYSIS AREA

The analysis area consists of areas of the Bridger-Teton National Forest (BT), Medicine Bow 

National Forest (MB), and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) that have been identified 

as Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Table 1 identifies the amount of GRSG Preliminary Primary 

Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) by management unit. The amount of 

GRSG habitat varies considerably among the units. 

Table 1. Acres of GRSG habitat on each management unit (percentage of total acres).

Management Unit Total Unit Area GRSG PPH GRSG PGH

Bridger-Teton 3,400,000 5933 (1.7) 262,018 (7.7)

Medicine Bow 1,262,325 4564 (0.4) 22,915 (1.8)

Thunder Basin 553,864 217,768 (39.2) 336,096 (60.7)

VII. SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES

A Biological Assessment (BA) will be prepared on the selected alternative developed for the 

Record of Decision and will be included with the FEIS developed for this project. The BA will 

conform to the legal requirements set forth under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

(19 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402.12 (f) and 402.14). Section 7(a) (1) of the ESA requires 

federal agencies to use their authorities to further the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a) 

(2) requires that federal agencies ensure any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of federally-listed species, or destroy or adversely modify 

designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment must be prepared for federal actions to

evaluate the potential effects of the proposal on listed or proposed species. The contents of the 

BA are at the discretion of the federal agency, and will depend on the nature of the federal action 

(50 CFR 402.12(f)). 

A BA is not included with this DEIS. This Wildlife and Botany Specialist Report provides 

preliminary background information that will be utilized in the development of a BA and 

Biological Evaluation (BE) for the selected alternative. It also provides insight into the currently 

anticipated effects to threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species. Species identified 

by the USFWS as ‘candidate’ species have no ESA protections but by Forest Service policy, they 

are designated as Regional Forester ‘sensitive species’ and afforded special management 

attention by the US Forest Service. They are analyzed in the Biological Evaluation developed for 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 11

the FEIS and are discussed in the sensitive species section of this specialist report, if they occur 

on one of the Forest Units. 

A list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate (TEPC) species was determined for 

this project in consultation with the USFWS. Close coordination with USFWS will continue 

throughout the project. Table 2 is the list of TEPC species likely to be included in the Biological 

Assessment prepared for the selected alternative. Overall it is generally assumed that 

implementation of any of the action alternatives that adds additional conservation measures for 

Greater Sage-Grouse may also result in indirect positive outcome for other listed species 

associated with sage-grouse or sagebrush habitats, if they occur in the area where the 

conservation measures are applied. Negative consequences to other listed species are not 

envisioned as an outcome of selection of any of the alternatives. 

Table 2. Special Status Species Evaluated in This Report

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status

Wildlife

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes Experimental Population, 

Non-Essential

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened

Bonytail Chub Gila elegans Endangered

Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered

Gray Wolf Canis lupus Experimental

Grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis Threatened

Humpback Chub Gila cypha Endangered

Kendall Warm Springs Dace Rhinichthys osculus thermalis Endangered

Least Tern Sterna antillarum Endangered

North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Proposed Threatened

Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened

Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudonius preblei Threatened

Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus Endangered

Whooping Crane Grus americana Endangered

Wyoming Toad Bufo baxteri Endangered

Yellow- billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Proposed Threatened

Northern Long-eared Myotis Myotis septentrionalis Proposed Endangered

Plants

Blowout Penstemon Penstemon haydenii Endangered

Colorado Butterfly Plant Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis Threatened

Desert Yellowhead Yermo xanthocephalus Threatened

Fremont County Rockcress Boechera pusilla Candidate
Appendix M Draft EIS

12 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara Endangered

Ute Ladies’-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened

Whitebark Pine Pinus albicaulis Candidate

Critical Habitat

Canada Lynx Critical habitat

Colorado Butterfly Plant Critical Habitat

Colorado River Fish Critical Habitat

Desert Yellow head Critical Habitat

Platte River Species Critical Habitat

FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES

The Region 2 and 4 sensitive species lists are composed of plants, birds, mammals, amphibians, 

fish, and invertebrates identified for that region. We conducted a review for sensitive species 

that may occur or be affected by activities associated with the Planning EIS and subsequent Plan 

Amendments for the GRSG. Existing occurrence information, as well as, known or potential 

habitat was reviewed. Sources of information contained in this database include Forest Service 

records and files, the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department information, and published research. 

The U.S. Forest Service, Region 2 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES) 

Program has developed a Technical Conservation Assessment program to assist Forest Service 

wildlife biologists and others in conducting project impact analysis on many of Region 2 

Sensitive Species. These Assessments, “produced by the Rocky Mountain Region’s (R2) Species 

Conservation Project (SCP) is intended to serve a variety of purposes. Ultimately, they are a 

component of a broad science platform being developed to reshape planning for and 

management of national forests into one that is strategic in nature and founded on scientific 

knowledge of sound ecosystem principles. Species Conservation assessments are intended to 

stand alone as premier conservation resources on approximately 225 species and as input to a 

process that synthetically marries ecological processes and conditions with species needs to lay a 

foundation for ecologically based forest management. (Region 2 Species Conservation 

Assessment Project website- project background). 

Where available, these Assessments are the first source, and primary reference for this analysis. 

Due to their size, they will not be restated completely in this analysis, but have been used 

extensively. They can be generally found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments

Table 3 is a list of Region 2 and Region 4 Forest Service sensitive species. Threatened, 

endangered, and proposed species are addressed separately in the biological assessment prepared 

for this project. All of the species in Table 2 were considered for this analysis and compared to 

the 5 criteria listed below. The criteria were used to identify species that would experience “no 

impact” from the implementation of the action alternatives and could therefore be eliminated 

from detailed analysis. These numerical categories below are referred to in Table 3:

1. Analysis area is outside the species’ range.
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 13

2. Potential habitat for the species does not exist within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

(sagebrush-steppe) or is outside the elevation range of the Greater Sage-Grouse. 

3. The type or intensity of the activity in the proposed action is expected to have no 

impact/effect on these species or their habitat.

4. Individual animals may be accidental, dispersing, migrating, happenstance, vagrant, 

nomadic or opportunistic visitors to the habitat(s) impacted by the proposal, but no 

affiliation or dependence upon these habitat(s) has been shown. 

5. The associated conservation design or mitigations eliminate any potential for impact on 

the species.

Species in Table 3 that are likely to occur within or near the analysis area, or with potential 

habitat in or near the analysis area and may be affected (negatively or positively, directly, 

indirectly and/or cumulatively) by implementation of an action alternative were it carried 

forward into Table 4, and a more detailed analysis of the project effects was subsequently 

conducted. 

The Analysis of Management Situation (AMS) for this sage-grouse amendment originally 

evaluated a number of species for consideration in the analysis process. Subsequent review of the 

alternatives indicates that several of these species originally thought to be affected will 

experience no effects on their primary habitat or populations. No alternative is expected to 

impact any identified limiting factors for these species or their life requirements. Based on these 

factors, the following species will not be analyzed in greater detail:

• Birds: peregrine falcon, 

• Fish: lake chub, Plains minnow, Northern redbelly dace, Southern redbelly dace, 

finescale dace, flathead chub, 

• Amphibians: Columbia spotted frog, boreal chorus frog, and Northern leopard frog. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

14 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Table 3. USDA Forest Service Region 2 and 4 sensitive species occurring or potentially occurring on the Bridger-Teton (BT) or 

Medicine Bow (MB) National Forests or Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) that may be influenced by an action alternative 

and will be further analyzed in this document.

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO 

BE PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS 

AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Forest Service REGIONS 2 and 4 SENSITIVE SPECIES

MAMMALS (13)

Bighorn Sheep

Ovis canadensis 

canadensis

High elevation alpine habitats with steep 

escape terrain adjacent to open foraging areas 

during summer. Habitat overlap on MB.

Y See detailed analysis 

below. 

Fisher

Martes pennanti 

Extensive, mature to old-growth spruce-fir 

forests with high levels of canopy closure on 

BT.

N 2 No Impact

American marten

Martes americana

SF, LPP N 2 No Impact

Spotted Bat 

Euderma 

maculatum 

Desert scrub to coniferous forest, most often 

in low deserts and juniper woodlands. 

Forages over meadows, along forest edges, or 

in open coniferous woodlands. Habitat 

overlap on MB, TBNG.

Y 

See detailed analysis 

below. 

Townsend’s 

Western Big-eared 

Bat 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

townsendii

Strongly correlated with the availability of 

caves and abandoned mines for roosts. 

Habitat overlap on MB, TBNG. Y 

See detailed analysis 

below. 

Fringed myotis

Myotis thysanodes

Forages in PP, oak, shrublands, 

pinyon/juniper on MB, TBNG Y See detailed analysis below.

Hoary bat

Lasiurus cinereus

Conifer forest, woodland on MB, SS areas on 

TBNG Y See detailed analysis below.
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 15

Pygmy shrew

Sorex hoyi

Wetland edges in SF above 9000 ft. on MB N 1 No Impact

Black-tailed prairie 

dog Cynomys 

ludovicianus

Grasslands on TBNG

Y 

See detailed analysis 

below 

White-tailed 

prairie dog

Cynomys leucurus

Colony at Six-Mile/Platte River on MB

Y 

See detailed analysis 

below. 

Swift fox

Vulpes velox

Grasslands on TBNG Y See detailed analysis 

below

Wyoming pocket 

gopher 

Thomomys clusius

SS, Grassland near MB

Y 

See detailed analysis 

below. 

River otter

Lontra canadensis

Rivers on MB N 2 No Impact

BIRDS (32)

American bittern

Botaurus 

lentiginosus

Marshes on TBNG

N 3 No impact

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Lakes, rivers

N 4 No impact

Greater SageGrouse 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus 

(C)

Sagebrush and diverse native grass and forb 

understory. 

Y See detailed analysis 

below. 

Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

(C)

Large areas of dense woody riparian 

vegetation with cottonwood overstory. 

N 2 No Impact
Appendix M Draft EIS

16 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Ferruginous hawk

Buteo regalis

SS, Grassland on MB, TBNG Y See detailed analysis 

below. 

American 

Peregrine Falcon 

Falco peregrinus 

anatum

Vertical cliff habitat, preferentially near high 

avian prey populations on BT, MB, TBNG Y 4 

No Impact

Northern harrier

Circus cyaneus

Grassland, Marsh, SS near water,

<2400m on MB, TBNG Y See detailed analysis below.

Columbian sharptailed grouse 

T. phasianellus 

columbianus

MS west of Continental Divide on MB

Y 

See detailed analysis 

below. 

Northern Goshawk

Accipiter gentilis

Mature forests with large trees, relatively 

closed canopies, and open understories for 

nesting. Foraging areas include forests with a 

high density of large trees interspersed with 

shrublands and openings. Habitat overlap on 

BT.

Y 

See detailed analysis 

below. 

White-tailed 

ptarmigan

Lagopus leucurus

Alpine willow. Currently considered 

extirpated on the MB. N 1,2 No Impact

Short-eared owl

Asio flammeus

SS, grasslands, marshes. Might occur only on 

the Laramie Peak unit of MB Y See detailed analysis below.

Burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia

Grasslands on TBNG Y See detailed analysis 

below

Lewis’ 

woodpecker 

Melanerpes lewis

PP. Occurs on the Laramie Peak unit of MB

N 2 

No Impact

Black-backed 

woodpecker 

Picoides arcticus

SF, PP and recently burned conifer forest on 

MB N 2 

No Impact
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 17

Olive-sided 

flycatcher

Contopus borealis

SF, LP, WET, FM on MB

N 2 

No Impact

Purple martin

Progne subis

AS in specific area on west side of 

Continental Divide on MB N 2 No Impact

Loggerhead shrike

Lanius 

ludovicianus

Grassland w/shrubs <8000 ft. on MB, TBNG

Y 

See detailed analysis 

below. 

Brewer’s sparrow

Spizella breweri

SS on MB, TBNG Y See detailed analysis 

below.

Grasshopper 

sparrow 

Ammodramus 

savannarum

Grasslands on TBNG

Y See detailed analysis 

below. 

Sage sparrow

Amphispiza bellii

SS below 6500 ft. on MB, TBNG Y See detailed analysis 

below.

McCown’s 

longspur Calcarius 

mccownii

Grasslands on TBNG

Y 

See detailed analysis 

below. 

Chestnut-collared 

longspur Calcarius 

ornatus

Grasslands on TBNG

Y 

See detailed analysis 

below. 

Boreal Owl

Aegolius funereus 

Large expanses of contiguous forests that are 

typically structurally complex Engelmann 

spruce/subalpine fir forest types.

N 2 

No Impact

Great Gray Owl

Strix nebulosa 

Dense coniferous forest types usually 

associated with mature or old growth Douglas 

fir for nesting on BT

N 2 

No Impact

Flammulated owl 

Otus flammeolus

Ponderosa pine, Douglas fir stands mixed

with aspen on BT, MB N 2 No Impact
Appendix M Draft EIS

18 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Three-toed 

Woodpecker 

Picoides 

tridactylus

Mixed conifer forests of lodgepole pine, 

Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and 

subalpine fir; large numbers of recently killed 

trees provide the best habitat. *Sage-grouse 

general habitat boundary on BT broadly 

includes this conifer habitat but there is no 

habitat association with sage-grouse.

N 2 

No Impact

Harlequin duck 

Histronicus 

histronicus

Low gradient streams with dense shrubs, 

braided channels, swift currents, and 

abundant aquatic insects on BT. 

N 2 

No Impact

Trumpeter Swan 

Cyngnus 

buccinator

Wide variety of freshwater ponds, lakes and 

(occasionally) rivers; areas with abundant and 

diverse communities of aquatic plants on BT

N 2 

No Impact

Common loon

Gavia immer

Breeding habitat includes secluded, clearwater lakes more than 10 acres in size located 

between 6-8,000ft elevation on BT

N 2 

No Impact

Long-billed curlew 

Numenius 

americanus

Grasslands on TBNG

Y See detailed analysis 

below. 

Mountain plover 

Charadrius 

montanus

Grassland habitat overlap on TBNG

Y See detailed analysis 

below. 

Black tern 

Chlidonias niger

Wetlands on TBNG Y 3 No Impact

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS (4)

Columbia spotted 

frog

Rana luteiventris 

Subalpine forests, grasslands and sagebrush 

habitats at elevations from 1,700 feet to 6,400 

feet on BT Y 3 No Impact

Boreal Toad 

Bufo boreas 

boreas 

Montane forests between 7,000’ and 12,000’ 

elevation. Adults are primarily terrestrial and 

have been observed in a variety of habitats 

including sagebrush on BT. 

Y 

See detailed analysis 

below. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 19

Northern leopard 

frog

Lithobates pipiens

Wide variety aquatic habitats, wetlands on 

MB Y 3 

No Impact

Wood frog

Lithobates pipiens

Sedge, grass meadows, willow hummocks, 

aspen, lodgepole forests, woodlands on MB N 1 No Impact

FISH (13)

Bonneville 

Cutthroat Trout 

Oncorhynchus 

clarki utah

Native to Salt Creek and Smith Fork 

drainages of the Bear River system on BT N 3 

No Impact

Colorado River 

Cutthroat Trout 

Oncorhynchus 

clarki pleuriticus

Native to the Green River drainage on BT and 

Little Snake on MB N 3 

No Impact

Northern 

Leatherside 

Lepidomeda copei

Native to Bear Creek and Snake River 

drainages on the Kemmerer, Greys River and 

Jackson Ranger Districts on BT

N 3 

No Impact

Yellowstone/Snak

e River fine-

spotted cutthroat 

Oncorhynchus 

clarki spp

Native to the Yellowstone and Snake River 

systems on the Jackson and Buffalo Ranger 

Districts on BT N 3 

No Impact

Mountain sucker

Catostomus 

platyrhynchus

Clear, cold creeks, small to medium-sized 

rivers with sand, gravel, rubble substrate on 

MB

N 3 

No Impact

Hornyhead chub

Nocomis biguttatus

Isolated populations in the Laramie and North 

Laramie rivers on MB N 3 No Impact

Lake chub

Couesius plumbeus

Permanent spring flow, usually at the 

headwaters of small streams on TBNG Y 3 No Impact

Plains minnow

Hybognathus 

placitus

Great Plains streams with fluctuating stream 

flows, shifting sand substrates on TBNG Y 3 

No Impact
Appendix M Draft EIS

20 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Sturgeon chub

Macrhybopsis 

gelida

Great Plains rivers on TBNG

N 3 

No Impact

Northern redbelly 

dace Phoxinus eos

Permanent spring seeps, usually at the 

extreme headwaters of small streams Y 3 No Impact

Southern redbelly 

dace Phoxinus 

erythrogaster

Streams and ponds that are clear with sand 

and silt substrates. Y 3 

No Impact

Finescale dace

Phoxinus neogaeus

Permanent spring seeps, usually at the 

extreme headwaters of small streams on 

TBNG

Y 3 

No Impact

Flathead chub

Platygobio gracilis

Big Horn, Tongue, Powder, Little Powder, 

Belle Fourche, and Cheyenne river systems 

on TBNG

Y 3 

No Impact

INSECTS (1)

Hudsonian 

emerald

Somatochlora 

hundsonica

Boggy ponds on MB

N 2 No impact

PLANTS (49)

Pink agoseris

Agoseris 

lackschewitzii 

Wet meadow habitat without a sagebrush 

component on BT N 1 

No Impact

Sweet-flowered 

rock jasmine

Androsace 

chamaejasme ssp. 

carinata

Exposed rocky ridge crests, slopes with rock 

outcrops and thin soils of limestone or 

dolomite substrate at 8,500 to 10,800 feet 

elevation on BT 

N 1 

No Impact

Barr’s milkvetch

Astragalus barrii

In badland islands in sage brush and grassland 

matrices. 3,500-6,700 ft. on TBNG Y Y See detailed analysis below.
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 21

Meadow milkvetch

Astragalus 

diversifolius var. 

diversifolius

Moist, often alkaline meadows and swales in 

sagebrush valleys at 4,400 to 6,300 feet 

elevation often described as a playa 

vegetation type on BT

Y See detailed analysis 

below. 

Astragalus jejunus 

var. jejunus 

Starveling 

milkvetch

Dry barren ridges and bluffs of shale and 

stone, clay or cobblestones at 6,000 to 7,100 

feet elevation on BT N 1 No Impact

Astragalus 

paysonii Payson's 

milkvetch

Disturbed areas on sandy soils that have a low 

cover of forbs and grasses at elevations of 

5,850 to 9,600 feet which often occur as a 

mosaic component of sage shrublands on BT

Y See detailed analysis 

below. 

Aquilegia 

laramiensis 

Laramie 

columbine

Crevices in north facing granite boulders, 

6,250-8,000 ft. on MB N 2 

No Impact

Astragalus 

leptaleus 

park milkvetch

Willow carrs/ Sedge-grass transition to shrub. 

8,800 ft. on MB N 2 

No Impact

Botrychium lineare

narrowleaf 

moonwort

Grass, stream, forest edges, also upland 

habitats, 0 ft. -10,500 ft. on MB N 2 

No Impact

Carex diandra

lesser panicled 

sedge

Peatland-fens, pond edge, 6,100 to 8,600 ft. 

on MB N 2 

No Impact

Carex 

incurviformis 

Seaside sedge 

Alpine and subalpine moist tundra and wet 

rock ledges 10,000 to 12,200 elevation on BT N 1 

No Impact

Carex livida

livid sedge

Floating mats, bogs, fens, and marls with 

Carex, hummocks, 9,000 to 10,000 ft. on MB N 2 No Impact
Appendix M Draft EIS

22 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Carex luzulina var. 

atropurpurea 

Black and purple 

sedge 

Subalpine wet meadows and stream sides at 

10,000 to 10,600 feet elevations on BT N 1 

No Impact

Cypripedium 

parviflorum 

lesser yellow 

lady’s slipper

Mossy woods, streams and bogs, 4,000m to 

6,400m on MB N 2 

No Impact

Wyoming 

tansymustard 

Descurainia 

torulosa 

Southern Absaroka Range and the Rock 

Springs Uplift. Sandy soil at the base of cliffs 

composed of volcanic breccia or sandstone, 

under slight overhangs, in cavities in the 

volcanic rock, or on ledges, 7,700 to 10,500 

feet on BT

N 1 

No Impact

Draba 

exunguiculata 

Clawless draba 

(Gray’s peak 

draba)

Alpine fell fields, 10,000 ft.+ on MB

N 2 

No Impact

Draba globosa 

Rockcress draba 

Moist, gravelly alpine meadows and talus 

slopes, often on limestone-derived soils from 

8,100 to 12,400 feet on BT

N 1 

No Impact

Draba grayana

Gray’s draba

Alpine fell fields, 10,000 ft.+ on MB N 1 No Impact

Drosera

rotundifolia

roundleaf sundew

Acid fens, float mats, bogs, 9,100 to 9,800 ft. 

on MB N 1 

No Impact

Eleocharis 

elliptica

Elliptic spike rush 

(boreal spike rush)

Thermal seeps/ springs, stock ponds, 6,200 to 

7,250 ft. on MB N 2 

No Impact
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 23

Ericameria 

discoidea var. 

linearis 

Narrowleaf 

goldenweed 

Semi-barren, whitish clay flats and slopes, 

gravel bars, and sandy lakeshores at 

elevations of 7,700 to 10,300 feet on BT N 1 

No Impact

Erigeron lanatus 

Woolly daisy 

Alpine or subalpine limestone talus slopes at 

11,000 feet elevation on BT N 1 No Impact

Eriogonum 

exilifolium

dropleaf (slender 

leaved) buckwheat 

Semi bare sandy bunchgrass communities, 

seleniferous gumbo, 6,900 to 8,800 ft. on MB Y See detailed analysis 

below. 

Eriophorum 

altaicum var. 

neogaeum 

whitebristle 

cottongrass 

Fens, 9,500-14,000 ft. on MB

N 1 

No Impact

Eriophorum 

gracile 

slender cottongrass

Sedge meadows, floating bogs saturated soil 

to shallow water, 6,900 to 10,500 ft. on MB N 2 

No Impact

Festuca hallii

plains rough 

fescue (Hall’s 

fescue)

Sloped montane meadows, edges open 

conifer 6,800 to 11,000 ft. on MB N 2 

No Impact

Ipomopsis 

aggregata ssp. 

weberi

scarlet gilia 

(Rabbit Ears gilia)

Openings in conifer forest slopes, ridges 

7,200 to 8,300 ft. on MB

N 2 

No Impact

Kobresia 

simpliciuscula

simple bog sedge 

(Kobresia)

Flooded marl wetlands with Carex simulata 

6,000 ft. on MB N 2 

No Impact
Appendix M Draft EIS

24 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Lesquerella 

paysonii 

Payson's 

bladderpod 

Carbonate mountain ranges of west-central 

Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and southwestern 

Montana. Rocky, sparsely-vegetated slopes, 

often calcareous substrates at elevations of 

5,500 to 10,600 feet. Wide elevation range 

indicates possible association with sagegrouse habitat on BT

Y See detailed analysis 

below. 

Machaeranthera 

coloradoensis 

var. coloradensis 

Colorado 

tansyaster

Gravelly places in Mtn parks, sparsely 

vegetated knolls with cushion plants in 

sagebrush and grassland matrices, 6,800-

8,500 ft.

Y 

See detailed analysis 

below. 

Mimulus 

gemmiparus 

Rocky Mountain 

monkeyflower

Granitic seeps, slopes and alluvium in open 

sites w/ SF and aspen , 8,500 to 10,500 ft. on 

MB N 2 

No Impact

Parnassia 

kotzebuei

Kotzebue’s grass 

of Parnassu

Moist seeps, wet tundra on thin clay soil, 

moist ledges 10,000 to 12,000 ft. on MB N 1 

No Impact

Parrya nudicaulis

Naked-stemmed 

parrya 

Alpine talus, often on limestone substrates at 

10,700 to 11,400 feet elevation on BT N 1 

No Impact

Penstemon 

harringtonii 

Harrington’s 

beardtongue

Open sagebrush moderate slopes calcareous 

soils, 6,800 to 9,200 ft. on MB N 2 

No Impact

Physaria 

integrifolia var. 

monticola 

Creeping twinpod 

Barren, rocky, calcareous hills and slopes at 

6,500 to 8,600 feet elevation on BT N 2 

No Impact
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 25

Potentilla 

rupincola 

rock cinquefoil 

(front range 

cinquefoil)

Mountain gravel soils or shelves /niches 

cliffs-often granite, 6,900 to 10,500 ft. on MB 

N 2 

No Impact

Primula 

egalikensis

Greenland 

primrose 

Wet meadows along streams and calcareous 

montane bogs from 6600 to 8000 ft. 

Sagebrush is not a component of this habitat 

type on BT

N 2 

No Impact

Ranunculus 

karelinii

ice cold buttercup

Ridges, peaks, in rocks and scree, low-lying 

snow banks 10,000-14,100 ft. on MB N 1 

No Impact

Rubus arcticus ssp.

acaulis 

dwarf raspberry 

(nagoon berry)

Dense canopy in lodgepole, spruce-fir w/ 

Linnaea borealis , 7,000 to 10,000 ft. on MB N 2 

No Impact

Salix candida

sageleaf willow 

(hoary willow)

Cool, boreal forests and prairies in remnant 

fen and seeps, 6,600 to 10,600 ft. on MB N 2 

No Impact

Salix serissima

autumn willow

Calcareous fen meadow, 7,800-9,300 ft. on 

MB N 2 No Impact

Saussurea weberi 

Weber's saussurea 

Restricted to the Gros Ventre and northern 

Wind River ranges on alpine talus slopes and 

gravel fields at 9,600 to 11,500 feet on BT

N 1 

No Impact

Selaginella 

selaginoides 

Club spikemoss 

(northern 

spikemoss)

Mossy banks, wet meadows, marsh wet 

spruce forests, 7,700 to 8,000 (9,500) ft. on 

MB N 2 

No Impact

Sphagnum 

angustifolium 

sphagnum

Fens, acid fens, floating vegetation mats. 

7,000-12,000 ft. on MB N 2 

No Impact
Appendix M Draft EIS

26 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Sphagnum 

balticum 

Baltic sphagnum

Iron fens, wetter areas of ombrotrophic bogs 

7,000-12,000 ft. on MB N 2 

No Impact

Symphyotrichum 

molle 

Soft aster 

Sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows 

in calcareous soils at 6,400 to 8,500 feet 

elevation. The identification of a Hoback 

Canyon occurrence has been questioned but 

unresolved. As such, presence is 

acknowledged for the project area on BT

Y 

See detailed analysis 

below. 

Triteleia 

grandiflora 

largeflower 

triteleia

Grassy areas in sagebrush at edge of aspen, 

lodgepole to 8,400 ft. on MB Y 

See detailed analysis 

below. 

Utricularia minor

lesser bladderpod

Shallow fens, wetland, subalpine ponds, 

6,600 to 8,600 ft. on MB N 2 No Impact

Viola selkirkii

Selkirk’s violet

Moist, shaded ravines and cold boreal forest 

8,500 to 9,100 ft. on MB N 2 No Impact

AL-alpine, AS-aspen, FM-forest meadow, LPP-lodgepole pine, SS-sagebrush shrub, MS-mountain shrub, PP-ponderosa pine, RIPriparian, RO-rock/cliff/cave, SF-spruce-fir, WET-wetland
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 27

Table 4. Bridger-Teton and Medicine Bow National Forests and Thunder Basin National 

Grassland Sensitive Species that may be influenced by an action alternative and will be further 

analyzed in this document. 

Species Name Carried forward as:

Greater Sage-Grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus R2/R4 Sensitive 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

T. phasianellus columbianus

R2 Sensitive

Northern Goshawk

Accipiter gentilis

R4 Sensitive

Ferruginous Hawk

Buteo regalis

R2 Sensitive

Northern Harrier

Circus cyaneus

R2 Sensitive

Short-eared Owl

Asio flammeus

R2 Sensitive

Burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia

R2 Sensitive

Loggerhead Shrike

Lanius ludiovicianus

R2 Sensitive

Sage Sparrow

Amphisiza bellii

R2 Sensitive

Grasshopper sparrow 

Ammodramus savannarum R2 Sensitive 

Brewer’s Sparrow

Spizella breweri R2 Sensitive 

McCown’s longspur

Calcarius mccownii R2 Sensitive 

Chestnut-collared longspur

Calcarius ornatus R2 Sensitive 

Long-billed curlew

Numenius americanus R2 Sensitive 

Mountain Plover

Charadrius montanus R2 Sensitive 

Boreal Toad 

Bufo boreas boreas

R4 Sensitive

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep

Ovis canadensis canadensis R2 Sensitive 

Swift fox

Vulpes velox R2 Sensitive 

White-tailed Prairie Dog

Cynomys leucurus R2 Sensitive 

Black-tailed prairie dog

Cynomys ludovicianus R2 Sensitive 
Appendix M Draft EIS

28 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Species Name Carried forward as:

Wyoming Pocket Gopher

Thomomys clusius R2 Sensitive 

Hoary bat

Lasiurus cinereus

R2 Sensitive

Fringed Myotis

Myotis thysanodes

R2 Sensitive

Spotted Bat

Euderma maculatum

R2 Sensitive

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Corynorhinus townsendii

R2 Sensitive

Astragalus barrii

Barr’s milkvetch

R2 Sensitive

Astragalus diversifolius var. diversifolius

Meadow milkvetch

R4 Sensitive

Astragalus paysonii

Payson's milkvetch 

R4 Sensitive

Lesquerella paysonii

Payson's bladderpod R4 Sensitive 

Symphyotrichum molle 

soft aster R4 Sensitive 

Eriogonum exifolium

Dropleaf (slender leaved) Buckwheat R2 Sensitive 

Machaeranthera coloradoensis var. 

coloradensis 

Colorado tansyaster

R2 Sensitive 

Triteleia grandiflora

Largeflower Triteleia R2 Sensitive 

VII. SPECIES INFORMATION AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (Direct, Indirect and 

Cumulative)

A. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

Distribution

Sage-Grouse historically inhabited 13 western states and three Canadian provinces, but they have 

declined across their range and now occupy approximately 56 percent of their historic range. 

They are currently found in only 11 states and two Canadian provinces (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 2013).They are an R2 and R4 sensitive species and are found in association with shrub 

steppe and grassland habitats specifically having sage brush as a component. Within Wyoming, 

Greater Sage-Grouse (GSG) habitats within National Forest System (NFS) lands to support 

Sage-Grouse population include the Medicine Bow National Forest (MBNF), Bridger-Teton 

National Forest (BTNF), and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG). Table 4 below shows 

the amount of sage grouse habitat found on each unit. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 29

Table 4: Acres of Sage-grouse Habitat On Forest Service Lands

Unit Core Habitat 

Acres

General 

Habitat Acres

Occupied Habitat 

Acres (Outside Core 

and General)

Total Acres of 

Mapped Sage 

Grouse Habitat*

Bridger-Teton 

National Forest

5,933 262,018 60,584 328,535 

Medicine Bow 

National Forest

4,564 22,915 0 27,479 

Thunder Basin 

National Grassland

217,768 336,096 0 553,864 

Total Acres 228,265 621,029 60,584 909,878 

Habitat Associations and Threats 

This large grouse requires a variety of sagebrush structural stages to meet seasonal habitat 

requirements. Sagebrush is essential for sage grouse during all seasons of the year. This 

relationship is perhaps tightest in the late fall, winter, and early spring when sage grouse are 

dependent on sagebrush for both food and cover. During the spring and summer, succulent forbs 

and insects become important additional food sources are. Sage grouse require an extensive 

mosaic dominated by sagebrush of varying densities and heights along with an associated diverse 

native plant community dominated by high levels of native grasses and forbs (Wyoming Greater 

Sage Grouse Conservation Plan 2003). 

Current threats to Sage-Grouse in Wyoming include conversion and fragmentation of sagebrush 

habitats through infrastructure development (including energy development), wildfire, invasive 

species encroachment, noise, drought and the emergence of West Nile Virus in the Powder River 

Basin. Below is the complete list identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2005 as 

threats to sage grouse range-wide. For the purposes of the following table, Wyoming is 

considered a part of the eastern population. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

30 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

The Northeast Wyoming Working Group felt oil, gas, and coal bed natural gas (CBNG) 

development, weather, vegetation management, invasive plants, and parasites and diseases were 

the most important influences on the northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse population. 

Population Status and Trend 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department monitors sage grouse populations throughout the state 

including TBNG, BTNF, and the MBNF. They currently use the males/lek statistic to track 

population changes. This will indicate population fluctuations and is generally accepted as 

reflective of Sage-Grouse population’s dynamics, but will not give a population estimate. 

Thunder Basin National Grassland is in the Northeast Wyoming Sage Grouse Working Group 

Area. Figure 1 shows the average number of males/lek for lek counts and all lek monitoring 

combined from 1967 to 2012 for the Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group Area (NEW 

LWG). Using this information the regional trend suggests about a 10 year cycle of periodic 

highs and lows. Of concern, however, is that generally each subsequent peak in the population is 

usually lower than the previous peak. Additionally, each periodic low in the population is 

generally lower than the previous population low. The long term trend suggests a steadily 

declining Sage-Grouse population. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 31

Figure 1. Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group Area Average Number Of Males/lek For 

lek Counts and all leks (1967-2012). Source: Ne Wyoming Local Working Group Area, Draft 

Plan Addendum, January18, 2013. 

Figure 2 below illustrates the mean male attendance per lek at the state, Northeast Working 

Group Area, and Thunder Basin National Grassland. Of the 6 working groups, Northeast 

Wyoming has the lowest average male lek attendance in the state, averaging 7 males per active 

lek in 2012 compared to the statewide average of 17 males per active lek (Figure 2). Male lek 

attendance for the other working group areas ranged from 14 to 30 males per active lek. In 2012, 

the average males per lek on TBNG were 3.8.

Figure 2. Mean males/lek for Wyoming, Northeast Wyoming, and TBNG (1996-2012) 

The most recent peak minimum estimated population of greater-Sage-Grouse on the TBNG was 

in 2007 at 2,762 birds. The population has been in a steady decline since then. The current 

(2012) population estimate is 660 birds. This is a loss of 2,102 birds, or a 76% reduction over the 

last 5 years. The current population estimate is the lowest it has been in 17 years (Figure3). 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

# Males/Lek

Year Lek Count

All Lek Checks

1

6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Sage-Grouse Males/Lek

Year

TBNG

NE WY

STATE
Appendix M Draft EIS

32 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Figure 3. Minimum Sage-Grouse Population estimates for TBNG and the 15 year average. 

Thunder Basin National Grassland is divided into 6 subunits called Geographic Areas (GA) for 

management purposes, and each Geographic Area has sage grouse as a Management Indicator 

Species and therefor monitored in each GA. Currently on TBNG, Sage-Grouse lek attendance is 

stable or slightly declining in two geographic areas, steeply declining in three geographic areas, 

and one geographic areas no longer has active leks. 

Based on current management strategies and threats and known population numbers in this area, 

Garton et al. (2011), suggested that there was 16.5% chance of the population dropping below 

500 birds/200 males by 2037 

The Bridger-Teton National Forest populations falls within the Upper Snake River Basin 

(USRB) and the Upper Green River Basin (UGRB) Working Group Areas. These populations 

include some of the smallest and the largest populations Wyoming. The Upper Snake River 

Basin includes the Jackson Hole population and the Upper Green River Basin (UGRB) includes 

the Wyoming Basin populations in Management Zone 2. These populations include some of the 

smallest and the largest populations in the range of the species. The majority of habitat provided 

for sage grouse use in these populations is under the jurisdiction of the BLM. Currently, there are 

2 active and 1 satellite lek(s) known to occur on the Forest; one active and one satellite lek is 

located on the Jackson Ranger District within General Habitat and one active lek is located on 

the Big Piney Ranger District within BT Occupied Habitat; no known lek sites on the BTNF are 

located within Core Habitat.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Minimum Sage Grouse Population Estimate

ESTIMATED TBNG MINIMUM POPULATION

14 YEAR MEAN

Trend

Linear (ESTIMATED TBNG MINIMUM POPULATION)
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 33

Though there may not be many leks on the Forest, it still provides approximately 267,951 acres 

of occupied grouse habitat (262,018 acres of General habitat and 5,933 acres of Core PGH - see 

table above). Sage-grouse numbers within the Jackson Hole population are small and largely 

declining; while those associated with the Upper Green River populations are generally stable. 

The following tables show the overall population trends for the Upper Snake River (USRB) 

population. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2011 Greater Sage-Grouse Job Completion Report 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2011 Greater Sage-Grouse Job Completion Report 

Upper Green River Basin trend based on the average males per lek attendance for all leks 

observed. 

 

0

5

10

15

20

25

2002 2003 3004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Males/Lek

Year

Males/Active Lek - USRB - 2002-2011
Appendix M Draft EIS

34 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2011 Greater Sage-Grouse Job Completion Report 

Since the BT makes up about 60% of mapped sage grouse habitat within the Snake River Basin 

and less than 03% of mapped sage grouse habitat within the Upper Green River Basin, the 

Bridger Teton National Forest management has a much large influence on the Upper Snake 

River sage-grouse, and more specifically the Jackson Hole Sage-Grouse population. Based on 

current management strategies and threats and known population numbers in this area, Garton et 

al. (2011), suggested that there was zero chance of the Wyoming Basin population dropping 

below 500 birds/200 males by 2037. On the other hand, in the Jackson Hole population, there 

was a 100% chance of dropping below 500 birds/200 males by 2037. 

The Medicine Bow National Forest contains a very small amount of GRSG habitat. Of the 

more than one million acres on the Forest, only 3% or 27,479 acres of combined core and 

general habitat exists.

MBNF Units and their Associated General and Core Sage-grouse Habitat

Unit Unit Acres

General

Acres/ % of Unit

Core Acres / % of Unit

Laramie Peak 437,781 5,523 (1%) 2,638 (0.6%)

Sierra Madre 362,217 15,267 (4%) 1,294 (0.4%)

Snowy Range 406,743 2,025 (0.5%) 632 (0.2%)

Total 1,262,325 22,915 (0.4%) 4,564 (3%)

Habitat on the Forest falls within the Bates Hole/Shirley Basin and the South Central Working 

Groups. The habitat on NFS land is largely an ecological transition from lodgepole pine forests 

to sagebrush steppe interspersed by rock outcrops and is the outside fringe of the occupied 

habitat. There are no known leks on the Forest to provide local population information. 

Within the Working Group Areas, the Bates Hole/Shirley Basin Area has (as of 2011) an average 

of approximately 15 males per count lek. The South Central Working Group Area had a 2011 

average of 24.7 males per count lek. Both areas experienced increases from 2003 until 2005 -

2006, and then have been experiencing a decline through 2011. Currently these declines are 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 35

being attributed to normal population fluctuations and cycles. Based on current management 

strategies and threats and known population numbers in the Wyoming Basin population, Garton 

et al. (2011), suggested that there was zero chance of the population dropping below 500 

birds/200 males by 2037. 

Threats by Forest 

Bridger-Teton NF

Key threats to sage-grouse on and around the Bridger-Teton NF include: energy development 

and transfer (including both renewable and non-renewable resources), long-term drought, and 

brush eradication programs. Residential development has also been identified as a threat. In 

concert with the remaining portions of this population, the Wyoming Governor’s Executive 

Order designating protective stipulations for core areas (PACs), and the overall size of the 

population, the management area is considered low risk. 

Medicine Bow NF

Key threats to sage-grouse on and around the Medicine Bow NF include: energy development, 

infrastructure within the habitat, grazing, and recreation. In addition there are localized threats 

affecting differing portions of the population, including the elimination of sagebrush, wildland 

fire and the subsequent invasion of weeds and annual grasses, conifer encroachment, mining, 

urbanization of sagebrush habitats, and effects from free roaming equids. 

Thunder Basin NG

The largest threats to sage-grouse and their habitat on and around the Thunder Basin National 

Grasslands include: energy development (oil, natural gas, and coal bed methane), habitat 

degradation (due to pinyon/juniper encroachment and cheat grass invasion post-disturbance), 

habitat fragmentation that leads to a lack of connectivity, noise pollution, and West Nile Virus 

due to the readily available water from energy development. This area is at high risk for 

continued decline if conditions do not change in favor of sage grouse and their habitats. 

Alternative A - No Action

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

Thunder Basin National Grassland

Motorized access to most of TBNG is present on authorized roads, and usually means higher 

concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in habitat. In addition, with 

increased road use, comes increased noise, which has been identified as a specific stressor on 

Sage-Grouse (Holloran.2005). These disturbances can cause impacts to reproduction and 

survival (Blickley and Patricelli.2012). Under this alternative most recreational activities and 

noise associated with traffic would not be moderated in sage grouse habitat. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

36 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Bridger Teton National Forest

Motorized travel is currently limited to designated routes (roads and trails). New or modified 

management practices may develop as a result of further analysis. Through site specific NEPA 

projects and land transactions, the transportation system may be modified as necessary to provide 

for Forest management, public health and safety, and access to public lands. Again, this may 

develop into higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in habitat. In 

addition, with increased road use, comes increased noise. Under this alternative most recreational 

activities and noise associated with traffic would not be moderated in sage grouse habitat. 

Medicine Bow National Forest

Travel Management plans currently in place across the MBNF. Motorized travel is currently 

limited to designated routes (roads and trails). Some Level 2 and 3 roads traverse the sagegrouse areas on the MBNF. With the infrequent maintenance that these level 2 roads receive they 

typically have low traffic volumes throughout of the year with a potential increase during big 

game hunting seasons. These roads are all located along the forest boundary and are typically 

connected to roads that access adjacent federal, state or private lands. Higher concentrations of 

human use adjacent to these motorized routes and in the associated habitat is expected. In 

addition, with increased road use, increased noise is expected. Under this alternative most 

recreational activities and noise associated with traffic would not be moderated in sage grouse 

habitat.

Analysis

There would be no changes to the current National Forest System roads, transportation plan, or 

recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use, and some new 

roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There is a current Travel 

Management Plan in place for all 3 Forest Service units which address all non-special use travel. 

Restrictions on special uses may apply, but off-road permits are still issued. In general, more 

acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a greater likelihood of habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and disturbance to Sage-Grouse. 

Lands and Realty

Thunder Basin National Grassland

As a Region 2 Sensitive Species, sage grouse habitat acquisition may be emphasized, however, 

some Sage-Grouse habitat could be traded to other ownership where the parcels are isolated, 

lands that would reduce boundary conflicts with other ownerships, or are otherwise in the public 

interest. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow construction, maintenance, and operation 

activities that may result in habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation. Other impacts may 

include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat. Though 

most projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation 

of habitat. 

Bridger Teton National Forest

The ownership pattern is quite solid, with only a few remaining in- holding opportunities to 

secure additional lands for inclusion in the Forest through land adjustments (purchase, exchange, 

donation). The 1990 Forest Plan does not speak to the sage-grouse specifically. However, 

because the sage-grouse has been identified as a concern by the State of Wyoming (Governor 

Dave Freudenthal), any proposed actions would consider effects to the sage-grouse habitat. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 37

Medicine Bow National Forest

As a Region 2 Sensitive Species, sage grouse habitat acquisition may be emphasized, however, 

some Sage-Grouse habitat could be traded to other ownership where the parcels are isolated, 

lands that would reduce boundary conflicts with other ownerships, or are otherwise in the public 

interest. 

Analysis

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service lands within all three units. All 

Forest Service lands would continue to be managed according to Forest Service policy and 

regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow construction, maintenance, and operation 

activities that may result in habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation. Other impacts may 

include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat. Though 

most projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation 

of habitat. 

Range

Thunder Basin National Grassland

Under current management direction, most rangelands and sage-grouse habitats are grazed 

annually by livestock. Exceptions are mostly areas which are inaccessible or areas which are not 

capable of supporting grazing. On the TBNG, 86 percent of the rangelands are classed as 

primary range, 14 percent as secondary, and just under 1percent as inaccessible. Much of the 

secondary range is almost exclusively the result of topography and not the lack of water. The 

amount of secondary range due to distance from water is minimal. These results suggest that 

most suitable rangeland is primary range that likely receives relatively uniform grazing in most 

years. The current grazing systems in use on the TBNG, expressed as a percentage of land in 

each allotment, are: 1) Continuous system (7%); 2) Deferred use (3%); and 3) Deferred rotation 

(90%). Although most capable acres of rangeland are grazed annually, not all acres are 

grazed simultaneously. Generally, no more than 40 percent of the TBNG capable acres are 

grazed at any one time. 

Bridger Teton National Forest

A total of 54 active allotments are managed under current (post 1990) NEPA decisions. Another 

35 allotments (19 for cattle and 16 for sheep) are in various stages of analysis for subsequent 

decisions affecting grazing authorization. The remaining allotments are managed in accordance 

with current Forest-wide goals, objectives, standards and guidelines until such time as allotment 

specific desired conditions and management plans can be developed. The BTNF allotments are 

managed under a various grazing systems including rotational rest, rotational deferment, herded 

once-over grazing (sheep), and season-long grazing. An approximate total of 3,076 acres of core 

sage-grouse habitat overlaps some of the lower elevations of four active BTNF cattle allotments. 

Data reflecting stream-bank disturbance has been used to identify grazing related issues in some 

areas of allotments currently under analysis.

Medicine Bow National Forest

Allotments are managed under a variety of grazing systems including rotational rest, rotational 

deferment, and season long grazing. Grazing in sage-grouse habitat would continue as directed 

in the Forest Plan to achieve the vegetative use guidelines based on other resource issues. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

38 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Maximum allowable use guidelines in the Forest Plan are moderate; no more than 50 percent use 

of forage under a deferred rotation system and no more than 55 percent use of forage under a rest 

rotation system. Lower allowable use guidelines (40-45%) are applied to rangelands in 

unsatisfactory condition. Additional guidelines for riparian areas include leaving 4-6 inches of 

residual stubble in riparian areas at the end of the grazing season 

Analysis

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on any of the 

three Forest Service Units. While most range improvements are designed to not have a direct 

negative effect on Sage-Grouse, some range improvements may still create negative impacts to 

sage-grouse. Un-marked fences and stock water tanks without escape ramps suitable for sagegrouse would exist. Other potential adverse effects to sage-grouse habitat could include habitat 

fragmentation due to infra-structure development, habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to 

grasslands for improved livestock forage, and site specific overgrazing during drought years, 

with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other 

vegetative objectives. Related impacts include higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a 

reduction of residual herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover. 

Energy and Minerals

Mineral resources include the individual resources of leasable, locatable, and salable 

(common variety) minerals. Leasable minerals include oil and gas, coal, oil shale, phosphate, and 

sodium brine. Locatable minerals include iron, gold, copper, silver, lead, and zinc. Salable 

minerals include common variety materials such as sand, gravel, stone (e.g., decorative stone, 

limestone, and gypsum), clay (e.g., shale and bentonite), limestone aggregate, borrow 

material, clinker (scoria), leonardite (weathered coal), and petrified wood. In addition, renewable 

energy is generally defined as energy derived from sources continuously replenished by natural 

processes. These sources include wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. 

Thunder Basin National Grassland

Energy development consisting of coal, oil, and natural gas, has been a predominant use of 

public lands on the TBNG. Given that the TBNG may, in its entirety, be described as occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, energy development will continue to be an issue relevant to the 

conservation of Sage-Grouse. Energy development on TBNG is also of national importance. 

The TBNG produces significant quantities of coal. There are four coal mines on the TBNG, 

either in production or some phase of planning or construction. The four mines have a collective 

footprint of over 120,000 acres within the planning area of which approximately 44,500 acres is 

on NFS lands. These lands produced 22.2 percent of the entire nation’s coal in 1997 and have 

continued to increase production. In addition there are significant oil and gas exploration and 

development occurring and planned on TBNG. The majority of all Sage-Grouse habitats are 

open to leasing, including expansion of existing leases, with no cap on surface disturbing 

activities.

Bridger Teton National Forest

A small percentage of NFS lands are subject to present oil and gas operations or future oil and 

gas leasing, subject to valid existing rights. There are a limited number of oil and gas leases in a 

variety of dispositions and few areas available to future oil and gas leasing. 14 leases held by 

production and have authorized and ongoing activities. Of the remaining areas available to future 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 39

leasing on the forest, most areas are in the far eastern portion of the forest and on the front range 

of the Wind River Range outside the Wind River Wilderness. The Wyoming Range Legacy Act 

allows a very limited area of future leasing adjacent to existing leases held by production. Since 

the passage of the Wyoming Range Legacy Act, one oil and gas lease has been terminated by the 

BLM. Per the Wyoming Range Legacy Act, this parcel may never be leased again and is 

therefore permanently closed to further mineral leasing. Natural gas demands and consequently 

supplies are expected to increase in the next decade due to the use of natural gas as a transition 

fuel from crude oil to greener energy technologies. There is no active coal lease or expressed 

interest on the forest in the near future. There were two placer mines in operation on the forest in 

the recent past. There are no current placer operations on the forest. Locatable minerals in the 

forest are limited to gravel and sand sales. Gravel and sand mines are limited in number and 

located in the vicinity of areas needing such materials. There are numerous past geothermal 

exploration sites on the forest. There are no renewable energy projects on the forest, nor any 

foreseeable interest. 

Medicine Bow National Forest

Mineral resource use on the MBNF has historically been widespread but sporadic. Mineral 

activity is presently concentrated in a few scattered areas. In 1995 the MBNF had 12 active oil 

and gas leases all of which expired without drilling activity by the year 2000. There are 

presently no oil and gas leases on the MBNF or any requests for leases on the Forest. The Forest 

has experienced limited seismic exploration. Most of the current mining activity on the 

Forest has been considered “recreational” in nature. This includes panning, and suction 

dredging with a suction diameter of 3 inches or less for short durations in specified timeframes. 

There are between 1 and 3 bonded small mining operations on the Forest annually. Exploration, 

development, and production of locatable minerals will continue to depend on market prices and 

commodity supply and demand. There are exploratory core drilling operations on the Forest 

about every third year, but after the exploratory drilling is done, there has been no further interest 

shown. While there has been some exploration of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal 

resources, none of this has occurred in core or general sage-grouse habitat in this area.

Analysis

All leasing and lease operations are conducted in accordance to applicable laws, Forest Service

policies, the current Forest or Grassland Plan, and lease stipulations. This energy development is 

a significant threat to Sage-Grouse as noted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the 2010 finding 

(75 FR 13910-14014): 

Energy development is a significant risk to the Greater Sage-Grouse in the eastern portion of its 

range (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and northeastern Utah – MZs I, II, VII and the 

northeastern part of MZ III), with the primary concern being the direct effects of energy 

development on the long-term viability of Greater Sage-Grouse by eliminating habitat, leks, and 

whole populations and fragmenting some of the last remaining large expanses of habitat 

necessary for the species’ persistence.

Energy development has also been identified as a major Sage-Grouse stressor in the Powder 

River Basin of Northeast Wyoming. (Taylor et al. 2012).The above listed energy development 

impacts are a result of increased anthropogenic disturbance of sage- grouse habitat, off road 

vehicle use, increased traffic on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, 

road traffic speed, utility corridor permits or easements, water development, mineral leasing and 
Appendix M Draft EIS

40 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and the 

development or removal of mineral materials.

Fire and Fuels Management

Thunder Basin National Grassland

In the Powder River Basin sagebrush patch size has been reduced from an average of 820 acres 

to an average of less than 300 acres (from 1966 to 2006), a 63% reduction (NE Wyoming Sage 

Grouse Conservation Plan; 2006). This reduction has come about from a variety of activities 

including wildfire and prescribed burning. There were 205 wildfires on the TBNG surface from 

2001-2011, averaging19 fires per year. (This does not include all wildland fires occurring on 

private and state lands during this time.) The average size of a fire on TBNG during this time 

was 173.5 acres, with a total of 35,562 acres burned. The largest single fire was 5,670 acres, and 

5 of the 11 years had more than 2,500 acres burned each year. The dominant fuel types on TBNG 

are Sage-Grouse habitat (sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie), with lighting being the primary 

cause of wildfire (61%), and the railroad caused fires being the next most frequent cause (20%), 

the remaining wildfires are caused by a variety of other sources.

Bridger Teton National Forest

The BTNF currently utilizes the full spectrum of fire management practices. Wildland fires on 

the BTNF are suppressed by means of full perimeter control; partially suppressed by means of 

full perimeter control on only certain portions of the fire; or managed entirely for resource 

benefits by methods of point protection for any values and monitoring of fire progression and 

effects. The prescribed burn program has treated 52,521 acres on the Forest. Early burns were 

focused on range and wildlife improvement, with most acres burned in lower elevation 

sagebrush/grass and aspen. While much of the prescribed burning still occurs in these types, 

more burning now occurs in conifer. Following the 2000 fire season, priority shifted to treating 

wildland urban interface areas, with a resultant decrease in prescribed burn treatments. With the 

stabilization of the wildland urban interface program, landscape burning has slowly increased 

since 2003. 

Medicine Bow National Forest

The MBNF encompasses a variety of different vegetation communities in a range of seral stages. 

Vegetation communities that are susceptible to fire include sagebrush, shrubland, and grassland 

communities at the lower elevations, mixed mountain shrub, aspen, and conifer stands at mid 

elevations, and subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce and the highest elevations. Current fire 

management options in the critical sage-grouse habitat include Direct Control (not specifically 

identified but always an option), Perimeter Control, and Prescription Control, depending upon 

the specific location 

Analysis

Impacts from wildfires include removal or loss of large tracts of sagebrush habitat, resulting in a 

direct loss of nests, as well as a loss of nesting habitat, hiding cover and winter range. Wildfire 

can also increase non-native or exotic grasses or weeds causing additional impacts. For example, 

as cheatgrass invades habitat types it can out-compete many native grasses. With the increase in 

cheatgrass, comes potential increases in wildfire. Fire within a cheatgrass invaded vegetation 

type becomes cyclic, fire removes the vegetation, cheatgrass re-grows to denser conditions, and 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 41

creates a fine fuel accumulation ready to burn again at a much reduced fire return interval 

(Davies et al, 2011). 

Under this alternative the use of prescribed fire generally is to be designed to maintain or 

improve habitat for desired plants and animals. However, prescribed burning is, by design, used 

to reduce the structure and seral condition when used in sagebrush, and this treatment tool is 

permitted in Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting, and winter range. This type of treatment could result 

in a localized loss or reduction in nesting, wintering, or hiding cover habitat, while at the same 

time potentially increasing brood rearing habitat.

Most of the published literature concludes that fire has a negative effect to sage grouse (Braun 

2006; Knick and Connelly 201; Beck et al 2012, USFWS 2013). A possible shortcoming of this 

research is the lack of studies involving the use of prescribed fire as a tool to thin Wyoming big 

sagebrush stands. Most literature evaluates intensive burning with a resulting near total removal 

of sage brush within the burn area. The use of fire to reduce the density of Wyoming big 

sagebrush within a stand is still unclear. Prescribed fire can be a useful tool to remove conifer 

encroachment into Sage-Grouse habitat, but mechanical treatment was recommended in order to 

provide the most rapid recovery of the sagebrush community (Davies et al 2011). 

Cumulative Effects

The effect of the current management on Sage-Grouse habitat is a trend toward less suitable 

occupied habitat due to the combination of impacts from habitat modification, fragmentation, or 

loss due to anthropogenic disturbance, wildfire, and invasion of un-wanted vegetation. SageGrouse populations have been steadily declining on or associated with National Forest System 

(National Grassland and National Forest) lands since between 2006 and 2007 with cyclic trends 

declining over a much longer period. With the above discussion about habitat in mind, it could 

be expected that the National Forest System associated population would continue to decrease. 

This trend, combine with the potential for impacts associated with disease such as West Nile, is 

likely to lead to additional reductions in the distribution of Sage-Grouse within Geographic 

Areas, and across the entire National Grassland. As the “No Action” alternative, this alternative 

provides the least Sage-Grouse conservation. 

Alternative B

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

In Priority Sage-Grouse habitats (PPH also known as Core Areas) new road construction would 

be limited to areas with less than 3% habitat disturbance, and allowing only the minimum 

necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. Existing roads not designated in a 

Travel Management Plan would be reclaimed. All travel would remain on designated routes. 

Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there was a neutral or beneficial 

impact to GRSG. Road associated noise would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient 

levels (which are lower in this alternative (20-24 dBA) than Alternative A). All GRSG PPH and 

Important Bird Areas could be designated as SIAs. There would be less disruption of habitat, 
Appendix M Draft EIS

42 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

breeding, and a reduction of road associated mortality. These measures allow less habitat loss 

and disturbance than Alternative A, retaining more suitable habitat. 

Lands and Realty

PPH (Core Habitat) would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH(General Habitat) would be 

managed as an avoidance area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would 

encourage consolidation and acquisition of Sage-Grouse PPH(Core). These conservation 

measures would be more protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E but 

less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted effort to maximize connectivity 

and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PPH.

Range

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH (Core). Many livestock 

improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting 

grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. Fencing would be developed to reflect SageGrouse needs in all Sage-Grouse habitats. Outside of PPH (Core) the potential effects due to 

livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be the same as 

Alternative A. Potential adverse effects to Sage-Grouse habitat could include habitat 

fragmentation due to infra-structure development, habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to 

grasslands for improved livestock forage, and site specific overgrazing during drought years, 

with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other 

vegetative objectives. Related impacts include higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a 

reduction of residual herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover. 

Energy and Minerals

PPH(Core) would be closed to new coal, energy and non-energy leasable materials, fluid mineral 

leases. Existing leases would have a 4 mile no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Conditions 

of Approval (COAs) would be attached to existing leases during analysis and approval of 

exploration and development activities to minimize or avoid the impacts to Sage-Grouse through 

a project design. Exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, (COAs), and terms 

and conditions (T&Cs) for Sage-Grouse would not be considered within Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat. Outside of PPH (Core), mineral development would be the same as Alternative A. This 

alternative better conserves PPH (Core) Sage-Grouse habitat than alternatives A, D, and E and is 

equal to alternative C. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH(Core) and fuels treatments would 

emphasize protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Suppression and habitat protection would 

be emphasized. In Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) areas within precipitation zones of 12 inches or less, 

fire is not used to treat sagebrush, unless as a last resort for fuel breaks and must be within a 3% 

disturbance limit. This would promote the conservation of habitat and reduce disturbance to 

habitat associated with fire in PPH. In addition, habitat restoration would be a priority. This 

alternative conserves more habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E but conserves less than 

Alternative C.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Within PPH (Core) the 3% disturbance limitation would limit anthropogenic impacts to SageGrouse structural habitat conditions. With the increased emphasis on fire suppression, reduced 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 43

energy development, noise restrictions, and livestock grazing modifications within PPH (Core), 

overall Sage-Grouse habitat usability should remain stable with a potential for increasing 

increase in areas exceeding the 3% disturbance limitation. Additional protections and directions 

for PGH (General habitat) will further provide habitat protections under this alternative. This 

alternative conserves more habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E but conserves less than 

Alternative C. Based upon the above habitat discussion and protections, the Sage-Grouse 

population would have a better chance of developing a stable or upward trend. Many of the 

documented stressors have been reducing in PGH (General Habitat), and in the case of PPH 

(Core), they may have been removed. This alternative would encourage better habitat conditions 

which would be conducive to increased male attendance at more leks across most Geographic 

Areas. While the potential for West Nile has not been removed, the potential for a larger 

population distributed across the landscape would provide a higher potential for more birds to 

survive an outbreak. The expected increase in population trend would also provide the 

opportunity for Sage-Grouse to re-populate geographic areas where they are absent or decreasing 

in Alternative A.

Alternative C 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to Sage-Grouse and their habitat than other 

alternatives. In this Alternative conservation measures are generally applied to both PPH (Core 

Habitat) and PGH (General Habitat). Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat areas would be 

managed as ROW exclusion areas for new Right Of Way or Special Use Authorization permits. 

New road construction would be prohibited within 4 miles of active Sage-Grouse leks, and 

avoided in PPH (Core) and PGH (General Habitat). Existing road management would be 

designed to maintain or improve both PPH (Core) and PGH (General Habitat). Road associated 

noise would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient levels (20-24 dBA). Camping and 

other non-motorized recreation would be seasonally prohibited within 4 miles of active SageGrouse leks. There would be less disruption of habitat, breeding, and a reduction of road 

associated mortality. These measures allow the least habitat loss and disturbance of all of the 

Alternatives, retaining more suitable habitat. 

Lands and Realty

Alternative C would have the most protective measures Sage-Grouse. No Sage-Grouse habitat in 

PPH (Core) would be exchanged away. The Forest Service (Forest Service) will strive to acquire 

important private lands in areas identified as Sage-Grouse Special Areas. Alternative C would 

encourage consolidation and acquisition of Sage-Grouse habitat. This alternative would promote 

the greatest distribution and highest density of suitable Sage-Grouse habitat.

Range

Livestock grazing would be prohibited within Sage-Grouse PPH (Core). All new structural range 

developments and location of supplements would be avoided in both PPH (Core) and PGH 

(General Habitat) unless they can be shown to benefit Sage-Grouse. Grazing and trailing within 

lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats would be avoided during periods of the year 

when these habitats are utilized by Sage-Grouse. Post fire (both prescribed and wildfire) 

monitoring is required in all Sage-Grouse habitat to re-establish grazing. Within Sage-Grouse 
Appendix M Draft EIS

44 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

PPH (Core) and PGH (General Habitat), livestock grazing should be excluded from burned areas 

until woody and herbaceous plants achieve Sage-Grouse habitat objectives. 

Positive and negative effects can be caused by livestock grazing (Beck and Mitchell 2000). The 

prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would retain the most herbaceous cover for nest 

concealment, and success; reduced predation; and increased chick survival (BER (Manier et al 

2013)). Structural development control would reduce mortalities associated with fence collisions, 

disease such as West Nile when it is associated with stock water development, and habitat 

fragmentation associated with water pipelines. Livestock grazing can also be beneficial in the 

establishment and maintenance of sage grouse leks (Beck and Mitchell .2000), and can stimulate 

forbs and increase their availability (BER (Manier et al 2013)). By monitoring and rest from 

grazing, post-burned habitat is more likely to return to quality Sage-Grouse habitat.

Energy and Minerals

No exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, Conditions of Approval (COAs), 

and terms and conditions (T&Cs) will be considered within Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) and PGH 

(General Habitat). Both sage‐grouse PPH (Core) and PGH (General Habitat) areas would be 

closed to fluid mineral leasing. As existing leases expire or are terminated, no new 

nominations/expressions of interest would be accepted for parcels within Sage-Grouse PPH 

(Core) or PGH (General Habitat). Oil and Gas Leasing would not be allowed in Sage-Grouse 

PPH (Core). Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) and 

PGH (General Habitat) to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to 

PPH (Core) and PGH (General) sage‐grouse habitat and would be subject to seasonal restrictions 

that preclude activities in breeding, nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats during their season 

of use by Sage-Grouse. Where existing leases exist in all Sage-Grouse habitat, stipulations for 

the protection of Sage-Grouse or their habitats could be added to Conditions of Approval 

(COAs) when approving exploration and development activities. No construction of evaporation 

or infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater would be allowed. All PPH (Core) 

would be closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing. Sage grouse PPH (Core) areas would be 

closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits.

Conservation measure would be applied to more Sage-Grouse habitat, in many cases both PPH 

(Core) and PGH (General). Habitat effectiveness would be improved and fragmentation 

minimized. Since nearly all of TBNG is in either PPH (Core) or PGH (General Habitat), many of 

these restrictions would be applied grassland wide. This alternative would be the most beneficial 

to Sage-Grouse and their habitat as it relates to energy development.

Fire and Fuels Management

Within all Sage-Grouse habitat, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Within all Sage-Grouse habitats, 

sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage would be avoided. Also, 

sagebrush canopy cover would generally not be reduced to less than 15% within any sage grouse 

habitat and vegetation treatments in both habitats would be designed to create landscape patterns 

which most benefit sage‐grouse. For all Sage-Grouse habitat, fire would not be used to treat 

sagebrush in precipitation zones with less than 12 inches except as a last resort as a fuel break. 

Post fuels management projects will be designed to ensure the long term persistence of seeded or 

pre-treatment native plants, including sagebrush. Any vegetation treatment plan must include 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 45

pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition, establish non-grazing enclosures, and include 

long-term monitoring where treated areas are monitored for at least three years before grazing 

returns. Grazing then should not return to the burn area until woody and herbaceous plants 

achieve Sage-Grouse habitat objectives. No fuels treatments would be allowed in known SageGrouse winter range unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk 

around or in the winter range and will maintain winter range habitat quality. Fuels reduction 

project (roadsides or other areas) in all Sage-Grouse habitat would utilize mowing of grass. In 

PPH (Core) habitat areas, fire suppression to conserve the Sage-Grouse habitat would be 

prioritized immediately after firefighter and public safety. 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in all Sage-Grouse habitat, and suppression 

would be emphasized in PPH (Core). This would promote the conservation of habitat and reduce 

disturbance associated with fire. In addition, habitat restoration would be a priority. These 

measures would help improve overall Sage-Grouse habitat. This alternative conserves more 

sagebrush habitat with higher shrub canopy cover than all other alternatives. This could result in 

a localized increase in nesting, wintering, or hiding cover habitat, while at the same time 

potentially allowing sagebrush encroachment into brood rearing habitat. The loss of fire as a tool 

could also restrict the removal of conifer encroachments into some sagebrush habitats. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

This alternative provides habitat protections for both PPH (Core) and PGH (General) SageGrouse habitats. While these two habitats combined represent only a small portion of the 

Medicine Bow and the Bridger Teton National Forests, they represents the entire Sage-Grouse 

habitat on TBNG, and the majority of the National Grassland, excluding only the coal mine areas 

and ponderosa pine habitat type. This would result in very limited anthropogenic impacts to 

Sage-Grouse structural habitat conditions on all units. With the increased emphasis on fire 

suppression, reduced energy development, noise restrictions, and livestock grazing limitations, 

overall Sage-Grouse habitat usability should remain stable with a high potential for an improving 

trend. However, there are negative impacts to this alternative with the complete exclusion of 

grazing and the loss of fire to enhance brood rearing habitat and conifer removal. These tools, if 

used properly can assist in the maintenance and improvement of some key habitats. Overall, this 

alternative is the most conservative, and provides more suitable habitat than Alternatives A, B, 

D, and E. Based upon the above habitat discussion and protections, the Sage-Grouse population 

would have a good chance of developing a stable or upward trend. Many of the documented 

stressors have been reduce or removed in much of the Sage-Grouse habitat across the National 

Forests and Grassland. This alternative would encourage better habitat conditions which would 

be conducive to increased male attendance at more leks across most Geographic Areas. While 

the potential for West Nile has not been removed, the potential for a larger population distributed 

across the landscape would provide a higher potential for more birds to survive an outbreak. The 

expected increase in population trend would also provide the opportunity for sage grouse to repopulate geographic areas where they are absent or decreasing in Alternative A.
Appendix M Draft EIS

46 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Alternative D 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to alternative A, although alternative D has a 

9% disturbance in PPH and does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses 

in PPH (Core). The potential changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation 

measures would be very similar to but slightly less detrimental to Sage-Grouse than alternative 

A.

Lands and Realty

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH (Core) and connectivity habitat will be 

allowed > 0.25 miles from Sage-Grouse. This is closer than the disturbance allowed under the 

other alternatives except alternative A. 

New rights-of way and special use authorizations in PPH (Core) would generally be excluded; 

those allowed would be subject to the 9% disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat 

loss, and habitat degradation than allowed in alternatives B, C, and E but less disturbance than 

alternative A. These same uses would be allowed in PGH (Core). 

Range

Conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. Grazing management strategies 

would be developed cooperatively with permittees, leasees and other landowners on an 

allotment-by-allotment basis to improve sage grouse habitat. As grazing permits are renewed in 

PPH (Core), sage grouse habitat objectives and management considerations could be 

incorporated. Up to 15% of PPH (Core) could be retired from grazing where permittee or lessee 

voluntarily relinquishes their grazing preference in their grazing allotment. Vegetative 

management and grazing infra-structure is essentially the same as Alternative A. Potential 

adverse effects to Sage-Grouse habitat could include habitat fragmentation due to infra-structure 

development, habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to grasslands for improved livestock forage, 

and site specific overgrazing during drought years, with a potential reduction in cover, structure, 

and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Related impacts include 

higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a reduction of residual herbaceous material 

causing a lack of hiding cover. 

Energy and Minerals

Most conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. However, there is a 9% 

disturbance cap that does not exist in alternative A. The lack of conservation measures in 

sagebrush outside of PPH (Core) could lead to increased anthropogenic disturbance of sagegrouse habitat, off road vehicle use, increased traffic on NFS and mineral development roads, 

new road construction, road traffic speed, utility corridor permits or easements, water 

development, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, 

noise, industrial campsites, and the development or removal of mineral materials. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 47

Fire and Fuels Management

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9% disturbance cap in PPH. This treatment would follow Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse to determining whether 

proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that will contribute toward the 9 percent 

threshold. Treated areas would not be rested from grazing. This allowance alone will promote the 

expansion of noxious weeds and a lack of cover. Also, treatment is permitted in Sage-Grouse 

breeding, nesting, and winter range. These limited conservation measures on PPH (Core) and the 

lack of measures in the remainder of Sage-Grouse habitat would have detrimental impacts on 

Sage-Grouse. This type of management could result in a localized loss or reduction in nesting, 

wintering, or hiding cover habitat, while at the same time potentially increasing brood rearing 

habitat.

Cumulative Effects

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. As displayed in 

Alternative A, there is a downward trend in habitat suitability and availability. The few 

conservation measures included in this Alternative are limited to PPH (Core) habitat, and with 

this only representing small portions of the Sage-Grouse habitat within TBNG and the BTNF, 

they are not expected to be sufficient to create a noticeable positive change in Sage-Grouse 

habitat across either planning unit (TBNG or BTNF). With implementation of this Alternative 

energy development, wildfire, road development and increased noise would likely work together 

to continue to fragment and reduce suitable, effective Sage-Grouse habitat. With all of this 

considered, habitat could be expected to continue to decrease in effectiveness and size, under this 

alternative. 

Since this alternative uses the Alternative A management direction, it is reasonable that the 

population trend associated with the Alternative A management would continue. Sage-Grouse 

populations have been steadily declining since 2006-2007 in populations associated with the 

National Forest System lands, with cyclic trends in decline from a longer timeframe. With the 

above discussion about habitat in mind, it could be expected that the sage grouse population 

would continue to decrease. This trend, combine with the potential for West Nile, is likely to 

lead to additional reductions in the distribution of Sage-Grouse. 

Alternative E 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

New primary and secondary roads would avoid areas within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of 

occupied Sage-Grouse leks within Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) habitat areas. Other new roads 

would avoid areas within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied Sage-Grouse leks within PPH 

(Core) habitat areas. Road construction and re-construction would be completed only to the 

minimum construction needs. Disruptive activities are restricted from 6 pm to 8 am from March 

1 – May 15 on or within a six tenths (0.6) mile radius of the perimeter of occupied Sage-Grouse 

leks inside core habitat and connectivity habitat areas. In addition, noise levels at the 0.6 mile 

perimeter of the lek, should not exceed 10 dBA above ambient noise. Some recreation special 

uses would be allowed in PPH (Core). 
Appendix M Draft EIS

48 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Conservations measures primarily apply to PPH (Core) habitat only. Measures in PPH (Core) 

would be slightly more restrictive than alternatives A and D but less restrictive than alternatives 

B and C .The restriction on road construction or upgrades in PPH (Core) would limit disturbance 

and habitat loss within PPH (Core), but would allow existing conditions to continue in the 

remaining Sage-Grouse habitat. 

Lands and Realty

Sage-Grouse habitat requirements would be used to prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition 

within PPH (Core) core habitats. New projects within Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) habitats would 

include the proposed distribution and transmission lines in their DDCT as part of the proposed 

disturbance. Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) habitat areas would be managed as ROW avoidance areas 

for new ROW or SUA permits.

Again, most conservation actions are taken in PPH (Core) habitats, little or no new protections 

would occur in PGH (General) habitat. Even then some habitat could be lost, degraded or 

disturbed since conservation measures would allow some limited powerlines, some lease 

changes, and activities within 0.6 miles of a lek in PPH (Core). Habitat changes could also occur 

because PPH (Core) can be exchanged to other ownership. Overall, impacts to Sage-Grouse and 

sagebrush habitat would be similar to but slightly reduced compared to alternatives A and D. 

Range

Within Sage-Grouse core habitat, as appropriate, site specific Sage-Grouse habitat objectives and 

management considerations would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals. Livestock 

grazing and associated range improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a way 

that contributes to rangeland health and maintains and/or improves Sage-Grouse and its habitat. 

Much of the direction for livestock management remains the same as the current management. 

Conservation measures place slightly more focus on incorporating measures to provide adequate 

habitat quality for Sage-Grouse in PPH (Core) than alternatives A and D. Potential adverse 

effects to Sage-Grouse habitat (primarily in PGH (General) habitat) could include habitat 

fragmentation due to infra-structure development, habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to 

grasslands for improved livestock forage, and site specific overgrazing during drought years, 

with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other 

vegetative objectives. Related impacts include higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a 

reduction of residual herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover. 

Energy and Minerals

A maximum of 5% disturbance would be allowed within PPH (Core) habitat using the DDTC. A 

minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral estate would be applied within 

Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) habitat areas. The density of oil and gas or mining activities would be 

considered and evaluated for measures that limit or reduce their activities to no more than an 

average of 1 location per 640 acres. Where existing leases exist in all Sage-Grouse habitat, 

stipulations for the protection of Sage-Grouse or their habitats could be added to Conditions of 

Approval (COAs) when approving exploration and development activities. All non-energy 

leasable and salable mineral activities would be considered in PPH (Core) habitats. The lack of 

conservation measures in sagebrush outside of PPH (Core) could lead to increased anthropogenic 

disturbance of sage- grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, increased traffic on NFS and mineral 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 49

development roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, utility corridor permits or 

easements, water development, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral 

leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and the development or removal of mineral materials. 

Conservation measures would have impacts similar to but more restrictive than alternatives A 

and D. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

A maximum of 5% disturbance would be allowed within PPH (Core) habitat using the DDTC. 

Within Sage-Grouse core habitat in northeast Wyoming, vegetation treatments in nesting and 

wintering habitats that would reduce sagebrush canopy to less than 15% would not be conducted 

unless it could be shown to be beneficial to sage grouse. Habitat restoration would be prioritized 

to rehabilitate PPH (core) habitat first. Fuels treatments in PPH (Core) would be designed with 

an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems and enhancing as well as protecting 

future sagebrush ecosystems. Following wildfire, burned lands would be treated as disturbed 

pending an implementation management plan with trend data showing the area was returning to 

functional sage grouse habitat. Multiple tools would be considered for fuels reduction and 

analyze in NEPA compliance documentation before electing to implement prescribed fire in PPH 

(Core) habitat areas. Also within PPH (Core) the use of prescribed fire in areas of Wyoming big 

sagebrush, other xeric sagebrush species, or where cheatgrass or other fire-invasive species occur 

and/or within areas of less than 12 inches of annual precipitation would be avoided. During 

wildfire suppression prioritization, PPH (Core) habitat would be placed immediately after 

firefighter and public safety to conserve the habitat. 

Fire and fuel management again focuses primarily on PPH (Core) habitat for additional 

conservation management, leaving the remaining Sage-Grouse habitat to management similar to 

Alternative A. These conservation measures would make this alternative more beneficial than 

alternatives A or D.

Cumulative Effects 

This alternative focuses of conservation practices primarily within the PPH (Core) habitat and 

relies primarily on the current management to manage the remaining PGH (General) habitat. 

Table 1 depicts NFS acreage on each unit and designated Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat 

acres. 

Table 6: TBNG Acreage and Designated GSG Core Habitat Acres.

Unit

Core Habitat 

Acres

General Habitat 

Acres

Occupied Habitat Acres 

(Outside Core and

General)

Total Acres of 

Mapped Sage 

Grouse Habitat*

Bridger-Teton 

National Forest

 5,933 262,018 60,584 328,535

Medicine Bow 

National Forest

4,564 22,915 0 27,479

Thunder Basin 

National Grassland

217,768 336,096 0 553,864
Appendix M Draft EIS

50 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Total Acres 228,265 621,029 60,584 909,878 

The conservation measures included in this Alternative are limited to PPH (Core) habitat, and 

with this only representing a small percentage of the Sage-Grouse habitat within each unit, they 

are not expected to be sufficient to create an adequate change in Sage-Grouse habitat across the 

planning units. With implementation of this Alternative energy development, wildfire, road 

development and increased noise would still work together in the PGH (General) habitat to 

continue to fragment and reduce suitable, effective Sage-Grouse habitat. 

With all of this considered, habitat could be expected to continue to decrease in effectiveness and 

size, under this alternative. 

B. Sagebrush Associated Species

The Northern goshawk, ferruginous hawk, Northern harrier, short-eared owl, loggerhead shrike, 

sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep, white-tailed prairie dog, Wyoming pocket gopher, fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, spotted bat, hoary bat, and boreal toad were grouped for this analysis due to the similar 

nature of the habitats occupied by these animals. Though species specific effects may differ 

slightly, the programmatic nature and landscape scale effects will be analyzed generally and 

collectively for this group of species. As the nature of the project is to amend the Forest and 

Grassland Plans to include regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures to protect 

sagebrush habitats for Greater Sage-Grouse, the effects would generally be similar to effects on 

GRSG.

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

Distribution

Goshawk is a R2 and R4 Sensitive Species and a MIS for the Medicine Bow National Forest 

(MB) that overlap with some sage-grouse habitat on the Bridger-Teton National Forest (BT). 

Northern goshawks are holarctic, occupying a wide variety of boreal and montane forest habitats 

over the northern hemisphere (Kennedy 2003). They are found in forested habitats across 

Wyoming. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

Goshawk is highly associated with late seral lodgepole pine, mixed lodgepole/aspen, and aspen 

forest for nesting and is associated with a variety of age classes and shrub stands for prey species 

(Squires and Ruggiero 1996, Kennedy 2003). The goshawk captures a wide variety of prey and 

is classified as a prey generalist (Kennedy 2003). Goshawks do use late-successional forests for 

foraging, but also take prey associated with both early and late-successional forests, and in some 

cases, open habitats (Anderson et al. 2003). While some studies suggest population declines in 

the west, current information is insufficient to determine that populations are declining, 

increasing, or stationary (Kennedy 2003). 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 51

The primary threat to goshawk populations is alteration of its preferred habitat from timber 

management practices (Kennedy 2003). The issues cited by researchers, agency personnel, and 

others as potential threats to habitat caused by various silvicultural treatments include forest 

fragmentation, creation of even-aged and monotypic stands, potential increase in area of younger 

age classes, and loss of tree species diversity (Kennedy 2003).

Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis)

Distribution

The ferruginous hawk is an international migratory bird that is found from southern Canada, 

throughout the western U.S., and into northern and central Mexico. This hawk is a R2 Sensitive 

that overlaps with most sage grouse habitat. Wyoming is the approximate center of the 

ferruginous hawk breeding range and has one of the largest breeding populations of any state or 

province (Olendorff 1993). Oakleaf (in Call 1985) estimated more than 800 pairs of ferruginous 

hawks in the state. The ferruginous hawk breeds throughout most of Wyoming, excluding the 

northwestern corner, with the highest nesting densities found in the Shamrock Hills of Carbon 

County (Call 1988, 1989). 

Habitat Associations and Threats

The following is a habitat description of the Ferruginous Hawk. This information represents 

selected direct quotes from the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment for this 

species (Collins, C.P. and T.D. Reynolds (2005). On-line at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ferruginoushawk.pdf 

Range-wide, ferruginous hawks occupy a variety of habitat types including open grasslands, 

shrub-steppe, croplands, desert, and the periphery of western pinyon (Pinus edulis) – juniper 

(Juniperus spp.) woodlands (Jasikoff 1982, Gilmer and Stewart 1983, Olendorff 1993, Bechard 

and Schmutz 1995). Breeding habitat includes nesting, post-fledging, and foraging areas, and 

includes all of the above habitat types. Within each broad category of ferruginous hawk habitat, 

smaller scale features are important for successful reproduction. Of all the large raptors, the 

ferruginous hawk is second only to the red-tailed hawk in the array of habitats used (Cottrell 

1981, Knight and Smith 1982). In general, the fundamental habitat difference between eastern 

and western subpopulations of ferruginous hawks is the predominant use of shrub-steppe west of 

the Continental Divide and grasslands east of the Divide (Bechard and Schmutz 1995). The chief 

habitat requirement of ferruginous hawks, regardless of vegetation type, is an adequate supply of 

small rodents, their primary food source (Weston 1969). 

Within Region 2 of the Forest Service, the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment 

for this species (Collins, C.P. and T.D. Reynolds (2005)) identified the following threats facing 

ferruginous hawks; 

• habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation resulting from land use practices including 

 conversion of native habitat to agriculture, 

 urbanization, 

 improper grazing practices,

 conversion of shrubland to grassland. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

52 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

• human disturbance during the reproductive period, 

• reduction of prey populations through poisoning and disease, 

• energy resource development, 

• altered fire regimes, 

• invasion of exotic species, 

• diseases.

Specifically in Wyoming, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department Identified the following 

threats specifically for Wyoming:

• energy development and other large-scale projects that destroy or impair suitable habitats.

• Impacted by conversion of native prairie to: 

• cropland or other uses, 

• urbanization, 

• industrialization, 

• loss of vegetative cover, 

• poisoning, 

• human disturbance near the nest site, 

• reduced prey availability.

• decreased prey abundance 

• reduced availability of nesting sites

• current monitoring efforts are not adequate to document population trends 

• current monitoring efforts are not adequate to identify needed management over large 

areas of the State

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)

Distribution

Northern harrier is a R2 Sensitive Species and overlaps with sage-grouse habitat on the MB and 

TBNG. Northern harriers are a wide ranging species with very large distributions. Some have 

large ranging seasonal migrations, occurring from North to South America. They are found 

across Wyoming and several have been documented on both the MB (February 2013 NRM 

Database) and TBNG (TBNG Raptor Database).

Habitat Associations and Threats

Most northern harrier nests are found in undisturbed wetlands or grasslands dominated by thick 

vegetation. They prefer open habitats characterized by tall, dense vegetation. They use native or 

tame vegetation in dry or wet grasslands, wetlands, croplands, fallow fields, lightly grazed 

management units, and brushy areas. Northern harriers forage over open habitats of moderate to 

heavy cover, and hunt by flying close to the ground and taking small animals by surprise. The 

diet consists mainly of small mammals, including mice and voles, but they are also known to 

consume birds and occasionally reptiles and frogs. 

The species is considered globally “secure” by the Natural Heritage Program because of its wide 

distribution across North America. However, historic and recent evidence suggest that the 

number of breeding harriers has declined across the species’ range. The greatest threats to 

northern harriers are loss of wetland and grassland habitats, and the effects of habitat 

fragmentation, primarily from agricultural production (Slater and Rock 2005). 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 53 

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)

The following is a habitat description of the Short-eared Owl. This information is selected direct 

quotes from the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment for this species (Wiggins, 

D. (2004). On-line at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/shortearedowl.pdf . 

Distribution

The Short-eared owl is found throughout Canada and the U.S. It breeds and occupies open 

habitats from the most arctic and temperate areas to the south and central portions of the United 

States. Short-eared owls are nomadic within their range and may be absent from some breeding 

areas for several years. Within Region 2, there are so few data that analyses are hampered due to 

low statistical power. Within Wyoming, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (Cerovski et 

al. 2012) have provided some sighting information locally. They have documented occurrences 

in all counties within the analysis area. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

In North America, short-eared owls nest in open habitats including grasslands, sagebrush, 

marshes, and tundra. Foraging habitat is similar to nesting habitat. In Region 2, such habitat is 

typically composed of large (>500 ha) tracts of native medium to tall grasslands, ideally 

interspersed with wet areas or marshes. 

The most significant factor thought to limit population growth in short-eared owls is the 

availability of suitable nesting and foraging habitat due to loss of native grassland and wetland 

habitats, degradation of existing grasslands due to overgrazing by livestock, and degradation of 

grassland habitat due to fragmentation 

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)

Distribution

Loggerhead shrike is a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps with sage-grouse habitat on the MB 

and TBNG. The loggerhead shrike is a widespread species in North America. Several have been 

documented on both the MB (February 2013 NRM Database) and TBNG (TBNG Wildlife 

Database).

Habitat Associations and Threats

The loggerhead shrike is a species that frequents open habitats such as open habitats such as 

deserts, sagebrush, grasslands, and pastures (Wiggins 2005). Important habitat requirements 

include: scattered trees, shrubs, or low bushes for nesting substrate; elevated perches for hunting 

and courtship activities; foraging areas comprised of open, short vegetation with some relatively 

bare areas; and thorny trees or barbed wire fences for impaling prey (Pruitt 2000). 

Recent contractions in its range and declines in abundance have occurred in many areas of North 

America and in several different habitat types. Factors responsible for the species’ near rangewide declines are not yet clear but include direct loss and degradation of native grassland and 

sagebrush habitats (Wiggins 2005) . 

Sage sparrow (Amphispiza bellii)

The following is a habitat description of the Sage Sparrow. This information is selected direct 

quotes from the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment for this species (Holmes, 
Appendix M Draft EIS

54 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

J.A. and M.J. Johnson (2005). On-line at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/sagesparrow.pdf 

Distribution

Within Forest Service Region 2, the sage sparrow breeds over much of the Great Basin east of 

the Cascades and Sierra Nevada and west of the Rocky Mountains. It winters in central 

California and central Nevada, southwestern Utah, south to northern Baja California, and 

northern Sonora, and southwestern Chihuahua in Mexico, and west Texas (Martin and Carlson 

1998). Locally, sage sparrows are found across most of Wyoming in prairie and foothills habitat 

where sagebrush is present (Cerovski et al. 2001), the highest abundances are found in 

southwestern Wyoming. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

The sage sparrow is considered a sagebrush obligate associated with shrublands dominated by 

big sagebrush with a perennial bunchgrass understory (Braun et al. 1976, Paige and Ritter 1999). 

Landscape level attributes that are positively associated with sage sparrow density include high 

sagebrush cover, large patch size, spatially similar patches, low disturbance, and little 

fragmentation (Knick and Rotenberry 1995). Knick and Rotenberry (2002) found that the 

occurrence of sage sparrows increased with increasing area of sagebrush patches and decreasing 

fragmentation.

Within its sagebrush shrub steppe breeding habitat, local (e.g., within-patch) components that 

have been positively correlated with sage sparrow densities are the amount of big sagebrush, 

shrub cover, bare ground, and above-average shrub height. Conversely, density of sage sparrows 

has been negatively correlated with greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) and grass cover 

(Rotenberry and Wiens 1980, Wiens and Rotenberry 1981, Larson and Bock 1984, Paige and 

Ritter 1999). Wyoming densities are negatively influenced by landscape-level habitat changes 

that increase fragmentation of shrublands, and those numbers appear to be more sensitive to 

variation in landscape-level attributes than local-scale habitat attributes (Knick and Rotenberry 

2000). 

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella brewerii)

Distribution

Brewer’s sparrow is a MIS for the BT and also a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps with sagegrouse habitat on the TBNG, BT and MB. Brewer’s sparrows inhabit prairie and foothills 

shrublands where sagebrush is present. Brewer’s sparrows summer in North America and winter 

in Central or South America. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

Brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate species, which nests in live sagebrush or on the ground 

at the base of a live sagebrush shrub. Brewer’s sparrow is considered globally “secure” by the 

Natural Heritage Program because of its wide distribution across North America. However, 

according to the Breeding Bird Survey, Brewer’s sparrow populations have declined by over 50 

percent during the past 25 years. Brewer’s sparrow populations in the west have exhibited 

similar long-term declines. Reported population declines on the breeding areas are likely linked 

to extensive alteration of sagebrush shrub steppe habitat (Holmes and Johnson 2005). Alteration 

has occurred as a result of extensive, ecologically transformative influences of livestock grazing, 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 55

followed by alteration of natural fire regimes and invasion by exotic plant species, especially 

cheatgrass (Holmes and Johnson 2005). Loss and fragmentation of habitat due to agricultural, 

urban, suburban, energy, and road development also threaten the species. 

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus)

Distribution

This grouse is a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps with a small area of sage-grouse habitat at the 

southwest edge of the MB in southern Carbon County, Wyoming. Columbian sharp-tailed 

grouse are found only in Colorado and Wyoming in the Rocky Mountains (Hoffman and Thomas 

2007). Sixty-eight percent of the occupied range in the Rocky Mountain region is on private 

lands with four percent occurring on lands administered by the Forest Service. There are 2 

sharp-tailed leks on the MB that overlap with sage-grouse general habitat.

Habitat Associations and Threats

These birds inhabit the transition zone between the arid sagebrush rangelands and the start of the 

aspen-conifer forests at elevations of 1,890 to 2,591 m. It is endemic to big sagebrush, shrub 

steppe, mountain shrub, and riparian shrub plant communities (Hoffman and Thomas 2007). 

The subspecies currently occupies less than 10 percent of its historic range, with only three 

metapopulations remaining in central British Columbia, southeastern Idaho and northern Utah, 

and northwestern Colorado and south-central Wyoming (Hoffman and Thomas 2007). Within 

the Rocky Mountain region, this grouse formerly occurred in as many as 22 counties in western 

Colorado and in portions of 11 counties in west-central, southwestern, and south-central 

Wyoming. Today, viable populations occur in only three counties in Colorado and one county in 

Wyoming.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Possible loss of Conservation Reserve Program lands is the single most important immediate 

threat to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the Rocky Mountain Region (Hoffman and Thomas 

2007). Other threats include habitat loss and degradation caused by conversion of native habitats 

to pasture and croplands, overgrazing by domestic livestock, energy development, use of 

herbicides to control big sagebrush, alteration of natural fire regimes, invasion of exotic plants, 

and urban and rural expansion. 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Canadensis canadensis)

Distribution

Bighorn sheep is a R2 and R4 Sensitive Species that overlaps with a small amount of sagegrouse habitat on the MB. Bighorns were historically distributed from the Canadian provinces of 

British Columbia and Alberta south to Mexico. From the late 1800’s through the mid-1900’s, 

bighorn sheep populations experienced significant declines across their range (Beecham et al. 

2007). In the 1960’s, many western states began active bighorn sheep transplant programs in an 

effort to augment small, remnant sheep populations and to reintroduce bighorns into historic, but 

vacant, habitat. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

56 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

The lower elevation edge of bighorn sheep seasonal ranges in the Sierra Madre Mountains and 

Laramie Peak overlap with the upper elevation edge of sage-grouse preliminary general habitat, 

totaling less than 5000 acres. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

Bighorn sheep are primarily animals of open habitats, such as alpine meadows, open grasslands, 

shrub-steppe, talus slopes, rock outcrops, and cliffs; in some places, however, they may use areas 

of deciduous and conifer forests, especially where openings may have been created by clear-cuts 

or fire (Beecham et al. 2007). Records indicate that historically, bighorn sheep were sometimes 

found distant from rugged mountainous terrain. However, their current distribution is confined 

to scattered populations in open or semi-open, often precipitous, terrain characterized by a mix of 

steep or gentle slopes, broken cliffs, rock outcrops, and canyons and their adjacent river benches 

and mesa tops. 

As summarized from Beecham et al. (2007): Bighorn sheep populations declined to less than 

25,000 individuals in the continental United States by 1960 . Transplant programs initiated in 

Canada, the United States, and Mexico were successful in restoring bighorn sheep to over 200 

historic sites by 1990. It was estimated there were more than 185,000 wild sheep in North 

America by 1991. Although bighorn sheep numbers and distribution have increased 

dramatically since 1960 due to transplant and habitat conservation efforts, many individual herds 

remain small (less than 150 individuals) and susceptible to extirpation

The risk of disease outbreaks resulting from contact with domestic sheep and goats is widely 

believed to be the most significant threat facing bighorns across their range (Beecham et al. 

2007). Other threats include the lack of connectivity and/or loss of genetic variability (fitness) 

due to habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, increased human disturbance, competition with 

domestic livestock, and predation on small, isolated herds (Beecham et al. 2007). 

White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus)

Distribution

The white-tailed prairie dog is a R2 sensitive species. Approximately 2 acres of the only colony 

on the MB overlap with sage-grouse habitat on the Forest. The white-tailed prairie dog 

historically occurred across 43-51 million acres of high altitude (6980 – 8,200 ft.) grasslands, 

ranging from southern Montana to west-central Colorado and from eastern Utah to eastern 

Wyoming (Pauli et al. 2006). Current estimates suggest the species occupies roughly 840,000 ac 

within Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Montana. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

Unlike other prairie dog species, white-tailed prairie dogs are capable of establishing colonies in 

a variety of habitat types including shrub-steppe, short-grass prairie, meadow, mountain valley, 

and transitional areas with mixed stands of shrubs and grasses. Typically, colonies are located in 

plant communities with low vegetative height and in systems generally dominated by grasses, 

forbs, and low shrubs. 

The historical range of the white-tailed prairie dog was estimated between 42 and 49 million 

acres. Using this estimate of historic range occupation, the current occupied area would 

represent a range contraction of approximately 99 percent (Pauli et al. 2007). 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 57

Plague, an exotic and virulent disease, appears to be the single most important factor 

constraining the current distribution of white-tailed prairie dogs (Pauli et al. 2007). Other threats 

include mineral development, conversion of native habitat to agriculture and urban areas, 

poisoning, and recreational shooting. 

Wyoming Pocket Gopher (Thomomys clusius)

Distribution

This pocket gopher is a R2 Sensitive Species with the possibility that some potential habitat 

overlaps with sage-grouse habitat on the far west end of the Little Sandstone drainage on the 

MB. However, there are no confirmed occurrences on Forest Service-administered lands 

(Keinath and Beauvais 2006). The species occurs exclusively in Wyoming. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

The Wyoming pocket gopher appears to segregate from northern pocket gophers by 

preferentially occupying dry, gravelly, shallow-soil ridge tops rather than deeper soiled swales 

and valley bottoms. Many existing capture locations are from greasewood communities on the 

edges of eroding washes. The population status is unknown due to the extreme paucity of data. 

It is assumed to be rare and to have a very restricted distribution, but there is a lack of extensive 

surveys for pocket gophers in central Wyoming (Keinath and Beauvais 2006). Ad hoc efforts 

failed to document gophers at several historic localities, leading to speculation of population 

declines. Limiting additional disturbance to areas containing known, active Wyoming pocket 

gopher burrow complexes is presently the best conservation measure since little information is 

available about this species.

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

The following is a habitat description of the Fringed Myotis. This information represents selected 

direct quotes from the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment for this species 

( Keinath (2004, October 29)). On-line at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf [12/5/06]. 

Distribution

This is a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps sage-grouse habitat. Myotis thysanodes appear to be 

relatively rare rangewide. Myotis thysanodes is predominantly found in western North America, 

occurring from southern British Columbia, south through southern Mexico. It occurs west to the 

Pacific coast and east to the Rocky Mountains of Region 2, with a potentially isolated population 

in the Black Hills of South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska. Populations in Mexico are 

predominantly found in the central highlands. Occurrences have been documented in 14 states 

(Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 

South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). Myotis thysanodes thysanodes occurs 

over most of Region 2, and the Black Hills subspecies (M. t. pahasapensis) is restricted to the 

Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming and extreme northwestern Nebraska, all within 

Region 2. (Conservation Assessment) 
Appendix M Draft EIS

58 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Habitat Associations and Threats

The fringed myotis appear to use a fairly broad range of habitats (Cryan 1997). The most 

common habitats in which this species has been found are oak, pinyon, and juniper woodlands or 

ponderosa pine forest at middle elevations (Davis 1966, Barbour and Davis 1969, O’Farrell and 

Studier 1980, Cockrum et al. 1996, Wilson and Ruff 1999, Ellison et al. 2004). They also appear 

to use deserts (Cockrum et al. 1996), grasslands, and other types of woodlands. When trying to 

generalize all published information, one observes that M. thysanodes is mostly found in dry 

habitats where open areas (e.g., grasslands and deserts) are interspersed with mature forests 

(usually ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, or oak), creating complex mosaics with ample edges 

and abundant snags. This can take a variety of forms in Region 2, where open areas are likely 

represented by short and mixed-grass prairie, sagebrush and other xeric shrublands and forests. 

Ideal habitat includes nearby water sources and suitable cliff or snag roost habitat. (pg. 20) 

Suitable roosting sites are a critical habitat component, the availability of which can determine 

population sizes and distributions (Humphrey 1975, Kunz 1982). Throughout their range, this 

myotis use caves, mines, and buildings as maternity colonies, solitary day and night roosts, and 

hibernacula. They regularly roost underneath bark and inside hollows of tree snags, particularly 

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in medium stages of decay (Kurtzman 1994, Morell et al. 1994, 

Murphy 1994, Rasheed et al. 1995, Chung-MacCoubrey 2001, as cited in Cryan 1997). Possible 

declines are likely due to a combination of primary threats including roost loss and modification, 

habitat alteration, and toxic chemicals (See more specific information within the Assessment).

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

The following is a habitat description of the Townsend’s big-eared bat. This information is 

selected direct quotes from the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment for this 

species (Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath (2006, October 25)). On-line at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf [12/5/06]. 

Distribution

Corynorhinus townsendii is distributed broadly throughout western North America, and it occurs 

in two disjunct, isolated populations in the central and eastern United States (Figure 4). In the 

West, this species’ range extends from the Pacific coast north to southern British Columbia, 

south to central and southern Mexico and the Baja Peninsula. The eastern-most extent of the 

western range includes the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming, a small region of southcentral Kansas, and western portions of Texas and inland eastern Mexico. In Region 2, the most 

widespread distributions of Corynorhinus townsendii occur in Colorado and Wyoming. This is a 

R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps sage-grouse habitat. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

Townsend’s big-eared bat is unequivocally associated with areas containing caves and caveanalogs for roosting habitat. Beyond the constraint for cavernous roosts, habitat associations 

become less well defined and has been noted foraging in a wide variety of habitats (Pierson et al. 

1999). Generally, Townsend’s big-eared bats are found in the dry uplands throughout the West, 

but they also occur in mesic coniferous and deciduous forest habitats along the Pacific coast 

(Kunz and Martin 1982). This may reflect the need to roost where structures are available as 

opposed to within a particular vegetative zone. Thus, suitable foraging habitat for C. townsendii 

will likely be a heterogeneous mosaic of forested and edge habitats, including riparian zones, 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 59

which are also used for commuting and drinking (e.g., Fellers and Pierson 2002). Areas with 

substantial beaver activity enhance the quality of foraging habitat by increasing ecosystem 

productivity (Naiman et al. 1986), providing gaps in the forest canopy, providing small, quiet 

ponds for drinking, and causing an increase in insect activity In Wyoming there is little 

information available on colony size or status prior to 1994. At least three maternity colonies 

have been identified: one in an abandoned mine and two in caves, harboring 46, 50+, and 200+ 

individuals respectively, with an additional cave colony reported by Keinath (2005). At this 

time, only two hibernacula have been found, each containing fewer than four individuals. 

(Conservation Assessment) 

Townsend’s big-eared bat is highly intolerant to human disturbance at roosts. Since the early 

1970’s, bat researchers have expressed concern about apparent declines in numbers of cavedwelling species of bats (Henshaw 1972), and Corynorhinus townsendii appears not to have been 

immune to the forces driving these declines. The primary threats include loss, modification, and 

disturbance of roosting habitat and foraging habitat. These impacts can be the result of 

elimination of forest canopy, or alteration of wetland habitat, including activities that reduce the 

productivity of wetlands. Activities that alter the surface and subsurface hydrology of wetlands, 

including draining, stream diversion, and removal of shrub and overstory vegetation ultimately 

may reduce the value of wetlands to this species. The conversion of native shrub and grasslands 

to urban or agricultural uses also may have negative impacts on this species. Exposure to 

environmental toxins: Pesticides and heavy metals, if ingested by bats, can cause death or reduce 

reproductive ability. Pesticide application can also indirectly affect bats via reduction of insect 

prey.

Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum)

The following is a habitat description of the Townsend’s big-eared bat. This information is 

selected direct quotes from the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment for this 

species (Luce and Keinath 2007). On-line at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/spottedbat.pdf [12/5/06]. 

Distribution

The spotted bat inhabits western North America from southern British Columbia through most of 

the western states to central Mexico. Spotted bat distribution in Wyoming is still unknown, 

although it may be more prevalent throughout the western part of the state (Hester and Grenier 

2005). This species has not been documented within the TBNG but is suspected of occurring in 

suitable habitat on those lands. In Region 2, the most widespread distributions of Corynorhinus 

townsendii occur in Colorado and Wyoming. This is a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps GRSG 

habitat.

Habitat Associations and Threats

This species occurs in a wide variety of habitats and roosts in cracks and crevices in cliffs and 

canyons (Hester and Grenier 2005). Roost sites have to be in close proximity of foraging and 

water sources (Luce, 2004). The spotted bat has been reported from a wide variety of habitats 

from desert shrub to coniferous forest. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

60 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

This species probably occurs naturally in highly localized sub-populations where suitable habitat 

conditions exist, leaving large areas unoccupied (Luce and Keinath 2007). The spotted bat 

occurs at very low population density. Hence, few surveys have documented occurrence and 

almost no surveys have been repeated that would assist in estimating abundance over time.

There are several threats to these bats. Main threats include habitat alteration (loss or reduction 

of wet meadows and other foraging areas from over-grazing by livestock, water diversion, or 

conversion of native habitats to tilled cropland). Main threats also include over-utilization by 

collection of specimens. Threats also include the use of pesticides that bats may bioaccumulate 

through their diet or that kill their prey and roost loss and modification (the direct destruction, 

loss, or disturbance of cliff and rock wall roosting habitat. 

Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus)

Distribution

The hoary bat is the most widespread of all American bats. It occurs throughout the US, north to

the limit of trees in Canada, and south to Argentina and Chile. In Wyoming, the hoary bat 

occurs statewide during summer, from the low elevations of the eastern plains to 3000 m (10,000 

ft.) in the mountains 

Habitat Associations and Threats

These bats are solitary and roost in deciduous trees on sites generally open only from below, 3-4 

meters above the ground. The hoary bat is highly associated with forested habitats, both 

deciduous and coniferous. It can be found in montane forests, cottonwood riparian forests, 

shelterbelts, tree rows, juniper woodlands, and urban parks. Diverse forest habitats with a 

mixture of forest and small open areas that provide edges are ideal habitat for this species (Hester 

and Grenier 2005). 

The hoary bat is considered uncommon throughout most of the eastern United States and in the 

northern Rockies, but common in the prairie states and the Pacific Northwest. 

Potential threats include degradation, fragmentation, and loss of forest habitats; pesticides and 

other contaminants; and human-caused mortality during migration (such as wind turbines and 

communications towers) (Hester and Grenier 2005). The hoary bat was the most commonly 

found bat during mortality searches at a wind power facility in south central Wyoming, and most 

mortalities were probably migrants.

Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas)

Distribution

The boreal toad is a R2 and R4 Sensitive Species and a MIS for the BT. Boreal toads overlap 

with some sage-grouse habitat on the BT. Boreal toads occur from northern New Mexico to 

Alaska, including the Rocky Mountains and west to the west to the Pacific Coast. In Wyoming, 

its range is restricted to mountains and foothills and relatively moist conditions (Baxter and 

Stone 1992), ranging in elevation from about 6,500 to 12,000 feet (WGFD 2005:438). Boreal 

toads were formerly widespread and common, but have declined dramatically in the last three 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 61

decades in many portions of its extensive range in western North America (Carey 1993, Corn 

1994, Keinath and McGee 2005). It is a species of concern in Wyoming. “Boreal toad 

populations appear to be in a state of severe decline. Numerous factors may be contributing to 

these declines...” (WGFD 2005:438). 

Currently, boreal toads appear to be rare to uncommon on the BT. In 2005, five boreal toad 

breeding sites were selected as monitor sites based on information in Patla (2002). Three sites 

were between the Buffalo and Jackson Ranger Districts, and two sites in the Big Piney/Pinedale 

Districts. In the first year of monitoring, evidence of breeding was only observed at one site 

(Buffalo RD). The other sites were flooded out or somehow changed when the surveys took 

place. Since then, a small number of possible breeding sites have been found in other locations, 

including on the Kemmerer and Greys River Ranger Districts.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Boreal toads are associated with a variety of habitats, including wetlands, forests, woodlands, 

sagebrush, meadows, and floodplains in the mountains and valleys. Usually they inhabit 

wetlands near ponds, lakes, reservoirs, rivers and streams. Breeding occurs in ponds, slow 

streams, river backwater channels and along lake edges. They require 3 main habitat 

components; 1) shallow wetlands for breeding, 2) terrestrial habitats with vegetative cover for 

foraging, and 3) burrows for winter hibernation (Loeffler 2001). Boreal toads have a low 

reproductive output. 

Threats to boreal toads include: chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, acidification of 

wetlands, thinning of the ozone layer, timber harvesting that causes sedimentation, livestock 

grazing in and around riparian areas, pesticides and herbicides, and introduced species which 

prey on toads or create competition for resources or are vectors for pathogens (Keinath and 

McGee 2005). Any activity that alters mountain wetland habitats can affect boreal toad 

populations. 

Alternative A - No Action

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current system roads, transportation plan, or recreation 

management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use, and some new roads and 

upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are few restrictions on recreation special 

uses. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a greater likelihood of 

habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance. Less restrictive recreation travel usually means 

higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in sagebrush habitat. These 

can cause disruption of nesting or birthing activities, abandonment of young and temporary 

displacement. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. Some 

sagebrush habitat could be traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for 

development for economic benefits. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be 
Appendix M Draft EIS

62 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to 

allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss, 

fragmentation, or degradation of sagebrush habitat. Other impacts may include new infestations 

of noxious or invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat. Though most projects would 

attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation of habitat or 

disturbance of sagebrush associated species. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing. Potential 

effects on sagebrush habitat could include site specific overgrazing, reduction in cover, structure, 

and diversity of residual vegetation from consumption, and degradation of rangeland habitat due 

to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include higher predation and 

parasitism. Reduced cover could result in lower forage availability or fewer prey and, therefore, 

lower abundance of sagebrush associated species. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for 

grazing management usually provide sufficient cover and forage for sagebrush associated species 

across the Forests and Grassland. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PPH would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The majority 

and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing, including expansion of new leases. 

As such, this alternative could cause a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat. There would be greater negative effects 

from related noise, increased presence of roads/humans, and anthropogenic structures in an 

otherwise open landscape. Recent work from developed natural gas fields in Wyoming (Gilbert 

and Chalfoun 2011) documents 10-20 percent declines in the abundance of certain sagebrush 

obligates.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Also, treatment is permitted 

in breeding, nesting, and winter range. Much sagebrush habitat could be treated. The liberal 

prescribed fire opportunity in this alternative could decrease late succession habitat. Impacts 

could include removing or losing large tracts of shrub cover to prescribed or wildfire, losing 

nests, and increasing non-native or exotic grasses or weeds. This alternative does recommend 

that any necessary rehabilitation include native plants. Additional forage would be created for 

species relying on herbaceous plants. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Sagebrush habitat 

also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest units. Activities 

occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional 

loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and 

mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in sagebrush habitat. 

These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this 

GRSG amendment.
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 63

Summary of Alternative A 

Existing levels of habitat alteration or loss and disturbance would continue or could increase. 

Limitations would be provided only by Forest Plan guidance, which generally allows substantial 

disturbance and habitat loss in sagebrush habitat. Grassland Plan guidance is more restrictive. 

These could allow substantial changes in sagebrush habitat quantity, quality, and ownership on 

sagebrush habitat on the Forest. 

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred, particularly on the Grassland. 

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of Alternative A measures limits a few impacts 

on sagebrush associated species. Proposed management would have impacts on individuals of 

the sagebrush associated species. Therefore, this alternative “may adversely impact individuals, 

but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal 

listing” for Northern goshawk, ferruginous hawk, Northern harrier, short-eared owl, loggerhead 

shrike, sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep, white-tailed prairie dog, Wyoming pocket gopher, fringed myotis, Townsend’s 

big-eared bat, spotted bat, hoary bat, and boreal toad. 

Alternative B

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PPH coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. All travel would 

remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there 

was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PPH and Important Bird Areas could be 

designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than Alternative A, 

retaining more sagebrush habitat across the Forest units. There would be less disruption of 

nesting and birthing, less abandonment of young, or temporary displacement. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH would be managed as an avoidance area 

for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of sage-grouse PPH and, therefore, a potential gain of some sagebrush habitat on the 

BT. These conservation measures would be more protective than conservation measures in 

Alternatives A, D, and E but less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted 

effort to maximize connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PPH, which also benefits 

sagebrush associated species. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

The NTT alternative would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH in favor of GRSG; therefore, 

in favor of sagebrush associated species. Many livestock improvements could occur only if 

beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be only lightly 

grazed. The potential effects due to livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range 

improvements would be similar to Alternative A, except that Alternative B provides a few more 

restrictions that would protect sagebrush habitat. GRSG PPH accounts for <2% of the land cover 

in the Forests and 39% of the Grassland, so changes would be variable and localized. There 
Appendix M Draft EIS

64 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

could be areas of improved habitat for productive breeding, foraging, and cover for sagebrush 

associated species. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a 4 mile no 

surface occupancy buffer around leks. This would affect very little habitat on the Forests but a 

substantial amount on the Grassland. This alternative would conserve this habitat now and into 

the future for GRSG and, consequently, for sagebrush associated species. Energy and mineral 

development could still occur the remaining sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves 

PPH, and therefore habitat for sagebrush associated species, than alternatives A, D, and E and is 

equal to alternative C in PPH. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and suppression would be 

emphasized, including a 3% disturbance limit. This would promote the conservation of mature 

sagebrush habitat and reduce disturbance to wildlife from fire in PPH. Consequently, there 

would be less early stage sagebrush communities for some species. Habitat restoration would be 

a priority. This alternative conserves more habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E but conserves 

less than Alternative C.

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Sagebrush habitat 

also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest units. Activities 

occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional 

loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and 

mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in sagebrush habitat. 

These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this 

GRSG amendment.

Summary of Alternative B 

This alternative limits loss, fragmentation, and disturbance in PPH, which is <1% to 39% of the 

sagebrush habitat across the Forest Service units. So, there would be benefits to individuals in 

PPH. Generally, activities in PGH and the remaining sagebrush habitat will occur as they do 

currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These activities affect most sagebrush 

habitat on the Forest Service units. Overall impacts will be reduced compared to Alternative A. 

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred, particularly on the Grassland. 

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in alternative B in 

PPH would reduce some impacts on sagebrush associated species. Proposed management would 

have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated species. Therefore, this alternative 

“may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning 

Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Northern goshawk, ferruginous hawk, 

Northern harrier, short-eared owl, loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, white-tailed prairie dog, 

Wyoming pocket gopher, fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, hoary bat, and 

boreal toad. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 65

Alternative C

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects 

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to maintaining sagebrush habitat than other 

alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these measures 

would benefit more than 620,000 more acres of habitat than other alternatives. Habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and disturbance would be reduced on much of the sagebrush habitat. There could 

be greatly reduced disruption of nesting and birthing activities, abandonment of young, or 

temporary displacement. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for sagebrush associated species. ADH 

would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. Alternative C would encourage 

consolidation and acquisition of ADH, limiting the possibilities for loss or degradation of habitat. 

This alternative would promote the greatest distribution and highest density of sagebrush 

associated species.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

The prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would retain the most herbaceous cover for animal 

or nest concealment, seed production, insect production, and prey production. These results 

would provide the greatest opportunity among alternatives for reduced predation and parasitism, 

and individual fitness in PPH. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to sagebrush associated species and their habitat 

than other alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these 

measures would benefit more than 620,000 more acres of habitat than other alternatives. Habitat 

loss, fragmentation, and disturbance would be reduced. There could be greatly reduced 

disruption of nesting and birthing activities, abandonment of young, or temporary displacement. 

Measures such as the seasonal restriction on disturbance in nesting habitat in ADH would 

achieve these results.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and PGH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would promote the conservation of mature sagebrush habitat and reduce 

disturbance to species from fire. This alternative would maintain more than 620,000 more acres 

of mature sagebrush. Consequently, there would be less early stage sagebrush communities for 

some species. In addition, habitat restoration would be a priority. This alternative conserves 

more sagebrush habitat with higher shrub canopy cover than all other alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Sagebrush habitat 

also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest Service units. 

Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some 

existing conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be 

additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, 

energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in 
Appendix M Draft EIS

66 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

sagebrush habitat. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative C 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Sagebrush habitat 

also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest Service units. 

Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some 

existing conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be 

additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, 

energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in 

sagebrush habitat. 

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred, particularly on the Grassland. 

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in alternative C in 

PPH and PGH would noticeably reduce impacts on sagebrush associated species. Proposed 

management would still have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated species. 

Therefore, this alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Northern goshawk, 

ferruginous hawk, Northern harrier, short-eared owl, loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, Brewer’s 

sparrow, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, white-tailed prairie 

dog, Wyoming pocket gopher, fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, hoary bat, 

and boreal toad. 

Alternative D

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to alternative A, although alternative D has a 

9% disturbance cap in PPH and does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special 

uses in PPH. The potential changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures 

would be very similar to but slightly less detrimental to sagebrush associated species than 

alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from the 3 known leks on the BT, numerous leks on TBNG, and any new leks. This 

is closer than the disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except alternative A. In 

particular, this disturbance would affect 39% of the TBNG. Impacts on the Forests would be 

much smaller. 

New rights-of way and special use authorizations in PPH would generally be excluded; those 

allowed would be subject to the 9% disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and 

habitat degradation than allowed in alternatives B, C, and E but less disturbance than alternative 

A. These same uses would be allowed in PGH. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 67

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

alternative D apply to sage-grouse habitat. A few slight differences include that this alternative 

recommends considering sage-grouse habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in 

response to drought in PPH. GRSG PPH accounts for <2% of the land cover in the Forests and 

39% of the Grassland, so changes would be variable and localized. There could be areas of 

improved habitat for productive breeding, foraging, and cover for sagebrush associated species. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. However, there is a 9% 

disturbance cap that does not exist in alternative A. Recent work from developed natural gas 

fields in Wyoming (Gilbert and Chalfoun 2011) documents 10-20 percent declines in the 

abundance of certain sagebrush obligates. The lack of conservation measures in sagebrush 

outside of PPH could lead to increased disturbance, loss of habitat, or degradation of habitat. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9% disturbance cap in PPH. There could be more early succession herbaceous forage for 

some wildlife. Treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range; which 

reduces dense sagebrush cover for other species. Treated areas would not be rested from 

livestock grazing. This allowance alone will promote the expansion of noxious weeds and a lack 

of cover. These limited conservation measures on PPH and the lack of measures in the 

remainder of sagebrush habitat would have detrimental impacts on sagebrush associated species. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Sagebrush habitat 

also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest Service units. 

Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some 

existing conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be 

additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, 

energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in 

sagebrush habitat. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative D 

This alternative is most similar to alternative A. This alternative does include a cap on 

disturbance in PPH while there is no similar limit in alternative A. The allowance of 9% 

disturbance in PPH, which only conserves a small portion of sagebrush habitat across all the 

units, and the limited conservation measures in other sagebrush habitat will have detrimental 

impacts on sagebrush associated species compared to alternatives B, C, and E. Allowable 

activities could cause substantial changes in sagebrush habitat quantity, quality, and 

fragmentation. 

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred, particularly on the Grassland. 

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Proposed management would have impacts on 

individuals of the sagebrush associated species. Therefore, this alternative “may adversely 

impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a 
Appendix M Draft EIS

68 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

trend toward federal listing” for Northern goshawk, ferruginous hawk, Northern harrier, shorteared owl, loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, white-tailed prairie dog, Wyoming pocket gopher, fringed 

myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, hoary bat, and boreal toad. 

Alternative E

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The restriction on road construction or upgrades near leks in PPH would limit disturbance and 

habitat loss. Some recreation special uses would be allowed in PPH. Conservations measures do 

not apply to most sagebrush habitat, that habitat outside of PPH, except on TBNG. Measures in 

PPH would be slightly more restrictive than alternatives A and D but less restrictive than 

alternatives B and C. There would be less habitat loss or degradation, and less disruption of 

nesting or birthing, abandonment of young, or temporary displacement in PPH compared to 

alternatives A and D.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some sagebrush habitat could be lost, degraded or disturbed since conservation measures would 

allow some limited powerlines, some lease changes, and activities within 0.6 miles of a lek in 

PPH. Habitat changes could also occur because PPH can be exchanged to other ownership. 

Overall, impacts on sagebrush habitat would be similar to but reduced compared to alternatives 

A and D.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place slightly more focus on incorporating measures to provide adequate 

habitat quality for GRSG in PPH than alternatives A and D. These measures would also 

maintain sagebrush habitat quality within PPH. There could be areas of improved habitat for 

productive breeding, foraging, and cover for sagebrush associated species. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would have impacts similar to but more restrictive than alternatives A 

and D. The general prohibition of wind energy development in PGH, with exceptions, would 

limit disturbance, loss, and degradation of habitat compared to alternatives A and D. This 

conservation would benefit > 620,000 acres of sagebrush habitat across the units. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Conservation measures would be more beneficial than alternatives A and D, considering a no 

disturbance limit and 9% disturbance limit for these alternatives, respectively. Treatment would 

be limited to 5% for this alternative. So, impacts on mature sagebrush habitat and sagebrush 

associated species would be reduced. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Sagebrush habitat 

also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest Service units. 

Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some 

existing conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be 

additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, 

energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 69

sagebrush habitat. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative E 

This alternative limits habitat loss and fragmentation in PPH to 5%. This alternative also limits 

disturbing activities in PPH. Impacts are decreased compared to alternatives A and D. This 

alternative also limits some disturbances and habitat loss in PGH, such as wind energy 

development. PGH includes >620,000 sagebrush habitat on these units. So, there would be less 

loss or fragmentation of mature sagebrush habitat. Generally, other activities in PGH and all 

activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat will occur as they do currently or could expand as 

existing direction allows. Overall impacts would be less impacting to sagebrush associated 

species than alternatives A and D. Impacts would be more than alternatives B and C. 

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred, particularly on the Grassland. 

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in alternative E in 

PPH and, in some cases PGH, would reduce impacts on sagebrush associated species. Proposed 

management would have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated species. Therefore, 

this alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in 

the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Northern goshawk, ferruginous 

hawk, Northern harrier, short-eared owl, loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, white-tailed prairie dog, 

Wyoming pocket gopher, fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, hoary bat, and 

boreal toad. 

C. Grassland Associated Species

The black-tailed prairie dog, swift fox, long-billed curlew, burrowing owl, chestnut-collared 

longspur, McCown’s longspur, mountain plover, and grasshopper sparrow were grouped for this 

analysis due to the similar nature of the habitats occupied by these animals. Though species 

specific effects may differ slightly, the programmatic nature and landscape scale effects will be 

analyzed generally and collectively for this group of species. As the nature of the project is to 

amend the Forest and Grassland Plans to include regulatory mechanisms and conservation 

measures to protect sagebrush habitats for GRSG, the effects would generally be similar to 

effects on GRSG and are covered in the above analysis. 

Mixed Grass Prairie

Western wheatgrass can form an unbroken sod cover in some cases. Sandberg’s bluegrass is 

abundant and prairie junegrass and green needlegrass are also present. Blue grama can be found, 

but in low abundance. A diverse component of forbs can be found as compared to the 

association described above. Western yarrow is the dominant forb found in this plant association. 

The species associated with this habitat type tend to rely on taller structural habitat conditions. 

Those sensitive species associated with the mixed grass prairie are grasshopper sparrow 

(breeding and summer) and chestnut-collared longspur (breeding and summer). 

Short Grass Prairie

Depending on the ecological site, early seral stages in upland plant communities are attributed to 

a high canopy cover of perennial plant species such as blue grama and red three awn or annual 
Appendix M Draft EIS

70 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

plant species such as sixweeks fescue. Some upland sites also have high canopy covers of Plains 

prickly pear cactus and/or high densities of non-native invasive species, such as cheatgrass and 

Japanese Brome. The species associated with this habitat type rely on relatively low vegetation 

conditions 

Those sensitive species associated with a short grass system are black-tailed prairie dog 

(yearlong), swift fox (yearlong), long-billed curlew (breeding and summer), burrowing owl 

(breeding and summer), McCown’s longspur (breeding and summer), and mountain plover 

(breeding and summer). 

Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)

(Currently there is not U.S. Forest Service Region 2 Conservation Assessment for the blacktailed prairie dog.)

Distribution

Black-tailed prairie dogs historically ranged throughout the Great Plains in short-grass and 

mixed-grass prairies. This R2 sensitive Species is a common resident in the short- and mid-grass 

habitats of eastern Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). The TBNG harbors one of the seven major 

colony complexes remaining in North America. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

This species is also a common resident in the short- and mid-grass habitats of eastern Wyoming 

(Cerovski et al. 2004). The TBNG harbors one of the seven major colony complexes remaining 

in North America. Black-tailed prairie dogs are highly social, diurnal burrowing rodents that 

typically feed on grasses and forbs. Prairie dogs form colonies that are the main unit of a prairie 

dog population. Black-tailed prairie dog abundance and occupied acreage have been 

dramatically reduced throughout its historic range, and continue to exhibit a slow decline 

(NatureServe 2004). Major factors contributing to the reduction include disease (sylvatic 

plague), urbanization, habitat conversion, and control efforts. Additional information (including 

population trend) on the black-tailed prairie dog will be provided as a part of the Management 

Indicator Species section of this report. 

Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)

The following is a habitat description of the Swift Fox. This information represents selected 

direct quotes from the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment for this species 

(Stephens, R.M. and S.H. Anderson. (2005, )). On-line at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/swiftfox.pdf [12/5/06]. 

Distribution

The swift fox is native to the grassland prairies of the Great Plains region of North America 

(Kahn et al. 1997). Current known swift fox distribution is about 25 percent of its historic range 

from the literature or approximately 40 percent of the suggested historic range based on 

vegetation classification mapping of the shortgrass and mid-grass prairie grassland types in the 

central United States (Figure 1). Distributions and associated densities appear highly variable 

among the occupied states (Kahn et al. 1997). The present known range is constricted and 

somewhat disjunct, with an identified population core present in the states of southeastern 

Wyoming (Figure 2), eastern Colorado, and western Kansas (Figure 4) (Kahn et al. 1997). 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 71

Habitat Associations and Threats 

Swift foxes occur in the Great Plains in a variety of habitats including shortgrass and mid-grass 

prairies, plowed fields and fencerows, and sagebrush (Egoscue 1979, Jones et al. 1985, Uresk 

and Sharps 1986, Sovada et al. 1998, Olson and Lindzey 2002). They select habitat with lowgrowing vegetation and relatively flat terrain, friable soils and high den availability, and areas 

near roads. Swift foxes are the most burrow-dependent canid in North America, (Jackson and 

Choate 2000). Several studies have also reported that swift foxes select habitat adjacent to roads 

(Hillman and Sharps 1978, Hines and Case 1991, Pruss 1999, Olsen 2000).Swift foxes typically 

use relatively open shortgrass prairie habitats with high visibility (Kilgore 1969), which is likely 

related to predator avoidance. Swift foxes killed by predators were found in sagebrush vegetation 

more than expected; this suggests that the risk of death was greater in sagebrush than other 

vegetation types. This appears to be balanced out by higher recruitment in home ranges with a 

larger proportion of sagebrush as these foxes were observed with bigger litters. Olson (2000) 

concluded that low-growing (<30 cm), low-density (16 percent cover) sagebrush vegetation 

should be considered suitable swift fox habitat.

The key threats identified to swift fox within R2 include competition with coyotes and red foxes, 

habitat loss or fragmentation, vehicle collisions inadvertent poisoning, hunting and trapping, and 

management to increase tall vegetation. 

Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus)

The following is a habitat description of the Long-billed Curlew. This information represents 

selected direct quotes from the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment for this 

species (Sedgwick, J.A. (2006). On-line at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/longbilledcurlew.pdf 

Distribution

The distribution of long-billed curlew breeding populations is disjunct, corresponding to the now 

fragmented distribution of the shortgrass and mixed-grass prairies of the Great Plains, Great 

Basin, and intermontane valleys of the western United States and southwestern Canada. Longbilled curlews breed from southern British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, south to 

northeastern New Mexico, central Nevada, and northern Utah, and east to southwestern North 

Dakota and central South Dakota and Nebraska. Long-billed curlews breed east of the Cascades 

in Washington and Oregon, in northeastern California and southern Idaho, east of the Rockies in 

Montana, and in Wyoming and eastern Colorado. In winter, curlews are distributed in the United 

States mostly in coastal and inland regions of California, Texas, and Louisiana. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

Long-billed curlews are native prairie specialists, nesting primarily in shortgrass or mixed-grass 

prairie habitat with flat to rolling topography (King 1978, Pampush 1980, Jenni et al. 1981, 

Pampush and Anthony 1993, Hooper and Pitt 1996). They prefer short vegetation, generally less 

than 30 cm tall (often less than 10 cm), and generally avoid habitats with trees, a high density of 

shrubs (e.g., sagebrush [Artemisia spp.]), and tall, dense grass (Pampush 1981, Campbell et al. 

1990, Pampush and Anthony 1993). Curlews use taller, denser grass during brood rearing when 

shade and camouflage from predators are presumably more important for chicks (Jenni et al. 

1981), but this may also reflect a decline in the availability of shorter habitats later in the season. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

72 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Key threats identified for the curlew are loss of grazing or overgrazing, fire suppression, the 

introduction of exotic species such as crested wheatgrass, human disturbance associated 

particularly with recreation and energy development, loss or fragmentation of habitat, and 

pesticide spraying which significantly reduces arthropod abundance, particularly grasshoppers 

(McEwen et al. 1972), a major food in the curlew’s diet. 

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

The following is a habitat description of the Burrowing Owl. This information is selected direct 

quotes from the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment for this species 

(McDonald, D., N.M. Korfanta, and S.J. Lantz. (2004). On-line at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/burrowingowl.pdf 

Distribution

Burrowing owls are distributed throughout western North America, south from central Alberta to 

Tierra del Fuego in South America. Several studies have mapped actual burrowing owl locations 

in the Rocky Mountain Region. VerCauteren et al. (2001) surveyed for burrowing owls in 

eastern Colorado and found a majority of owls nesting on private lands (Figure 8). In Wyoming, 

records from the Wyoming Game and Fish Wildlife Observation (WOS) database show 

burrowing owl sightings throughout most of the state except for the northwest corner where 

prairie gives way to mountainous landscapes (Figure 9; Korfanta et al. 2001). In recent years, 

burrowing owl surveys have been conducted within the Thunder Basin National Grasslands in 

northeastern Wyoming (Conway and Hughes 2001, Conway and Lantz 2002, Conway and Lantz 

2003). Of the 73 prairie dog colonies surveyed, 40 percent of the colonies were occupied by 

burrowing owls in both 2002 and 2003. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

Burrowing owl habitat typically consists of open, dry, treeless areas on plains, prairies, and 

deserts. These areas are also occupied by burrowing mammals and other animals that provide 

nest burrows (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Haug et al. 1993). Because burrowing owls spend most 

of their time on or in the ground and are extremely susceptible to predation, short vegetation 

structure is also a requirement (Butts 1973, Zarn 1974, Green 1983, Plumpton 1992). Given this 

requirement for short vegetation, burrowing owls are commonly found in association with cattle, 

prairie dogs, and other grazers that clip vegetation (Konrad and Gilmer 1984). 

The primary threats identified for burrowing owls include habitat loss and fragmentation 

(especially prairie dog colonies), vehicular collisions, pesticides, domestic animals, losses on the 

wintering grounds, and recreational shooting of prairie dogs. 

Chestnut-Collared Longspur (Calicarius ornatus)

The following is a habitat description of the Chestnut-collared Longspur. This information is 

selected direct quotes from the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment for this 

species (Sedgwick, J.A. (2004). On-line at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/chestnutcollaredlongspur.pdf 

Distribution

The distribution of chestnut-collared longspur breeding populations is disjunct, corresponding to 

the now fragmented distribution of the shortgrass and mixed-grass prairies of the Great Plains 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 73

and the southern fringe of the Canadian Prairie Provinces. Chestnut-collared longspurs breed 

from southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, south to northeastern Colorado and 

(formerly) extreme western Kansas, and east through North Dakota, South Dakota, and western 

and north-central Nebraska to western Minnesota (Figure 2; Hill and Gould 1997, American 

Ornithologists’ Union 1998). The Forest Service Region 2 state with the highest average relative 

abundance of chestnut-collared longspurs is South Dakota. In Nebraska, they breed in the 

northwest (Johnsgard 1979); and in Colorado, they are known to breed in Weld and Washington 

counties in the northeast (Andrews and Righter 1992, Pantle 1998); in Wyoming, chestnutcollared breed most commonly in the northeast and southeast (Oakleaf et al. 1992). 

Habitat Associations and Threats

Chestnut-collared longspurs are native prairie specialists, preferring level to rolling native 

mixed-grass and shortgrass uplands, and, in drier habitats, moist lowlands (DuBois 1935, 

Fairfield 1968, Owens and Myres 1973, Stewart 1975, Wiens and Dyer 1975, Kantrud and 

Kologiski 1982, Anstey et al. 1995). Breeding habitat is typically mixed-grass or shortgrass 

prairie, <20 to 30 cm tall, that has been recently grazed or mowed (Fairfield 1968, Owens and 

Myres 1973). Pastures planted with exotic grasses such as crested wheatgrass (Agropyron 

cirstatum) are also used, as are mowed areas such as airstrips (Stewart 1975), but native pastures 

are preferred. Grazed or mowed tallgrass prairie is also used during the breeding season 

(Wyckoff 1986b). Compared to McCown’s longspur, the chestnut-collared longspur prefers 

areas with taller grass species such as needlegrasses (Stipa spp.) and wheatgrass (Agropyron 

spp.) (Baldwin and Creighton 1972). Chestnut-collared longspurs avoid excessively shrubby 

areas (Arnold and Higgins 1986) and grasslands with dense litter accumulations (Renken 1983, 

Berkey et al. 1993, Anstey et al. 1995). Within drier shortgrass habitats, chestnut-collared 

longspurs prefer wetter, taller, and more densely vegetated areas than McCown’s longspurs and 

horned larks (Eremophila alpestris) (DuBois 1937, Strong 1971, Creighton and Baldwin 1974, 

Kantrud and Kologiski 1982, Wershler et al. 1991). Low, moist areas and wet-meadow zones 

around wetlands provide suitable habitat in these drier, shortgrass areas (DuBois 1937, Rand 

1948, Stewart 1975). 

The primary threats to this bird include Most of the declines in chestnut-collared longspur 

populations, both past and present, have been attributed to land-use practices that destroy native 

prairie (Fairfield 1968, Oberholser 1974, Gollop 1978, McNicholl 1988, Hill and Gould 1997). 

Both over grazing and the loss of grazing can have a negative impact on this bird. In winter, 

changing grazing practices, in conjunction with variable rainfall and changing cultivation 

practices can also threaten longspur population stability. The loss of fire over the landscape also 

can negatively impact chestnut-collared longspurs, as can prairie restoration efforts that seeded 

degraded grasslands with taller, exotic grasses.

McCown’s Longspur (Calcarius mccownii)

The following is a habitat description of the McCown’s Longspur. This information is selected 

direct quotes from the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment for this species 

(Sedgwick, J.A. (2004). On-line at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mccownslongspur.pdf 
Appendix M Draft EIS

74 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Distribution

The distribution of breeding populations is disjunct, corresponding to the now fragmented 

distribution of the shortgrass prairies of the Great Plains and the southern fringe of the Canadian 

Prairie Provinces. Furthermore, both breeding and winter distributions may shift annually as 

McCown’s is nomadic to some extent, making “somewhat erratic appearances and 

disappearance” at certain times and in certain places (Bent 1968). McCown’s longspurs breed in 

loose colonies from southeastern Alberta east to southern Saskatchewan, south through Montana, 

eastern and central Wyoming, to western North Dakota and South Dakota, and western Nebraska 

to northeastern Colorado (Godfrey 1986, With 1994a, Dechant et al. 1999). They winter in the 

southern U.S. from western Oklahoma south through eastern New Mexico and central and west 

Texas into northern Mexico. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

McCown’s longspurs breed in shortgrass prairie, especially where vegetation coverage is sparse 

due to low soil moisture or heavy grazing, or where it is interspersed with shrubs or taller 

grasses. McCown’s use grasslands with little litter (Felske 1971) and low vegetation cover 

(DuBois 1935, Creighton 1974), such as that provided by true native shortgrass prairie or heavily 

grazed mixed-grass prairie. McCown’s prefer to breed in heavily grazed areas (Bradley personal 

communication), and they respond positively to livestock grazing (Bock et al. 1993). In 

Colorado, individuals often use sparsely vegetated hillsides with southern exposures for 

displaying and nesting (Giezentanner 1970a and b, Felske 1971, Creighton 1974). 

In southeastern Wyoming, preferential placement of territories on areas with a high percent of 

bare ground was attributed to microclimate effects such as early warming and drying of nest sites 

(Greer 1988). Percent vegetation coverage within 5 cm of the ground was higher in occupied 

territories than in unoccupied territories in Wyoming. 

The primary threats to the McCown’s longspur are overgrazing in some cases, energy 

development through loss or fragmentation of habitat (well pads, roads, pipelines, storage tanks, 

power lines, compressor and pumping stations), disturbance (drilling, vehicle traffic), or 

environmental contamination. Recreation is increasing in Region 2 (USDA Forest Service 2002), 

and the negative effects of recreation on bird species composition and nest placement in both 

forests and grasslands have recently been documented (e.g., Miller et al. 1998). In addition to 

direct mortality, pesticide applications may also result in reduced food delivery rates, lowered 

avian densities, and depressed brain acetylcholinesterase activities (Martin et al. 2000). 

Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus)

The following is a habitat description of the Mountain Plover. This information is selected direct 

quotes from the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment for this species 

(Dinsmore, S.J. (2003). On-line at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainplover.pdf 

Distribution

Mountain plovers breed primarily in eastern Colorado, central Wyoming, and eastern Montana 

(Knopf 1996a) and more locally in northern Mexico (state of Nuevo León; Knopf and Rupert 

1999b, Desmond and Ramirez 2002), Texas (Davis Mountains), northeastern New Mexico 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 75

(Hubbard 1978, Sager 1996), western Oklahoma (primarily the Panhandle; Shackford 1991), 

southwestern Kansas (primarily Morton County; Fellows and Gress 1999), southwestern 

Nebraska (Kimball County; Dinsmore 1997), northeastern Utah (Myton Bench area; Day 1994, 

Ellison-Manning and White 2001a), Arizona (U.S. Department of the Interior 1999a), and 

southeastern Alberta (Wallis and Wershler 1981, Knopf 1996a) (Figure 3). They are common 

nowhere, but probably reach their greatest abundance in the central portions of the breeding 

range in eastern Colorado and Wyoming. Most plovers are thought to winter in the Imperial 

Valley in southern California.

Habitat Associations and Threats 

Mountain plovers are a disturbed-prairie or semidesert species rather than a grassland species 

(Knopf and Miller 1994), and they are often characterized as a breeding bird of high plains and 

desert tablelands (Graul 1975, Knopf 1996a, 1996b). They prefer disturbed habitats for nesting, 

including areas formerly occupied by bison ( Knopf 1996a) and prairie dogs (Knowles et al. 

1982, Samson and Knopf 1994, Knopf 1996a) and agricultural fields (Knopf and Rupert 1999a, 

Shackford et al. 1999).Mountain plover are associated with areas of disturbance for nesting. 

Disturbance, like fire or grazing, seems necessary to meet the specific habitat requirements of the 

plover, and may provide secondary benefits such as increased food resources. Areas used for 

nesting include native short- and mixed-grass prairie, semi-desert sites, prairie dog colonies. 

Throughout their range, mountain plovers selectively nest on active prairie dog colonies, and 

agricultural lands. 

Specific threats to the mountain plover within and outside of Region 2 include loss of native 

habitats, loss of prairie dogs, alteration of current grazing regimes, agricultural lands as a 

reproductive sink, habitat fragmentation, energy development, and potentially pesticides. It is 

worth acknowledging that the plover can come into contact with numerous pesticides used to 

control insects, and that some of these may have unknown negative consequences for the plover. 

Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)

The following is a habitat description of the Grasshopper Sparrow. This information is selected 

direct quotes from the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 conservation assessment for this species 

(Slater, G.L. (2004). On-line at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/grasshoppersparrow.pdf 

Distribution

The grasshopper sparrow has a widespread distribution throughout most of the Americas, but it 

often breeds locally and is considered rare to uncommon in much of its range (Vickery 1996). In 

western North America, grasshopper sparrows breed in southern British Columbia, eastern 

Washington and Oregon, central Idaho, northeastern Nevada, northern Utah, southwestern 

Wyoming, north-central Nevada, along the California coast, the western edge of the Sierra 

Nevada, and in northwestern Baja California (where they are resident) (Vickery 1996). 

Grasshopper sparrows winter north across the southeastern United States, west through Texas, 

southern Arizona, and southern California (Sauer et al. 1996, Vickery 1996). The species winters 

south to southern Baja California and Chiapas, Mexico, southern Guatemala, northern El 

Salvador, and southwestern Honduras, the Valle Central of Costa Rica, the Gulf coast, southern 

Florida, north Bahama Island, and Cuba. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

76 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Habitat Associations and Threats 

The grasshopper sparrow is found in a broad array of open grassland types, but it is notably areasensitive, preferring large grassland patches greater than 8 ha in size (Samson 1980, Herkert 

1994b, Vickery et al. 1994, Helzer 1996). Minimum area requirements vary over the species’ 

range. In Nebraska, grasshopper sparrows were found in fragments larger than 8 ha (Helzer 

1996). Within open grasslands of suitable patch size, grasshopper sparrows prefer grasslands 

habitats of intermediate height (~30 cm) with clumped vegetation interspersed with patchy bare 

ground, and sparse shrub cover (Bent 1968, Vickery 1996, Dechant et al. 2001). In arid 

grasslands of the West and Southwest, they occupy lusher areas with small amounts (<35 

percent) of shrub or tall forbs. Besides native prairie, grasshopper sparrows breeding habitat also 

includes pasture, hayland, CRP fields, airports, and reclaimed surface mines (Whitmore 1980, 

Vickery 1996, Dechant et al. 2001). In Region 2, grasshopper sparrows are found in Wyoming in 

mixed- and northern shortgrass prairies and open sagebrush grasslands (Cerovski et al. 2001). 

Grasshopper sparrows avoid habitats where vegetation is less than 10 cm (Wiens 1973) and 

appear to prefer grass heights of ~30 cm and mean grass cover values of >50 percent. 

Grasshopper sparrows require some areas of bare ground for foraging, but it is unclear how much 

is desirable; most empirical studies suggest a range of 2 to 34 percent. Grasshopper sparrows 

require some taller vegetation, such as tall grasses, forbs, or scattered shrubs, to use as singing 

perches during territory establishment and for defense. However, they avoid habitats where shrub 

cover exceeds 35 percent (Smith 1968, Bock and Webb 1984). Scattered trees provide acceptable 

habitat and are used as song perches (Johnsgard 1979). 

Within the states of USDA Forest Service Region 2, which represent the core of this species’ 

breeding range, grasshopper sparrow populations have also exhibited long-term declines. Today, 

the greatest threats to the grassland avifauna in Region 2, including the grasshopper sparrow, 

continue to be habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and habitat degradation from grazing and fire 

regimes that often fail to replicate the natural dynamics under which these species and their 

habitats evolved (Samson and Knopf 1994, Vickery et al. 2000). In the arid, short-stature 

grassland communities of Region 2, frequent disturbances negatively affect sparrow habitat. 

Specific threats to grasshopper sparrow habitat and its populations are urban development and 

conversion of grasslands to cropland, overgrazing in mixed- and shortgrass prairies is a serious 

threat to grasshopper sparrow habitats. They are also more likely to utilize patches with larger 

core areas and less edge (i.e., circular patches) (Helzer and Jelinski 1999). 

D. Plants

Astragalus barii, Astragalus diversifolius var. diversifolius, Astragalus paysonii, Lesquerella 

paysonii, Machaeranthera coloradensis, Symphyotrichum molle, Eriogonum exifolium, and 

Triteleia grandiflora were grouped for this analysis due to the similar nature of the habitats 

occupied by these plants. Though species specific effects may differ slightly, potential impacts 

would be similar. The programmatic nature and landscape scale effects will be analyzed 

generally and collectively for this group of species. In addition, as the nature of the project is to 

amend the Forest and Grassland Plans to include regulatory mechanisms and conservation 

measures to protect sagebrush habitats for Greater Sage-Grouse, the effects would generally be 

similar to effects on GRSG.
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 77

Astragalus barrii (Barr’s milkvetch)

Distribution

This plant is a R2 Sensitive Species occurring on the Thunder Basin National Grassland. 

Astragalus barrii is a rare species endemic to the badlands of southwestern South Dakota, far 

northwestern Nebraska, and the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

Astragalus barrii grows on dry badlands and semi-barren slopes with low vegetation cover. It 

grows on soils derived from shale, sandstone, silts and limestone. It typically occurs on rocky 

prairie breaks, ridges, knolls, and slopes (Ladyman 2006). Vegetation in this environment tends 

to be adapted to high insolation, considerable run-off, and exposure to sediments and salinity 

from exposed and partially modified geological material.

There are insufficient data to accurately determine the long-term trends. Since A. barrii was first 

recognized, several large populations that appeared to be stable have been located. In general, 

revisits to known occurrences seem to have found additional colonies, rather than relocating the 

original colony. 

Activities associated with natural resource development, particularly of coal bed methane gas, 

are emerging as the primary potential threats to the habitat of Astragalus barrii in the Powder 

River Basin of Wyoming and Montana (Ladyman 2006). Range-wide, some populations have 

been impacted by resource extraction activities in the past, but the impacts appear to have been 

localized. Grazing and trampling by native and non-native ungulates may have an impact on 

some of the smaller colonies but do not appear to substantially threaten any of the larger known 

populations. Invasive weeds are likely a threat to long-term sustainability of some populations 

due to habitat degradation and competition. 

Astragalus diversifolius var. diversifolius (Meadow milkvetch)

Distribution

This plant is a R4 Sensitive Species with an historical observation (1834) that was believed to 

occur on the BT. The historic location was thought to overlap current sage-grouse habitat on the 

BT. However, Heidel (2009) indicates that this milkvetch does not occur on National Forests in 

the Intermountain Region. It occurs in east-central Idaho, the southwestern edge of the Salt Lake 

Desert in Utah, southern Nevada, south-central Wyoming. In Wyoming, it is known from the 

Great Divide Basin (Sweetwater County) and the one historical collection is thought to be from 

the Green River Basin (Sweetwater or Sublette counties).

Habitat Associations and Threats

This plant occurs in moist, often alkaline, meadows and swales in sagebrush valleys or closed 

drainage basins (4400-6620 ft.). In Wyoming, it grows in alkaline meadows at fringes of playa 

landscapes at 6500-6620 ft. (Heidel 2009). These alkaline meadows do not occur on the BT. 

There are estimated to be about approximately 8000 plants of Astragalus diversifolius in 

Wyoming, covering an area of about 75 ha. The density and continuity of the species varies 
Appendix M Draft EIS

78 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

greatly within and between occurrences. All three of the Wyoming occurrences have higher 

numbers than the largest known Idaho occurrence (Heidel 2009). 

Potential threats to currently known populations are considered to be habitat loss from 

agriculture in adjacent states, mineral and energy developments, and noxious weed invasion. 

Astragalus paysonii (Payson’s milkvetch)

Distribution

This plant is a R4 Sensitive Species that overlaps some sage-grouse habitat on the BT. The 

species is a regional endemic of the Clearwater Mountains of north-central Idaho, historically 

from the Palisades Reservoir area of east-central Idaho, and the Wyoming, Salt River, Snake and 

Gros Ventre ranges of western Wyoming (Lincoln, Teton, and Sublette counties) (Heidel 2008). 

The species is known from 37 occurrences in Wyoming, 30 of which have been discovered or 

observed since 1992. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

This milkvetch occurs primarily in disturbed areas such as recovering burns, clear cuts, road 

cuts, and blow downs on sandy soils with low cover of forbs and grasses at elevation ranging 

from 5850-9600 ft. (Heidel 2008). Average occurrences are extremely small and restricted in 

area, often with fewer than 20 plants in 1/2 acre of habitat. Only 5 Wyoming occurrences are 

notably large, containing over 100 plants. In an historical perspective, this species is probably 

in decline due to fire suppression in western National Forests. Most populations are very small 

and probably are unable to persist over long periods of time without some form of disturbance. 

This milkvetch is threatened primarily by succession which makes habitats unsuitable for longterm persistence. This species requires periodic disturbances to create new habitat or

keep competing late-seral species or weeds at bay. 

Eriogonum exifolium (Dropleaf {slender leaved} buckwheat)

Distribution

This plant is a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps sage-grouse habitat on the MB. It is a regional 

endemic whose global distribution is limited to 26 occurrences in Carbon and Albany counties, 

Wyoming and Jackson, Grand, and Larimer counties, Colorado (Anderson 2006). Two of these 

occurrences are known from the MB. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

Dropleaf buckwheat is a perennial herb that grows in sparsely vegetated habitats such as barren 

hills or sagebrush flats of the mountain parks. The plant has been found at elevations ranging 

from 7,500–9,000 feet in Colorado. It is restricted to scattered small areas of specific habitats. 

Individual occurrences range from groups of 30 plants to more than one million (Anderson 

2006). According to Anderson (2006), there is evidence to suggest that Eriogonum exilifolium 

numbers are trending downward as the result of human activities and habitat loss; however, it 

may be abundant where areas of suitable habitat are extensive since it is under-inventoried and it 

is possible that occurrences remain to be discovered. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 79

Threats include “residential and commercial development, range improvements, off-road vehicle 

use, other recreational uses, grazing, energy development, reservoir creation, right-of-way 

management, coal mining, exotic species invasion, effects of small population size, disease, 

declining pollinators, fire, global climate change, and pollution” (Anderson 2006). 

Lesquerella paysonii (Payson’s bladderpod)

Distribution

This plant is a R4 Sensitive Species that overlaps sage-grouse habitat on the BT. This 

bladderpod is a regional endemic of westcentral Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and southwestern 

Montana. In Wyoming, this species is found in the Gros Ventre, Salt River, Snake River, Teton, 

Wind River, and Wyoming ranges, the northern Green River Basin, and Jackson Hole in Lincoln, 

Sublette, and Teton counties (Heidel 2008a). 

Habitat Associations and Threats

This bladderpod occurs primarily on windswept, gravelly, calcareous ridge crests, semi-open 

slopes, and rocky floodplains. Occurrence is often associated with Artemisia tridentata var. 

vaseyana grassland communities with total vegetative cover between 25-50%. Populations also 

occur on talus slopes, disturbed roadsides, dried stream channels, rocky clearings within conifer 

forests, and travertine outcrops at 5500-10,600 feet (Heidel 2008a). Censused populations range 

in size from 10-1500 individuals in areas between 1-30 acres. Total population is conservatively 

estimated at 20,000 individuals (Fertig 1997). Impacts from recreation (hiking and off-road 

vehicles), ski development, grazing, and mining are potential threats in lower elevation 

populations. Overall, however, threats are low to most occurrences (Heidel 2008a). 

Machaeranthera coloradoensis (Colorado tansy aster)

Distribution

This plant is a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps some sage-grouse habitat on the MB. 

Colorado tansyaster is a regional endemic species with populations located in central, westcentral, and southwestern Colorado and south-central Wyoming. Of the 33 occurrences of M. 

coloradoensis, 21 occurrences are on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service in Colorado and 

Wyoming. Two occurrences have been documented on the MB. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

This species is found mainly from foothills to subalpine environments on sparsely-vegetated 

slopes, rocky outcrops, roadsides, or subalpine meadows (Beatty et al. 2004). Reported 

elevations range from 6,090 ft. to 8,500 ft. It is found on sparsely-vegetated areas with other 

cushion-like plants in sagebrush communities. 

No population trend is apparent. However, several forest botanists believe that extensive surveys 

would discover more populations and 15 new locations have been discovered since 1997 (Beatty 

et al. 2004). 

Machaeranthera coloradoensis is vulnerable because of its restricted geographic range and small 

number of documented occurrences. Direct or indirect negative impacts on populations or 

habitats by human-related activities could occur from motorized and non-motorized recreation, 

trail or road construction and maintenance, reservoir expansion, housing development, changes 
Appendix M Draft EIS

80 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

to natural disturbance regimes, domestic livestock activities, invasive species introduction, or 

small-scale mining. Lower elevation populations and those populations closest to roads and 

trails are likely at the most risk.

Symphyotrichum molle (Soft aster)

Distribution

This plant is a R4 Sensitive Species that overlaps sage-grouse habitat on the BT. It is a 

Wyoming endemic restricted to the Bighorn Range (Big Horn, Johnson, Natrona, Sheridan, and 

Washakie counties) and Cliff Creek/Hoback Canyon area of Sublette County (Fertig 2000). 

Habitat Associations and Threats

This aster is found in sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows in calcareous soils at 6,400 to 

8,500 feet elevation. The identification of a Hoback Canyon occurrence has been questioned but 

unresolved. As such, presence is currently acknowledged for the project area on the BT. 

The species is known from 34 extant and 2 historical locations in Wyoming, 32 of which have 

been discovered or relocated since 1990. Many populations are locally abundant, containing 

several thousand individual plants (Fertig 2000). Grazing and trampling have been identified as 

potential threats, although low levels of herbivory or disturbance do not appear to have a 

negative impact.

Triteleia grandiflora (Largeflower Triteleia)

Distribution

This plant is a R2 Sensitive Species with habitat that might overlap sage-grouse habitat on the 

MB. Distribution of this species centers around the Pacific Northwest, with populations in 

Colorado (San Juan NF) and Wyoming (Medicine Bow NF) representing the southern- and 

eastern-most extents (Ladyman 2007). 

Habitat Associations and Threats

In Colorado, the species is found in openings among Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine) and 

Quercus gambelii (Gambel oak) at approximately 7,800 feet. Judging from the number of 

historic occurrences, T. grandiflora appears to have been a relatively common species within its 

range, sometimes locally abundant but in other areas, it may have always existed in low 

numbers. However, several populations have been extirpated and extant populations appear to 

be declining (Ladyman 2007). Threats to long-term persistence include habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and degradation caused by human recreation, livestock grazing, resource 

development (timber and mineral), and invasive non-native plant species throughout its range 

(Ladyman 2007). 

Alternative A - No Action

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current system roads, transportation plan, or recreation 

management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use, and some new roads and 

upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are few restrictions on recreation special 

uses. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a greater likelihood of 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 81

loss or disturbance of habitat. Impacts include physical damage to individuals or habitat. 

Growth, development, root storage, or seed set may be reduced or individual mortality might 

occur. There could be increased erosion, sedimentation, soil compaction, or spread of invasive 

weeds. Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the ground disturbance 

but not the other impacts such as habitat loss, compaction, or weed increases. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. Some plant 

habitat could be traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development for 

economic benefits in these areas. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be 

managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to 

allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss. Other 

impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds, physical damage or death to 

individuals, erosion, sedimentation, and soil compaction. Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus 

paysonii could benefit from the ground disturbance but not the other impacts such as habitat loss, 

compaction, or weed increases. Though most projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize 

impacts, there could be loss of habitat. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing. Potential 

effects on plant habitat could include site specific overgrazing, reduction in structure and 

diversity of residual vegetation from consumption, and degradation of rangeland habitat due to 

trampling. Growth, development, root storage, or seed set may be reduced or individual 

mortality might occur. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive 

weeds, physical damage or erosion, sedimentation, and soil compaction. Lesquerella paysonii 

and Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the disturbance but not the other impacts such as 

habitat loss, spread of invasive weeds, or soil compaction. Forest and Grassland Plan standards 

and guidelines for grazing management usually provide sufficient cover and diversity for healthy 

plant habitat across the Forests and Grassland. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PPH would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The majority 

and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing, including expansion of new leases. 

As such, this alternative could allow a large amount of habitat loss and degradation of sagebrush 

habitat. There could be physical damage or death to individuals. Other impacts may include 

new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds, physical damage, or erosion, sedimentation, and 

soil compaction. Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the 

disturbance but not the other impacts such as habitat loss, spread of invasive weeds, or soil 

compaction. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. As such, this alternative 

could allow a large amount of habitat loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat. There could be 

physical damage or death to individuals. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious 

or invasive weeds, physical damage, erosion, or sedimentation. Lesquerella paysonii and 
Appendix M Draft EIS

82 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the disturbance but not from other impacts such as weed 

increases. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. These plants occur on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forests and Grassland. Activities 

occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there 

could be additional habitat loss, degradation, soil compaction, or invasive weed spread from 

recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, fire and fuels 

treatments, and range management in sagebrush habitat off the Forests and Grassland. These 

cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG 

amendment.

Summary of Alternative A 

Existing levels of habitat alteration or loss and disturbance would continue or could increase. 

Limitations would be provided only by Forest Plans’ guidance, which generally allows 

substantial disturbance and habitat loss in sagebrush habitat. Grassland Plan guidance is more 

restrictive in GRSG habitat. The limited conservation in the 5 resource areas could allow 

substantial changes in habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat. 

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred, particularly on the Grassland. 

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of Alternative A measures limits a few impacts 

on plant species. Proposed management would have impacts on individuals of these plant 

species. Therefore, this alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in 

a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Astragalus 

barii, Astragalus diversifolius var. diversifolius, Astragalus paysonii, Lesquerella paysonii, 

Machaeranthera coloradensis, Symphyotrichum molle, Eriogonum exifolium, and Triteleia 

grandiflora.

Alternative B 

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PPH coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. All travel would 

remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there 

was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PPH and Important Bird Areas could be 

designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat degradation or loss than Alternative A, 

retaining more sagebrush habitat and more undisturbed sagebrush habitat. Of course, these 

benefits would occur only on PPH, not all habitat for these plants. Lesquerella paysonii and 

Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the ground disturbance but not the other impacts such as 

habitat loss, compaction, or weed increases. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH would be managed as an avoidance area 

for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of sage-grouse PPH and, therefore, a potential gain of some sagebrush habitat. These 

conservation measures would be more protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A, 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 83

D, and E but less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted effort to maximize 

connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PPH, which also benefits these plant species. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

The NTT alternative would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH in favor of GRSG. Many 

livestock improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not 

meeting grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. These measures would benefit these 

sensitive plant species. The potential effects due to livestock grazing and range improvements 

would be similar to Alternative A, except that Alternative B provides a few more restrictions that 

would protect habitat. GRSG PPH accounts for <2% of the land cover in the Forests and 39% of 

the Grassland, so changes would be variable and localized. There could be areas of improved 

habitat for plant health, growth, development, root storage, or seed set. Lesquerella paysonii and 

Astragalus paysonii could benefit from ground disturbance but not the other impacts such as 

habitat loss, compaction, or weed increases.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a 4 mile no 

surface occupancy buffer around leks. This would affect very little habitat on the Forests but a 

substantial amount on the Grassland. This alternative would conserve this habitat now and into 

the future for GRSG and, consequently, for plant species. Energy and mineral development 

could still occur in the remaining sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves PPH, and 

therefore habitat for sagebrush associated plant species, than alternatives A, D, and E and is 

equal to alternative C in PPH.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would limit the regeneration of shrubs on the 5593 acres of PPH. So, aspen 

would not be regenerated here. Still, this is only 1% of the sagebrush habitat on the BT. Impacts 

to the aspen population would be small to immeasurable. 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would promote the conservation of mature sagebrush habitat in PPH. 

Consequently, there would be less early stage sagebrush communities for some species. Habitat 

restoration would be a priority. This alternative conserves more habitat than Alternatives A, D, 

and E but conserves less than Alternative C. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. These plants occur on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forests and Grassland. Activities 

occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there 

could be additional habitat loss, degradation, soil compaction, or invasive weed spread from 

recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, fire and fuels 

treatments, and range management in sagebrush habitat off the Forests and Grassland. These 

cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG 

amendment.
Appendix M Draft EIS

84 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Summary of Alternative B 

This alternative limits loss, fragmentation, and disturbance in PPH, which is <1% to 39% of the 

sagebrush habitat across the Forest Service units. So, there would be benefits to individuals in 

PPH. None of the design criteria is specific to sensitive plant species. The implementation of the 

criteria would likely reduce but not eliminate direct and indirect effects on sensitive plants 

growing in sagebrush. Generally, activities in PGH and the remaining sagebrush habitat will 

occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These activities affect 

most sagebrush habitat on the Forest units. Overall impacts will be reduced compared to 

Alternative A. 

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred, particularly on the Grassland. 

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in alternative B in 

PPH would reduce some impacts on sagebrush associated plant species. Proposed management 

would have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated plant species. Therefore, this 

alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Astragalus barii, Astragalus 

diversifolius var. diversifolius, Astragalus paysonii, Lesquerella paysonii, Machaeranthera 

coloradensis, Symphyotrichum molle, Eriogonum exifolium, and Triteleia grandiflora. 

Alternative C 

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to maintaining sagebrush habitat than other 

alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these measures 

would benefit more than 620,000 more acres of habitat than other alternatives. Habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and disturbance would be reduced on much of the sagebrush habitat. Lesquerella 

paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit from ground disturbance but not from other 

impacts such as habitat loss or weed increases.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for sagebrush habitat. ADH would be 

managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. Alternative C would encourage 

consolidation and acquisition of ADH, limiting the possibilities for future loss of habitat from 

development. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

The prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would promote the most cover and production of 

herbaceous plants within sagebrush. Improved plant health, growth, development, root storage, 

and seed set responses would also occur for sensitive plants. Still, PPH includes a very small 

portion of the Forests, <2%, so conservation measures would benefit a limited number of plants 

here. Since the Grassland is 39% PPH, there would be much less disturbance to sensitive plants 

across this unit. Some benefits would be reduced for Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus 

paysonii since these plants benefit from ground disturbance that can be caused by livestock 

grazing. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 85

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to sagebrush associated plants than other 

alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these measures 

would benefit more than 260,000 acres of sagebrush habitat on the Forests and Grassland. 

Habitat loss and disturbance would be reduced. There would be reduced physical damage or 

death to individuals, reduced infestations of noxious or invasive weeds, or erosion, 

sedimentation, and soil compaction. Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit 

from disturbance but not the other impacts such as habitat loss, spread of invasive weeds, or soil 

compaction. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and suppression would be 

emphasized. Habitat restoration would be a priority. This would promote the conservation of 

mature sagebrush habitat in PPH for most sensitive species, >220,000 acres across the units. 

There would be less physical damage or death to individuals. On the other hand, there would be 

a reduced opportunity to create new disturbed habitat for Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus 

paysonii. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. These plants occur on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forests and Grassland. Activities 

occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there 

could be additional habitat loss, degradation, soil compaction, or invasive weed spread from 

recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, fire and fuels 

treatments, and range management in sagebrush habitat off the Forests and Grassland. These 

cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG 

amendment.

Summary of Alternative C 

This alternative limits habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation in ADH, almost 850,000 acres 

of sagebrush habitat across the units. So, there could be substantial conservation for individual 

sensitive plants and clusters of plants. However, none of the design criteria is specific to 

sensitive plant species. The implementation of the criteria would likely reduce but not eliminate 

direct and indirect effects on sensitive plants growing in sagebrush. Generally, activities in the 

remaining sagebrush habitat will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction 

allows. Overall impacts on sensitive plants will be reduced compared to all other alternatives.

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred, particularly on the Grassland. 

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in alternative C 

would reduce some impacts on sagebrush associated plant species. Proposed management would 

still have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated plant species. Therefore, this 

alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Astragalus barii, Astragalus 

diversifolius var. diversifolius, Astragalus paysonii, Lesquerella paysonii, Machaeranthera 

coloradensis, Symphyotrichum molle, Eriogonum exifolium, and Triteleia grandiflora. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

86 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Alternative D 

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more habitat loss, fragmentation, and habitat degradation of sagebrush 

than most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to alternative A, although alternative D 

has a 9% disturbance cap in PPH and does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation 

special uses in PPH. The potential changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation 

measures would be very similar to but slightly less detrimental to sagebrush associated plants 

than alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from the 3 known leks on the BT, numerous leks on TBNG, and any new leks. This 

is closer than the disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except alternative A. In 

particular, this disturbance would affect 39% of the TBNG. Impacts on the Forests would be 

much smaller. 

New rights-of way and special use authorizations in PPH would generally be excluded; those 

allowed would be subject to the 9% disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and 

habitat degradation for sagebrush associated species than allowed in alternatives B, C, and E but 

less disturbance than alternative A. These same uses would be allowed in PGH. Lesquerella 

paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the ground disturbance but not from other 

impacts such as habitat loss, compaction, or weed increases. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

alternative D apply to sage-grouse habitat. A few slight differences include that this alternative 

recommends considering sage-grouse habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in 

response to drought in PPH. Since PPH is <1% of sagebrush habitat on the Forests, these 

conservation measures would have a very small benefit to sensitive plants. PPH is 39% of the 

Grassland, so conservation measures would have some benefit to some individuals and clusters 

of sensitive plants on the Grassland. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. However, there is a 9% 

disturbance cap that does not exist in alternative A. The lack of conservation measures in 

sagebrush outside of PPH would allow increased disturbance, loss of habitat, or degradation of 

habitat. PPH is 39% of the Grassland, so conservation measures would have some benefit to 

some individuals and clusters of sensitive plants on the Grassland. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9% disturbance cap in PPH. Treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and 

winter range. Treated areas would not be rested from livestock grazing. This allowance alone 

will promote the expansion of noxious weeds to compete against native sensitive plant species. 

These limited conservation measures on PPH and the lack of measures in the remainder of 

sagebrush habitat would have detrimental impacts on sagebrush associated plant species 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 87

including habitat loss or degradation, physical damage, death, reduced root storage, or seed 

production. Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the ground 

disturbance but not from other impacts such as habitat loss or weed increases. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. These plants occur on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forests and Grassland. Activities 

occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there 

could be additional habitat loss, degradation, soil compaction, or invasive weed spread from 

recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, fire and fuels 

treatments, and range management in sagebrush habitat off the Forests and Grassland. These 

cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG 

amendment.

Summary of Alternative D 

This alternative is most similar to alternative A. This alternative does include a cap on 

disturbance in PPH while there is no similar limit in alternative A. The allowance of 9% 

disturbance in PPH will allow some additional habitat loss and degradation. Limited 

conservation in the remaining sagebrush habitat could allow substantial changes in habitat 

quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the units. None of the design criteria is 

specific to sensitive plant species. The implementation of the criteria would likely reduce but not 

eliminate direct and indirect effects on sensitive plants growing in sagebrush. Still, this 

alternative prevents some detrimental impacts compared to alternative A.

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred, particularly on the Grassland. 

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in alternative D 

would reduce some impacts on sagebrush associated plant species. Proposed management would 

still have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated plant species in most sagebrush 

habitat. Therefore, this alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in 

a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Astragalus 

barii, Astragalus diversifolius var. diversifolius, Astragalus paysonii, Lesquerella paysonii, 

Machaeranthera coloradensis, Symphyotrichum molle, Eriogonum exifolium, and Triteleia 

grandiflora. 

Alternative E 

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The restriction on road construction or upgrades near leks in PPH would reduce disturbance and 

habitat loss. Some recreation special uses would be allowed in PPH. Conservations measures do 

not apply to most sagebrush habitat, that habitat outside of PPH. Measures in PPH would be 

slightly more restrictive than alternatives A and D but less restrictive than alternatives B and C. 

There would be less habitat loss or degradation in PPH compared to alternatives A and D. The 

reduced disturbance would not promote Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii but these 

plants would benefit from reduced loss of habitat. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

88 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some aspen habitat could be lost or degraded or disturbed since conservation measures would 

allow some limited powerlines, some lease changes, and activities within 0.6 miles of a lek in 

PPH. Habitat changes could also occur because PPH can be exchanged to other ownership. 

Overall, impacts on sagebrush and intermixed aspen would be similar to but slightly reduced 

compared to alternatives A and D. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place slightly more focus on incorporating measures to provide adequate 

habitat quality for GRSG in PPH than alternatives A and D. These measures would also 

maintain habitat quality for sagebrush associated sensitive plants within PPH. There could be 

more small areas of improvement with these measures.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would have impacts similar to but more restrictive than alternatives A 

and D. The general prohibition of wind energy development in PGH, with exceptions, would 

limit loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat compared to alternatives A and D. This 

conservation measure would benefit > 620,000 acres of sagebrush habitat for sensitive plants 

across the units. The reduced wind energy disturbance would not promote Lesquerella paysonii 

and Astragalus paysonii but these plants would benefit from reduced loss of habitat. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are a few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted by the 

5% disturbance cap and a review of GRSG habitat needs in PPH. Treatment is permitted in 

GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. There are more treatment opportunities than allowed 

in alternatives B and C and slightly less than Alternative D. These limited conservation 

measures on PPH and the lack of measures in the remainder of sagebrush habitat would have 

detrimental impacts on sagebrush associated plant species including habitat loss or degradation, 

physical damage, death, reduced root storage, or seed production. Lesquerella paysonii and 

Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the ground disturbance but not from other impacts such 

as habitat loss or weed increases. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. These plants occur on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forests and Grassland. Activities 

occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there 

could be additional habitat loss, degradation, soil compaction, or invasive weed spread from 

recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, fire and fuels 

treatments, and range management in sagebrush habitat off the Forests and Grassland. These 

cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG 

amendment.

Summary of Alternative E 

This alternative limits habitat loss and degradation in PPH to 5%. This alternative also limits 

disturbing activities in PPH. The allowance of 5% disturbance in PPH will allow some loss of 

sagebrush habitat for sensitive plant species. This alternative also limits some disturbances and 

habitat loss in PGH, such as wind energy development. PGH includes >620,000 acres of 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 89

sagebrush habitat across the 3 units. So, there would be less loss or degradation of habitat. 

However, none of the design criteria is specific to sensitive plant species. The implementation of 

the criteria would likely reduce but not eliminate direct and indirect effects on sensitive plants 

growing in sagebrush. Generally, other activities in PGH and all activities in the remaining 

sagebrush habitat on the Forests and Grassland will occur as they do currently or could expand as 

existing direction allows. Overall, effects would be less impacting to sagebrush associated plant 

species than alternatives A and D. 

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred, particularly on the Grassland. 

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in alternative E 

would reduce some impacts on sagebrush associated plant species, particularly in PPH. 

Proposed management would still have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated plant 

species in most sagebrush habitat. Therefore, this alternative “may adversely impact individuals, 

but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal 

listing” for Astragalus barii, Astragalus diversifolius var. diversifolius, Astragalus paysonii, 

Lesquerella paysonii, Machaeranthera coloradensis, Symphyotrichum molle, Eriogonum 

exifolium, and Triteleia grandiflora.

VIII. CONTACTS

The following specialists provided their expertise in the creation of this document: 

• Tim Byer

Thunder Basin National Grassland wildlife biologist 

Douglas District wildlife biologist, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests

tbyer@fs.fed.us 

• Steve Loose

Brush Creek-Hayden District wildlife biologist

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests 

sloose@fs.fed.us 

• Katharine Haynes

North Zone botanist 

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests 

katharinemhaynes@fs.fed.us

• Chris Colt 

Wildlife Biologist

Forest Service GRSG ID Team Biologist

ccolt@fs.fed.us 

IX. LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, D.E., S. DeStefano, M.I. Goldstein, K. Titus, C. Crocker-Bedford, J.J. Keane, R.G. 

Anthony, and R.N. Rosenfield. 2003. The status of northern goshawks in the western 
Appendix M Draft EIS

90 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

United States. Wildlife Society Technical Review 04-1. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, 

Maryland, USA. 24pp. 

Anderson, D.G. 2006. Eriogonum exilifolium Reveal (dropleaf buckwheat): a technical 

conservation assessment. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/eriogonumexilifolium.pdf 

Beatty, B.L., W.F. Jennings, and R.C. Rawlinson. 2004. Machaeranthera coloradoensis (Gray) 

Osterhout (Colorado tansyaster): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/machaerantheracoloradoensis.pdf 

Beecham, J.J. Jr., C.P. Collins, and T.D. Reynolds. 2007. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep 

(Ovis canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.pdf . 

Carey, C. 1993. Hypothesis concerning the causes of the disappearance of boreal toads from the 

mountains of Colorado. Conservation Biology 7(2):355-362. 

Corn, P.S. 1994. What we know and don’t know about amphibian declines in the west. Pages 

59-67 in W.W. Covington and L.F. DeBano, technical coordinators. Sustainable 

ecological systems: implementing and ecological approach to land management. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General 

Technical Report RM-247. 

Fertig, W. 1997. Status report on Lesquerella paysonii in northwest Wyoming. Unpublished 

report prepared for Bridger-Teton National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, Laramie Wyoming.

Fertig, W. 2000. State Species Abstract-ASTER MOLLIS (SOFT ASTER), Family: 

Asteraceae. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie Wyoming. 4pp.

Gilbert, M. M. and Chalfoun, A. D. 2011. Energy development affects populations of sagebrush 

songbirds in Wyoming. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75: 816–824. 

Grenier, M.B. B. Abel, and N. Cudworth. 2012. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND 

NONGAME BIRD AND MAMMAL INVESTIGATIONS ANNUAL REPORT. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Cheyenne, Wy. 

Heidel, B. 2008. State Species Abstract-ASTRAGALUS PAYSONII (PAYSON'S 

MILKVETCH), Family: Fabaceae. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 

4pp. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 91

Heidel, B. 2008a. State Species Abstract-LESQUERELLA PAYSONII (PAYSON'S 

BLADDERPOD), Family: Brassicaceae. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, 

WY. 4pp. 

Heidel, B. 2009. Status of Meadow milkvetch (Astragalus diversifolius) in south-central 

Wyoming. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins and Rock Springs 

Field Offices. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

Hester S.G., Grenier M.B. 2005. A conservation plan for bats in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department, Nongame Program, Lander, WY. 

Hoffman, R.W. and A.E. Thomas. 2007. Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus 

phasianellus columbianus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/columbiansharptailedgrouse.pdf . 

Holmes, J.A. and M.J. Johnson. 2005. Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella brewerii): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/brewerssparrow.pdf . 

Keinath, D.A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2006. Wyoming Pocket Gopher (Thomomys clusius): a 

technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/wyomingpocketgopher.pdf 

Keinath, D. and M. McGee. 2005. Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas): a technical conservation 

assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, 

Colorado. 

Kennedy, P.L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf . 

Ladyman, J.A.R. 2006. Astragalus barrii Barneby (Barr’s milkvetch): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/astragalusbarrii.pdf 

Ladyman, J.A.R. 2007. Triteleia grandiflora Lindley (largeflower triteleia): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/triteleiagrandiflora.pdf .

Loeffler, C. (ed.). 2001. Conservation plan and agreement for the management and recovery of 

the southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas), Boreal 

Toad Recovery Team. 76 pp. + appendices. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

92 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Luce, R.J. and D. Keinath. 2007. Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/spottedbat.pdf 

Manier, D.J., D.J.A. Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. Juliusson, K.S. 

Mayne,, S.J. Oyler-McCance, F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and A.J. Titolo. 2013. 

Summary of Science, Activities, Programs and Policies that Influence the Rangewide 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus). U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2013-xxxx, Fort Collins, Colorado, 287pp. 

Nicholoff, S. H., compiler. 2003. Wyoming bird conservation plan, Version 2.0. Wyoming 

Partners In Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY. 

http://www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/plan/WY/menu.htm 

Patla, D.A. and D. Keinath. 2005. Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris formerly R. 

pretiosa): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/columbiaspottedfrog.pdf 

Pauli, J.N., R.M. Stephens, and S.H. Anderson. 2006. White-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys 

leucurus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/whitetailedprairiedog.pdf .

Pruitt, L. 2000. Loggerhead shrike status assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort 

Snelling, MN. 

Sage Grouse National Technical Team. 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage‐Grouse 

Conservation Measures. On-line: 

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/

www/nepa/85336_FSPLT2_115747.pdf 

Slater, G.L. and C. Rock. 2005. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northern harrier.pdf 

Smith, B.E. and D.A. Keinath. 2007. Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens ): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernleopardfrog.pdf 

Squires, J.R. 2000. Food Habits of Northern Goshawks Nesting in South Central Wyoming. 

Wilson Bull. 112(4). pp. 536-539. 

Squires, J. R., and L. F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest site preference of northern goshawks in 

southcentral Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 60(1):170-177. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 93

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 4, Bridger-Teton National 

Forest, Jackson, Wyoming. 396pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Thunder Basin National Grassland Land Resource Management 

Plan, 2001 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. 

Laramie, Wyoming.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Medicine Bow National Forest Land Resource Management Plan, 

2003 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. Laramie, 

Wyoming.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Updated Assessment of the Condition of Management Indicator 

Species Habitat With Respect to livestock Grazing Use On the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wy. 148pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Management Indicator Species for the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wy. 38pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants: 12-month findings for petitions to list the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 75(55): 13910-14014. 

Wiggins, D.A. 2005. Loggerhead Shrike: a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/loggerheadshrike.pdf 

WGFD. 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Cheyenne, WY. 558pp. 

WGFD. 2013. Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group Reports 2007-2008. 

http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/wildlife-1000817.aspx 

White, Clayton M., Nancy J. Clum, Tom J. Cade and W. Grainger Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/660 
Appendix M Draft EIS

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 94

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES REPORT

for the

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Effort to Amend the 

Bridger-Teton and Medicine Bow National Forest Plans 

And

Thunder Basin National Grassland Management Plan

December 13, 2013 

Prepared by:

Tim Byer, Wildlife Biologist

tbyer@fs.fed.us

Steve Loose, Wildlife Biologist

sloose@fs.fed.us

Chris Colt, Wildlife Biologist

ccolt@fs.fed.us
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 95

Table of Contents

• INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................97

• PROJECT HISTORY......................................................................................................................................97

• PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................................................98

• DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................98

Alternative A: No-action................................................................................................................................99

Alternative B: ..................................................................................................................................................99

Alternative C:.................................................................................................................................................100

Alternative D: ................................................................................................................................................101

Alternative E:.................................................................................................................................................102

• ANALYSIS AREA .........................................................................................................................................102

• MIS EVALUATIONS....................................................................................................................................109

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE (CENTROCERCUS UROPHASIANUS).......................................................................................109

Alternative A - No Action.............................................................................................................................112

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................115

Alternative C..................................................................................................................................................117

Alternative D .................................................................................................................................................120

Alternative E..................................................................................................................................................122

PLAINS SHARP-TAILED GROUSE (TYMPANUCHUS PHASIANELLUS)..............................................................................125

Alternative A - No Action.............................................................................................................................126

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................128

Alternative C..................................................................................................................................................129

Alternative D .................................................................................................................................................131

Alternative E..................................................................................................................................................133

BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG (CYNOMYS LUDOVICIANUS)..........................................................................................135

Alternative A - No Action.............................................................................................................................137

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................138

Alternative C..................................................................................................................................................140

Alternative D .................................................................................................................................................142

Alternative E..................................................................................................................................................144

BREWER’S SPARROW (SPIZELLA BREWERII) ............................................................................................................146

Alternative A - No Action.............................................................................................................................148

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................150

Alternative C..................................................................................................................................................151

Alternative D .................................................................................................................................................153

Alternative E..................................................................................................................................................155

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK (CERVUS ELAPHUS NELSONI)...............................................................................................156

Alternative A - No Action.............................................................................................................................157

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................159

Alternative C..................................................................................................................................................161

Alternative D .................................................................................................................................................162

Alternative E..................................................................................................................................................164

MULE DEER (ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS) ...................................................................................................................165

Alternative A - No Action.............................................................................................................................166

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................168

Alternative C..................................................................................................................................................170

Alternative D .................................................................................................................................................171

Alternative E..................................................................................................................................................173

MOOSE (ALCES ALCES SHIRAS) ................................................................................................................................174

Alternative A - No Action.............................................................................................................................175

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................177
Appendix M Draft EIS

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 96

Alternative C..................................................................................................................................................179

Alternative D .................................................................................................................................................180

Alternative E..................................................................................................................................................182

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE (ANTILOCAPRA AMERICANA) ...............................................................................................183

Alternative A - No Action.............................................................................................................................184

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................186

Alternative C..................................................................................................................................................188

Alternative D .................................................................................................................................................189

Alternative E..................................................................................................................................................191

BOREAL TOAD (ANAXYRUS BOREAS BOREAS)...........................................................................................................192

Alternative A - No Action.............................................................................................................................194

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................195

Alternative C..................................................................................................................................................197

Alternative D .................................................................................................................................................199

Alternative E..................................................................................................................................................200

POPULUS TREMULOIDES (ASPEN) ...........................................................................................................................202

Alternative A - No Action.............................................................................................................................203

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................204

Alternative C..................................................................................................................................................206

Alternative D .................................................................................................................................................207

Alternative E..................................................................................................................................................209

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................210

LITERATURE CITED ...........................................................................................................................................213
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 97

 Management Indicator Species Evaluation 

• INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this MIS evaluation is to identify the likely effects of management decisions 

associated with the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Planning Decision, specifically for the 

Bridger-Teton (BT) and Medicine Bow (MB) National Forests and Thunder Basin National 

Grassland (TBNG), on population trends for respective Management Indicator Species for each 

of these Planning Units. 

The Analysis of Management Situation (AMS) for this sage-grouse amendment originally 

evaluated a number of species for consideration in the analysis process. Subsequent review of the 

alternatives indicates that several of these species originally thought to be affected will 

experience no effects on their primary habitat or populations. No alternative is expected to 

impact any identified limiting factors for these species or their life requirements. Based on these 

factors, the following MIS will not be analyzed in greater detail:

• peregrine falcon,

• boreal chorus frog

• PROJECT HISTORY

Greater Sage-Grouse have emerged as a significant conservation concern over the last 10 years. 

The species is currently a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act 

inferring that listing is “warranted, but precluded due to higher priorities” because of two 

primary factors: 1) the large-scale loss and fragmentation of habitats across the species range, 

and 2) a lack of regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure the conservation of the species. The 

primary threats to sage-grouse habitat are summarized in the listing decision. The two dominant 

threats are related to infrastructure associated with energy development in the eastern portion of 

the species range, and the conversion of sagebrush communities to annual grasslands associated 

resulting in large uncharacteristic wildfires in the western portion of the species range.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately half of the GRSG habitats, 

whereas the Forest Service manages approximately 8 percent of species habitat, with most of that 

occurring on national forests in the Intermountain Region. The Forest Service manages 

approximately 9 million acres of sagebrush habitats, of which about 7.5 million acres occur in 

the Intermountain Region. Most habitats on Forest Service administered lands contribute to 

summer brood-rearing habitats, although some Forests and Grasslands, such as TBNG, 

contribute important breeding, nesting, and winter habitat. 

In 2011 and 2012, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) submitted letters to the 

BLM and Forest Service recommending that the agencies amend Land Use Plans to provide 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve the species. Originally, this recommendation 

identified 10 National Forests viewed as “high priority” to ensure appropriate regulatory 

mechanisms. Following scoping and discussion the Forest Service added an additional 10 Forest 

Plans that would be considered for amendment. The Forest Service is participating in several 

joint Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) with the BLM to develop Records of Decision 

that will be used as a basis for amending Land Use Plans, including Forest Plans. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 98

Since half of all GRSG habitat occurs on BLM-administered lands, the BLM is leading the effort 

to amend or revise land use plans, with the Forest Service as a cooperating agency. The purpose 

is to provide direction in land management plans that conserve and protect sage-grouse habitat 

and to provide assurances to the USFWS that adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place to 

ensure the conservation of the species. EISs will be completed for seven sage-grouse planning 

sub-regions: 1) eastern Montana and portions of North and South Dakota, 2) Idaho and 

southwest Montana, 3) Oregon, 4) Wyoming, 5) northwest Colorado, 6) Utah, and 7) Nevada 

and northern California. The Forest Service is participating in six of these EISs (excluding 

Eastern Montana/Dakotas and some of the areas in Wyoming). The EISs will include joint 

agency signatures, but separate Records of Decision.” The Forest Service is involved in five of 

these efforts (http://fsweb.r4.fs.fed.us/unit/nr/sagegrouse/index.shtml, Accessed December 19, 

2012) 

This Management Indicator Species report is prepared in support of the Wyoming 9 Plan EIS. 

The Bridger-Teton and Medicine Now National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland 

are the only Forest Service units in Wyoming planning to amend their Land and Resource 

Management Plans for the GRSG. 

• PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the Land and Resource Management Plan amendments for the GRSG is to 

identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures to conserve, enhance, and/or restore 

sage-grouse habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to their habitat. The need to 

create this amendment arose when the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms was identified as a 

significant threat in the USFWS finding on the petition to list the GRSG. The USFWS identified 

conservation measures within Land and Resource Management Plans (as well as BLM Land Use 

Plans) as the principal regulatory mechanisms for habitat conservation. Therefore, the Land and 

Resource Management Plan amendments will focus on areas affected by threats to sage-grouse 

habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision (USFWS 2010). 

• DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

The BLM and Forest Service are developing a range of alternatives that are specifically 

structured to identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures in Land Use Plans to 

conserve, enhance or restore GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to 

that habitat. There are currently five alternatives to consider under this analysis: Alternative A - 

No action, Alternative B, Alternative C, Alternative D, and Alternative E. A brief description of 

each of the alternatives is provided below. For a full description of the alternatives, as well as 

project design criteria, mitigation and monitoring requirements, please refer to chapter 2 of the 

EIS prepared for this project. 

One of the key differences among the alternatives is the type of designated habitat applicable to 

each. Designated sage-grouse habitat is divided into two main categories - preliminary priority 

habitat (PPH) and preliminary general habitat (PGH). PPH is defined as areas that have been 

identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable GRSG 

populations. These areas include breeding, late brood-rearing and winter concentration areas. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 99

PPH is the same as and often referred to as core habitat. PGH is defined as areas of occupied 

seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PPH. A third category of connectivity habitat, which 

provides linkage areas for GRSG, is also present. Within the document, all designated habitat 

(ADH) refers to all PPH (core), PGH, and connectivity habitat. 

Alternative A: No-action

Under the no-action alternative the Land and Resource Management Plans would not be 

amended. The existing management direction set for sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat would 

continue. 

New road construction would be allowed near leks, in PPH, and in PGH with few limitations. 

There are no specific limitations on upgrading roads. There are few limitations on recreation 

special uses. 

Some Rights-of-way would be allowed in sage-grouse habitat for powerlines. 

Mineral and energy development is allowed in most PPH and PGH with some limitations. Wind 

energy development is allowed in some PPH with some limitations. Disturbances from new 

facilities would be limited from 0.25 to 2 miles from active leks or nesting habitat. Disturbance 

of nesting habitat is prohibited on the Medicine Bow and Thunder Basin Grassland within 2 

miles of leks. Some noise restrictions apply for the Medicine Bow and Thunder Basin 

Grassland.

Livestock grazing will retain herbaceous material to provide cover and forage for GRSG (MB). 

GRSG needs will be addressed in allotment management plans (BT). Livestock grazing will 

retain nesting cover within 2-3 miles of leks.

There are some limitations on shrub treatments in the Medicine Bow and Thunder Basin Plans. 

Treatments in winter range would be limited but permitted. Treated areas would be rested from 

grazing. Post treatment rehabilitation includes native plants or seed. 

Alternative B: 

All applicable and appropriate conservation measures that were developed in the NTT’s 2011 

report (Sage Grouse National Technical Team 2011) would be considered and incorporated into 

this alternative. These conservation measures would apply most often to GRSG PPH, less often 

to PGH, and, rarely, to connectivity habitat. There would be a 3% cap on disturbance in these 

areas. 

Travel construction would be limited in PPH, minimum standards would be applied and there 

would be no upgrading of roads. Travel would be limited to existing roads. Recreation special 

use permits in PPH would only be allowed if they are deemed to have a neutral or beneficial 

effect on GRSG. All GRSG core habitat areas and Important Bird Areas could be designated as 

Special Interest Areas (SIA).

Rights-of-way would be excluded in PPH. The Forests and Grassland would aim to keep and 

acquire PPH. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 100

PPH would be closed to new fluid minerals leases; existing leases would have a 4-mile no 

surface occupancy buffer around leks. Exceptions and modifications to leases would not be 

considered in PPH. Geophysical exploration is prohibited in PPH with few exceptions. Most 

coal and non-energy mineral leasing is unsuitable in PPH. Wind energy development would be 

allowed but met towers are prohibited in PPH. There is a seasonal restriction on disturbance of 

nesting habitat in PPH. Noise restrictions are 10 dB above ambient during elk season. 

Only light grazing is allowed in PPH in allotments not meeting standards. Grazing direction 

would be adjusted to improve management for GRSG. Planning efforts will identify grazing 

allotments where permanent retirement of grazing privileges is beneficial to GRSG. Water 

developments are authorized only when beneficial to upland and riparian GRSG habitat. 

Wildfire/Fuels would aim to protect sagebrush habitats in PPH. No prescribed fire treatment is 

allowed in PPH in < 12” precipitation zone. Habitat restoration would be a priority, with a focus 

on native species. Treatments in sage-grouse winter range would be very limited. Fuels 

treatments in PPH would retain 15% sagebrush cover. Treatments would be rested from grazing 

for 2 growing seasons. Post treatment rehabilitation includes native plants.

Alternative C: 

During scoping, conservation groups had the opportunity to submit suggestions on how to define 

PPH and PGH areas and developed their own conservation measures that would be applied to 

those areas (proposing more stringent management). All of the reasonable conservation measures 

across the sage grouse range have been consolidated into one alternative which each sub-region 

will analyze in detail. This alternative would apply to all designated GRSG habitat, including 

PPH, PGH, and connectivity habitat. There would be a 3% cap on disturbance in these areas. 

Travel construction would be limited in all designated habitat and no new roads would be 

constructed within 4 miles of a lek or occupied habitat. Travel would be limited to existing 

roads. No road upgrading would be allowed in designated habitat. Recreation special use 

permits in PPH would only be allowed if they are deemed to have a neutral or beneficial effect 

on GRSG. Recreation would seasonally prohibit camping and non-motorized recreation within 4 

miles of a lek. Designate SIAs for GRSG.

All designated habitat would be exclusion areas for rights-of-way and special use permits. The 

Forests and Grassland would aim to keep and acquire all designated habitat. 

Wind and solar installations would not be allowed to be sited in designated habitat. All 

designated habitat would be closed to new fluid minerals leases; existing leases would have a 4-

mile no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Exceptions and modifications to leases would not 

be considered in PPH. Geophysical exploration is prohibited in PPH. Most coal and non-energy 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 101

mineral leasing is unsuitable in PPH. There is a seasonal restriction on disturbance in nesting 

habitat in all designated habitat. Noise restrictions are 10 dB above ambient during lek season. 

PPH would be closed to livestock grazing. Grazing direction would be adjusted to improve 

management for GRSG on other habitat. Planning efforts will identify grazing allotments where 

permanent retirement of grazing privileges is beneficial to GRSG. No water developments are 

permitted within PPH or PGH. 

Wildfire/Fuels would aim to protect and restore sagebrush habitats in PPH and PGH; areas 

would be closed to grazing after wildfire. No prescribed fire treatment is allowed in <12” 

precipitation zone in PPH or PGH. Treatments in sage-grouse winter range would be very 

limited. Post treatment rehabilitation will include native plants including sagebrush.

Alternative D: 

In this alternative, sub-regions will have the opportunity to make changes to the 

recommendations from the NTT report and adjust habitat boundaries based on science, resource 

trade-offs, scoping comments, and internal staff expertise. In Wyoming, this alternative 

incorporates comments from Wyoming cooperators. Conservation measures would apply to 

GRSG PPH and PGH and, rarely, to connectivity habitat. There would be a 9% cap on 

disturbance in PPH. 

New roads would not be constructed within 0.25 miles of a lek in PPH. Road upgrades would be 

allowed in PPH and PGH. Recreation special use permits in PPH would be allowed on a case by 

case basis. No GRSG SIAs would be designated. 

Rights-of-way would permit new power lines in PPH within 2 identified transmission line 

corridors, near existing large transmission lines, or areas deemed to have minor impacts on 

GRSG. Other GRSG habitat would be available for Rights-of-way. The Forests and Grassland 

would aim to keep and acquire PPH. Exceptions and modifications to leases would be 

considered in PPH and PGH. Disruptive activities would be precluded within 0.25 miles of 

occupied leks in PPH or connectivity habitat. 

New fluid mineral leases would be allowed. Geophysical exploration is not permitted. Coal and 

non-energy mineral leasing in PPH can be suitable with stipulations. Wind energy development 

would be prohibited in PGH unless there would be no decline in GRSG populations. There is a 

seasonal restriction on nesting habitat in PPH within 2 miles of a lek. Some noise restrictions 

apply for the Medicine Bow and Thunder Basin Grassland. 

Grazing direction would be monitored to meet Wyoming land health standards and consider 

GRSG objectives in PPH. Water developments are authorized as needed for grazing in PPH. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 102

Wildfire/Fuels treatments in sagebrush in PPH could occur up to a 9% disturbance threshold. 

Prescribed fire would not be limited in <12” precipitation zone. Treatment in sage-grouse winter 

range would be permitted. Treated areas would not be rested from grazing. No rehabilitation is 

identified for prescribed fires or wild fires. 

Alternative E: 

This alternative generally applies to PPH with some measures also applying in PGH and 

connectivity habitat. This alternative includes elements from the BLM IM, the Governor’s EO 

and the Alternative B in areas not addressed in Wyoming specific directives. 

New primary and secondary roads would not be constructed within 1.9 miles of a lek in PPH. 

Other roads would not be constructed within 0.6 miles of a lek in PPH. Some road upgrades 

would be allowed in PPH. Recreation special use permits in PPH would be allowed unless 

impacts cannot be mitigated. No GRSG SIAs would be designated. 

Rights-of-way would permit new power lines in PPH within 2 identified transmission line 

corridors, near existing large transmission lines, or areas deemed to have minor impacts on 

GRSG. Other GRSG habitat would be available for Rights-of-way. GRSG PPH could be sold or 

exchanged for economic benefits. Exceptions and modifications to leases would be considered 

in PPH and PGH. Disruptive activities would be precluded within 0.6 miles of occupied leks in 

PPH or connectivity habitat. 

New fluid mineral leases would be allowed. Geophysical exploration is allowed within PPH 

when fragmentation does not occur. Coal and non-energy mineral leasing in PPH can be suitable 

with stipulations. Wind energy development would be prohibited in PGH unless there would be 

no decline in GRSG populations. There is a seasonal restriction on disturbance in nesting habitat 

in PPH. Noise restrictions would be developed over time. 

Wyoming land health standards would be monitored to determine if grazing is a significant 

factor where unsatisfactory conditions exist and to determine adjustments. Water developments 

are authorized when beneficial to upland and riparian habitat in PPH. 

Wildfire/Fuels treatments in sagebrush in PPH could occur up to a 5% disturbance threshold. 

Treatment in sage-grouse winter range would be allowed and subject to the 5% disturbance 

threshold. Prescribed fire would be very limited in <12” precipitation zone. Treated areas will 

be rested from grazing for 2 growing seasons. Post treatment rehabilitation will include native 

plants.

• ANALYSIS AREA

The analysis area consists of areas of the Bridger-Teton National Forest (BT), Medicine Bow 

National Forest (MB), and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) that have been identified 

as Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 103

Based on GIS analysis of the EIS planning area, the following table describes the number of 

acres on each Forest or Grassland, the number of acres of GRSG General and Core habitat on 

each Forest/Unit, and the percentage of the Forest considered occupied habitat. The data 

contained in the table below was taken from the May 2012 AMS for the Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendments. 

FORESTNAME Forest Acres General Core

Total 

Occupied

% of 

Forest

WY Bridger-Teton National Forest 3,420,442 262,018 5,933 267,951 8%

Medicine Bow National Forest 1,083,558 22,915 4,564 27,479 3%

Thunder Basin National Grassland 552,537 328,191 224,346 552,537 100%

Total EIS Area 5,056,537 612,149 234,279 846,428 17%

Management Indicator Species for the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Medicine Bow 

National Forest, or Thunder Basin National Grassland. 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) directs National Forests to identify Management 

Indicator Species (MIS). MIS are chosen as a representative of certain habitat conditions

important to a variety of other species. MIS are generally presumed to be sensitive to habitat 

changes. By monitoring and assessing populations of MIS, managers can determine if 

management actions are affecting other species populations. According to the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990), Medicine 

Bow National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2003), and

the Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 2001), MIS for these management units include 20 terrestrial, 8 aquatic wildlife species, 

and 3 plants. 

MIS were reviewed to determine which are likely to be present or have habitat that overlaps with 

Preliminary Primary Habitat (PPH) or Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) for sage-grouse. 

Table 2 identifies species likely to be affected by implementation of one or more of the 

amendment alternatives.

The Analysis of Management Situation (AMS) for this sage-grouse amendment originally 

evaluated a number of species for consideration in the analysis process. Subsequent review of the 

alternatives indicates that several of these species originally thought to be affected will 

experience no effects on their primary habitat or populations. No alternative is expected to 

impact any identified limiting factors for these species or their life requirements. Based on these 

factors, peregrine falcon and boreal chorus frog will not be analyzed as MIS in greater detail.
Appendix M Draft EIS

104 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Table 2. Bridger-Teton (BT) and Medicine Bow (MB) National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) Management 

Indicator Species that may be influenced by an action alternative and will be further analyzed in this document. 

Species 

(Forest Service

Unit)

Management 

Issue

Known or 

Suspected to be 

Present in 

Analysis Area?

Habitat present 

in Analysis 

Area?

Summary of anticipated effects from 

implementation

of an action alternative to MIS

BIRDS

Bald Eagle (BT)

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

(Formerly) 

Threatened or 

endangered species 

recovery

Y N 

No habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to population of this species or its habitat. Therefore, this 

species will not be evaluated in more detail

Northern goshawk 

(MB) Accipiter 

gentiles

Late seral 

lodgepole and 

aspen 

N N 

No habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to population of this species or its habitat. Therefore, this 

species will not be evaluated in more detail

American 

Peregrine Falcon 

(BT) 

Falco peregrinus 

anatum

(Formerly) 

Threatened or 

endangered species 

recovery

Incidental Minor

Very little habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

However, implementation of the alternatives will cause 

no changes to population of this species or its habitat. 

Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more 

detail

Greater SageGrouse (TBNG) 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus

Sagebrush quality

Y Y 

Greater Sage-Grouse is the species for which amendment 

is occurring. The species will be evaluated in more 

detail.

Plains sharp-tailed 

grouse (TBNG)

Tympanuchus 

phasianellus

High structure 

grasslands Y Y 

There are records of the species within PPH and PGH. 

The alternatives propose some changes within species 

habitat to which sharp-tailed grouse population could 

respond. The species will be evaluated in more detail.

Whooping Crane 

(BT)

Grus americana

Threatened or 

endangered species 

recovery N N 

No habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to population of this species or its habitat. Therefore, this 

species will not be evaluated in more detail

Brewer’s sparrow 

(BT)

Spizella breweri

Sagebrush condition

Y Y 

There are records of the species within PPH and PGH. 

The alternatives propose some changes within species 

habitat to which Brewer’s sparrow population could 

respond. The species will be evaluated in more detail.
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 105

Species 

(Forest Service

Unit)

Management 

Issue

Known or 

Suspected to be 

Present in 

Analysis Area?

Habitat present 

in Analysis 

Area?

Summary of anticipated effects from 

implementation

of an action alternative to MIS

Golden-crowned 

kinglet (MB)

Regulus satrapa

Fragmentation 

within a forest 

stand

N N 

No habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to population of this species or its habitat. Therefore, this 

species will not be evaluated in more detail

Three-toed 

woodpecker (MB)

Picoides 

tridactylus

Snags, old forest, 

recent forest burns N N 

No habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to population of this species or its habitat. Therefore, this 

species will not be evaluated in more detail

Lincoln’s sparrow 

(MB) Melospiza 

lincolnii

Riparian zone, 

herbivory in willow 

community N N 

No habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to population of this species or its habitat. Therefore, this 

species will not be evaluated in more detail

Wilson’s warbler 

(MB) Wilsonia 

pusilla

Riparian zone, 

herbivory in willow 

community N N 

No habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to population of this species or its habitat. Therefore, this 

species will not be evaluated in more detail

MAMMALS

Bighorn Sheep 

(BT)

Ovis canadensis 

canadensis

Harvested species, 

mountain meadow 

condition N N 

No habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to population of this species or its habitat. Therefore, this 

species will not be evaluated in more detail. The species 

will be evaluated in more detail.

Grizzly Bear (BT)

Ursus arctos 

horribilus

Threatened or 

endangered species 

recovery

Y Addressed in BA

Also a threatened Species. See analysis in BA.

Elk (BT)

Cervus elaphus 

nelsoni

Harvested species

Y Y 

There are records of the species within PPH and PGH. 

The alternatives propose some changes within species 

habitat to which elk population could respond. The 

species will be evaluated in more detail.
Appendix M Draft EIS

106 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Species 

(Forest Service

Unit)

Management 

Issue

Known or 

Suspected to be 

Present in 

Analysis Area?

Habitat present 

in Analysis 

Area?

Summary of anticipated effects from 

implementation

of an action alternative to MIS

Mule Deer (BT)

Odocoileus 

hemionus

Harvested species

Y Y 

There are records of the species within PPH and PGH. 

The alternatives propose some changes within species 

habitat to which mule deer population could respond. The 

species will be evaluated in more detail.

Moose (BT)

Alces alces shirasi

Harvested species

Y Y 

There are records of the species within PPH and PGH. 

The alternatives propose some changes within species 

habitat to which moose population could respond. The 

species will be evaluated in more detail.

Pronghorn 

Antelope (BT)

Antilocarpa 

americana

Harvested species

Y Y 

There are records of the species within PPH and PGH. 

The alternatives propose some changes within species 

habitat to which pronghorn population could respond. 

The species will be evaluated in more detail.

Black-tailed prairie 

dog (TBNG)

Cynomys 

ludovicianus

Low structure 

grasslands Y Y 

There are records of the species within PPH and PGH. 

The alternatives propose some changes within species 

habitat to which prairie dog population could respond. 

The species will be evaluated in more detail.

American Marten 

(BT/MB)

Martes americana 

origines

Old growth forest/.

N N 

No habitat within mapped P;H or ;GH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to populations of this species or its habitat. Therefore, 

this species will not be evaluated in more detail

Snowshoe hare 

(MB) Lepus 

americana

Conifer habitats with 

dense understory N N 

No habitat within mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to populations of this species or its habitat. Therefore, 

this species will not be evaluated in more detail

AMPHIBIANS

Boreal Toad (BT)

Bufo boreas boreas

Wetland condition 

Y Y 

The species is likely to occur within PPH or PGH on the 

BT. The alternatives propose some changes within 

species habitat to which boreal toad population could 

respond. The species will be evaluated in more detail.
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 107

Species 

(Forest Service

Unit)

Management 

Issue

Known or 

Suspected to be 

Present in 

Analysis Area?

Habitat present 

in Analysis 

Area?

Summary of anticipated effects from 

implementation

of an action alternative to MIS

Boreal Chorus 

Frog (BT)

Pseudacris 

triseriata

Wetland condition

Y Minor

Minor habitat overlap with PPH or PGH on the BT. 

Alternatives will not affect habitat for this MIS, there 

will be no change to population of chorus frog. 

Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more 

detail.

FISH

Bonneville 

cutthroat trout (BT)

Oncorhynchus 

clarki Utah

Riparian condition

Y N 

No habitat overlap with mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to populations of this species or its habitat. Therefore, 

this species will not be evaluated in more detail

Colorado River 

cutthroat (BT)

Oncorhynchus 

clarki pleuriticus

Riparian condition

Y N 

No habitat overlap with mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to populations of this species or its habitat. Therefore, 

this species will not be evaluated in more detail

Rainbow trout 

(BT/MB)

Oncorhynchus 

mykiss

Riparian 

condition/water 

quality Y N 

No habitat overlap with mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to populations of this species or its habitat. Therefore, 

this species will not be evaluated in more detail

Yellowstone/Snake 

River fine-spotted 

cutthroat (R4)

Oncorhynchus 

clarki spp.

Riparian condition

Y N 

No habitat overlap with mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to populations of this species or its habitat. Therefore, 

this species will not be evaluated in more detail

Common trout 

(MB)

Salmo trutta 

(brown)

Salvelinus 

fontinalis (brook)

Water quality Y N 

No habitat overlap with mapped PPH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to populations of this species or its habitat. Therefore, 

this species will not be evaluated in more detail

PLANTS
Appendix M Draft EIS

108 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Species 

(Forest Service

Unit)

Management 

Issue

Known or 

Suspected to be 

Present in 

Analysis Area?

Habitat present 

in Analysis 

Area?

Summary of anticipated effects from 

implementation

of an action alternative to MIS

Shultz’s milkvetch 

(BT) Astragalus 

shultziorum 

Sensitive plant 

representative N N 

No habitat within mapped PH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to populations of this species or its habitat. Therefore, 

this species will not be evaluated in more detail

Boreal draba (BT) 

Draba borealis 

Sensitive plant 

representative N N 

No habitat within mapped PH or PGH habitat. 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes 

to populations of this species or its habitat. Therefore, 

this species will not be evaluated in more detail

Aspen (BT) 

Populus 

tremuloides 

Ecological indicator 

of Aspen Condition Y Y 

Aspen occurs within PPH and PGH. The alternatives 

propose some changes within or adjacent to aspen which 

could impact the distribution and abundance of aspen. 

Aspen will be evaluated in more detail.
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 109

• MIS EVALUATIONS

Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

A Management Indicator Species (MIS) is defined as a “plant or animal species or habitat components 

selected in a planning process used to monitor the effects of planned management activities on 

populations of wildlife and fish, including those that are socially or economically important.” (Thunder 

Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan, December 2000). The sage grouse is 

selected as a management indicator species for sagebrush habitats that have tall, dense and diverse 

herbaceous understories. These areas typically have a history of lighter livestock grazing intensities. 

Some of the species also using this habitat include sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, pronghorn and sage

Distribution

The Sage-Grouse is an MIS species on the Thunder Basin National Grasslands. Sage-Grouse 

historically inhabited 13 western states and three Canadian provinces, but they have declined 

across their range and now occupy approximately 56 percent of their historic range. They are 

currently found in only 11 states and two Canadian provinces (USFWS 2013).They are found in 

association with shrub steppe and grassland habitats specifically having sage brush as a 

component. Within Wyoming, Greater Sage-Grouse (GSG) habitats within National Forest 

System (NFS) lands to support Sage-Grouse population include the Medicine Bow National 

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

(TBNG). The WGF has divided the State of Wyoming into 6 Local Sage Grouse Working Group 

Areas for management and monitoring purposes. The Thunder Basin National Grassland falls 

within the Northeast Wyoming (NEWy) Sage-Grouse Working Group Area which encompasses 

23,024 square miles (14,732,639 acres) in the northeast corner of Wyoming. While the TBNG 

makes up only 4% of the NEWy area, it provides over 25% of the Sage-Grouse habitat on federal 

public lands within this area. On Thunder Basin, where it is an MIS, there are approximately 

553,864 acres of Sage-Grouse habitat.

Habitat Associations and Threats 

This large grouse requires a variety of sagebrush structural stages to meet seasonal habitat 

requirements. Sagebrush is essential for sage grouse during all seasons of the year. This 

relationship is perhaps tightest in the late fall, winter, and early spring when sage grouse are 

dependent on sagebrush for both food and cover. During the spring and summer, succulent forbs 

and insects become important additional food sources are. Sage grouse require an extensive 

mosaic dominated by sagebrush of varying densities and heights along with an associated diverse 

native plant community dominated by high levels of native grasses and forbs (Wyoming Greater 

Sage Grouse Conservation Plan 2003). 

Current threats to Sage-Grouse in Wyoming include conversion and fragmentation of sagebrush 

habitats through infrastructure development (including energy development), wildfire, invasive 

species encroachment, noise, and the emergence of West Nile Virus in the Powder River Basin. 

Below is the complete list identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2005 as threats to 

sage grouse range-wide. For the purposes of the following table, Wyoming is considered a part 

of the eastern population. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

110 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

The Northeast Wyoming Working Group felt oil, gas, and coal bed natural gas (CBNG) 

development, weather, vegetation management, invasive plants, and parasites and diseases were 

the most important influences on the northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse population. 

Population Status and Trend

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department monitors sage grouse populations throughout the state 

including TBNG. They currently use the males/lek statistic to track population changes. This 

will indicate population fluctuations and is generally accepted as reflective of Sage-Grouse 

population’s dynamics, but will not give a population estimate. The State and regional patterns 

are of importance in relation to the TBNG for two reasons. First, the Grasslands are a part of this 

data set and, second, the “males per lek” trend for TBNG follows a similar pattern to that of the 

Northeast Wyoming Working Group Area. Figure 1 shows the average number of males/lek for 

lek counts and all lek monitoring combined from 1967 to 2012 for the Northeast Wyoming Local 

Working Group Area (NEW LWG). Using this information the regional trend suggests about a 

10 year cycle of periodic highs and lows. Of concern, however, is that generally each subsequent 

peak in the population is usually lower than the previous peak. Additionally, each periodic low in 

the population is generally lower than the previous population low. The long term trend suggests 

a steadily declining Sage-Grouse population. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 111

Figure 1. Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group Area Average Number Of Males/lek For lek Counts and all leks 

(1967-2012)

Source: Ne Wyoming Local Working Group Area, Draft Plan Addendum, January18, 2013

Table 2 below illustrates the mean male attendance per lek at the state, Northeast Working 

Group Area, and Thunder Basin National Grassland. Of the 6 working groups, Northeast 

Wyoming has the lowest average male lek attendance in the state, averaging 7 males per active 

lek in 2012 compared to the statewide average of 17 males per active lek (Figure 2). Male lek 

attendance for the other working group areas ranged from 14 to 30 males per active lek. In 2012, 

the average males per lek on TBNG were 3.8.

Figure 2. Mean males/lek for Wyoming, Northeast Wyoming, and TBNG (1996-2012) 

The most recent peak minimum estimated population of greater-Sage-Grouse on the TBNG was 

in 2007 at 2,762 birds. The population has been in a steady decline since then. The current 

(2012) population estimate is 660 birds. This is a loss of 2,102 birds, or a 76% reduction over the 

last 5 years. The current population estimate is the lowest it has been in 17 years (Figure3). 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

# Males/Lek

Year Lek Count

All Lek Checks

1

6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Sage-Grouse Males/Lek

Year

TBNG

NE WY

STATE
Appendix M Draft EIS

112 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Figure 3. Minimum Sage-Grouse Population estimates for TBNG and the 15 year average

Thunder Basin National Grassland is divided into 6 subunits called Geographic Areas for management 

purposes, and each Geographic Area has sage grouse as a Management Indicator Species. Currently on 

TBNG, Sage-Grouse lek attendance is stable or slightly declining in two geographic areas, steeply 

declining in three geographic areas, and one geographic areas no longer has active leks. 

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

There would be no changes to the current Thunder Basin National Grassland system roads, 

transportation plan, or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on 

casual use, and some new roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There is a 

current Travel Management Plan in place addresses all non-special use travel on TBNG. 

Restrictions on special uses may apply, but off-road permits are still issued. In general, more 

acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a greater likelihood of habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and disturbance to Sage-Grouse. Motorized access to most of TBNG is present 

on authorized roads, and usually means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to 

motorized routes and in habitat. In addition, with increased road use, comes increased noise, 

which has been identified as a specific stressor on Sage-Grouse (Holloran.2005). These 

disturbances can cause impacts to reproduction and survival (Blickley and Patricelli.2012). 

Under this alternative noise associated with traffic would not be moderated in sage grouse 

habitat. 

Lands and Realty

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Minimum Sage Grouse Population Estimate

ESTIMATED TBNG MINIMUM POPULATION

14 YEAR MEAN

Trend

Linear (ESTIMATED TBNG MINIMUM POPULATION)
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 113

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service lands. As a Region 2 Sensitive 

Species, sage grouse habitat acquisition may be emphasized, however, some Sage-Grouse habitat 

could be traded to other ownership where the parcels are isolated, lands that would reduce 

boundary conflicts with other ownerships, or are otherwise in the public interest. All Forest 

Service lands would continue to be managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. 

Permitted ROWs would continue to allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities 

that may result in habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation. Other impacts may include new 

infestations of noxious or invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat. Though most projects 

would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation of habitat. 

Range

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on TBNG. 

Range improvements are designed to not have a direct negative effect on Sage-Grouse. Potential 

adverse effects to Sage-Grouse habitat could include habitat fragmentation due to infra-structure 

development, habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to grasslands for improved livestock forage, 

and site specific overgrazing during drought years, with a potential reduction in cover, structure, 

and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Related impacts include 

higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a reduction of residual herbaceous material 

causing a lack of hiding cover. 

Energy and Minerals 

Energy development consisting of coal, oil, and natural gas, has been a predominant use of 

public lands on the TBNG. Given that the TBNG may, in its entirety, be described as occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, energy development will continue to be an issue relevant to the 

conservation of Sage-Grouse. Energy development on TBNG is also of national importance. 

The TBNG produces significant quantities of coal. There are four coal mines on the TBNG, 

either in production or some phase of planning or construction. The four mines have a collective 

footprint of over 120,000 acres within the planning area of which approximately 44,500 acres is 

on NFS lands. These lands produced 22.2 percent of the entire nation’s coal in 1997 and have 

continued to increase production. In addition there are significant oil and gas exploration and 

development occurring and planned on TBNG. The majority of all Sage-Grouse habitats are 

open to leasing, including expansion of existing leases, with no cap on surface disturbing 

activities.

This energy development is a significant threat to Sage-Grouse as noted by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in the 2010 finding (75 FR 13910-14014): 

Energy development is a significant risk to the Greater Sage-Grouse in the eastern 

portion of its range (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and northeastern Utah – MZs I, II, 

VII and the northeastern part of MZ III), with the primary concern being the direct 

effects of energy development on the long-term viability of Greater Sage-Grouse by 

eliminating habitat, leks, and whole populations and fragmenting some of the last 

remaining large expanses of habitat necessary for the species’ persistence.

Energy development has also been identified as a major Sage-Grouse stressor in the Powder 

River Basin of Northeast Wyoming. (Taylor et al. 2012). 
Appendix M Draft EIS

114 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

The above mentioned energy development impacts as they relate to TBNG are a result of

increased anthropogenic disturbance of sage- grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, increased 

traffic on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, utility 

corridor permits or easements, water development, mineral leasing and development, surface 

occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and the development or removal 

of mineral materials.

Fire and Fuels Management

In the Powder River Basin sagebrush patch size has been reduced from an average of 820 acres 

to an average of less than 300 acres (from 1966 to 2006), a 63% reduction (NE Wyoming Sage 

Grouse Conservation Plan; 2006). This reduction has come about from a variety of activities 

including wildfire and prescribed burning. 

There were 205 wildfires on the TBNG surface from 2001-2011, averaging19 fires per year. 

(This does not include all wildland fires occurring on private and state lands during this time.) 

The average size of a fire on TBNG during this time was 173.5 acres, with a total of 35,562 acres 

burned. The largest single fire was 5,670 acres, and 5 of the 11 years had more than 2,500 acres 

burned each year. The dominant fuel types on TBNG are Sage-Grouse habitat (sagebrush and 

mixed-grass prairie), with lighting being the primary cause of wildfire (61%), and the railroad 

caused fires being the next most frequent cause (20%), the remaining wildfires are caused by a 

variety of other sources. 

Impacts from wildfires include removal or loss of large tracts of sagebrush habitat, resulting in a 

direst loss of nests, as well as a loss of nesting habitat, hiding cover and winter range. Wildfire 

cans also increasing non-native or exotic grasses or weeds causing additional impacts. For 

example, as cheatgrass invades habitat types it can out-compete many native grasses. With the 

increase in cheatgrass, come potential increases in wildfire. Fire within a cheatgrass invaded 

vegetation type becomes cyclic, fire removes the vegetation, cheatgrass re-grows to denser 

conditions, and creates a fine fuel accumulation ready to burn again at a much reduced fire return 

interval Davies et al, 2011). 

Under this alternative the use of prescribed fire generally is to be designed to maintain or 

improve habitat for desired plants and animals. However, prescribed burning is, by design, used 

to reduce the structure and seral condition when used in sagebrush, and this treatment tool is 

permitted in Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting, and winter range. These treatments impacts could 

result in removal or loss of up to 25% of the sagebrush within a stand and a burn area of up to 80 

acres in size. This type of treatment could result in a localized loss or reduction in nesting, 

wintering, or hiding cover habitat, while at the same time potentially increasing brood rearing 

habitat.

Most of the published literature concludes that fire has a negative effect to sage grouse (Braun 

2006; Knick and Connelly 201; Beck et al 2012, USFWS 2013). A possible shortcoming of this 

research is the lack of studies involving the use of prescribed fire as a tool to thin Wyoming big 

sagebrush stands. Most literature evaluates intensive burning with a resulting near total removal 

of sage brush within the burn area. The use of fire to reduce the density of Wyoming big 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 115

sagebrush within a stand is still unclear. Prescribed fire can be a useful tool to remove conifer 

encroachment into Sage-Grouse habitat, but mechanical treatment was recommended in order to 

provide the most rapid recovery of the sagebrush community (Davies et al 2011).

Cumulative Effects

Effects on Sage-Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

In the Powder River Basin sagebrush patch size has been reduced from an average of 820 acres 

to an average of less than 300 acres (from 1966 to 2006), a 63% reduction (NE Wyoming Sage 

Grouse Conservation Plan; 2006). This reduction has come about from a variety of activities. On 

TBNG wildfires alone burned over 35,500 acres in 11 years, with, over 2,500 acres being burned 

annually 5 of the 11 years. Energy development, wildfire, road development and increased noise 

have also all worked together to fragment and reduce suitable, effective Sage-Grouse habitat on 

the Thunder Basin National Grassland. These impacts and downward trend have occurred over 

the last 11 years under the operations of the current Land and Resource management plan 

(signed in 2002). With all of this considered, the Grassland wide habitat could be expected to 

continue to decrease in effectiveness and size, under this alternative. 

Effects on Sage-Grouse Population Trends TBNG-wide

Sage-Grouse populations have been steadily declining on the TBNG since 2007 with cyclic 

trends declining since 1998. Many of the sage grouse leks also had less than 10 male in 

attendance per lek recorded for 2012. With the above discussion about habitat in mind, it could 

be expected that the grassland wide sage grouse population would continue to decrease. This 

trend, combine with the potential for West Nile in Northeast Wyoming (Taylor et al. 2011), is 

likely to lead to additional reductions in the distribution of Sage-Grouse within Geographic 

Areas, and across the entire National Grassland. 

Sage-Grouse have been selected to indicate the effects of management activities on other species 

relying on the sagebrush ecosystem for all, or a part of their life cycle. Therefore, under this 

Alternative it is expected that similar declines in other sagebrush species and their habitats will 

occur. . As the “No Action” alternative, this alternative provides the least Sage-Grouse and 

sagebrush associated species habitat conservation. 

Alternative B 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

In Priority Sage-Grouse habitats (PPH also known as Core Areas) new road construction would 

be limited to areas with less than 3% habitat disturbance, and allowing only the minimum 

necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. Existing roads not designated in a 

Travel Management Plan would be reclaimed. All travel would remain on designated routes. 

Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there was a neutral or beneficial 

impact to GRSG. Road associated noise would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient 

levels (which are lower in this alternative (20-24 dBA) than Alternative A). All GRSG PPH and 

Important Bird Areas could be designated as SIAs. There would be less disruption of habitat, 
Appendix M Draft EIS

116 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

breeding, and a reduction of road associated mortality. These measures allow less habitat loss 

and disturbance than Alternative A, retaining more suitable habitat. 

Lands and Realty

PPH (Core Habitat) would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH(General Habitat) would be 

managed as an avoidance area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would 

encourage consolidation and acquisition of Sage-Grouse PPH(Core). These conservation 

measures would be more protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E but 

less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted effort to maximize connectivity 

and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PPH.

Range

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH (Core). Many livestock 

improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting 

grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. Fencing would be developed to reflect SageGrouse needs in all Sage-Grouse habitats. Outside of PPH (Core) the potential effects due to 

livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be the same as 

Alternative A. Potential adverse effects to Sage-Grouse habitat could include habitat 

fragmentation due to infra-structure development, habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to 

grasslands for improved livestock forage, and site specific overgrazing during drought years, 

with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other 

vegetative objectives. Related impacts include higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a 

reduction of residual herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover. 

Energy and Minerals 

PPH(Core) would be closed to new coal, energy and non-energy leasable materials, fluid mineral 

leases. Existing leases would have a 4 mile no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Conditions 

of Approval (COAs) would be attached to existing leases during analysis and approval of 

exploration and development activities to minimize or avoid the impacts to Sage-Grouse through 

a project design. Exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, (COAs), and terms 

and conditions (T&Cs) for Sage-Grouse would not be considered within Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat. Outside of PPH (Core), mineral development would be the same as Alternative A. This 

alternative better conserves PPH (Core) Sage-Grouse habitat than alternatives A, D, and E and is 

equal to alternative C. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH (Core) and fuels treatments would 

emphasize protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Suppression and habitat protection would 

be emphasized. In Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) areas within precipitation zones of 12 inches or less, 

fire is not used to treat sagebrush, unless as a last resort for fuel breaks and must be within a 3% 

disturbance limit. This would promote the conservation of habitat and reduce disturbance to 

habitat associated with fire in PPH. In addition, habitat restoration would be a priority. This 

alternative conserves more habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E but conserves less than 

Alternative C.
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 117

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on Sage-Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

Within PPH (Core) the 3% disturbance limitation would limit anthropogenic impacts to SageGrouse structural habitat conditions. With the increased emphasis on fire suppression, reduced 

energy development, noise restrictions, and livestock grazing modifications within PPH (Core), 

overall Sage-Grouse habitat usability should remain stable with a potential for increasing 

increase in areas exceeding the 3% disturbance limitation. Additional protections and directions 

for PGH (General habitat) will further provide habitat protections under this alternative. This 

alternative conserves more habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E but conserves less than 

Alternative C.

Effects on Sage-Grouse Population Trends TBNG-wide

Based upon the above habitat discussion and protections, the Sage-Grouse population would 

have a better chance of developing a stable or upward trend. Many of the documented stressors 

have been reduce in PGH (General Habitat), and in the case of PPH (Core), they may have been 

removed. This alternative would encourage better habitat conditions which would be conducive 

to increased male attendance at more leks across most Geographic Areas. While the potential for 

West Nile has not been removed, the potential for a larger population distributed across the 

landscape would provide a higher potential for more birds to survive an outbreak. The expected 

increase in population trend would also provide the opportunity for sage grouse to re-populate 

Geographic Areas where they are absent or decreasing in Alternative A.

It is expected that this alternative will conserve more habitat for Sage-Grouse and sagebrush 

associated species habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E but conserves less than Alternative C. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel 

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to Sage-Grouse and their habitat than other 

alternatives. In this Alternative conservation measures are generally applied to both PPH (Core 

Habitat) and PGH (General Habitat). Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat areas would be 

managed as ROW exclusion areas for new Right Of Way or Special Use Authorization permits. 

New road construction would be prohibited within 4 miles of active Sage-Grouse leks, and 

avoided in PPH (Core) and PGH (General Habitat). Existing road management would be 

designed to maintain or improve both PPH (Core) and PGH (General Habitat). Road associated 

noise would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient levels (20-24 dBA). Camping and 

other non-motorized recreation would be seasonally prohibited within 4 miles of active SageGrouse leks. There would be less disruption of habitat, breeding, and a reduction of road 

associated mortality. These measures allow the least habitat loss and disturbance of all of the 

Alternatives, retaining more suitable habitat. 

Lands and Realty

Alternative C would have the most protective measures Sage-Grouse. No Sage-Grouse habitat in 

PPH (Core) would be exchanged away. The Forest Service (Forest Service) will strive to acquire 

important private lands in areas identified as Sage-Grouse Special Areas. Alternative C would 
Appendix M Draft EIS

118 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

encourage consolidation and acquisition of Sage-Grouse habitat. This alternative would promote 

the greatest distribution and highest density of suitable Sage-Grouse habitat.

Range

Livestock grazing would be prohibited within Sage-Grouse PPH (Core). All new structural range 

developments and location of supplements would be avoided in both PPH (Core) and PGH 

(General Habitat) unless they can be shown to benefit Sage-Grouse. Grazing and trailing within 

lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats would be avoided during periods of the year 

when these habitats are utilized by Sage-Grouse. Post fire (both prescribed and wildfire) 

monitoring is required in all Sage-Grouse habitat to re-establish grazing. Within Sage-Grouse 

PPH (Core) and PGH (General Habitat), livestock grazing should be excluded from burned areas 

until woody and herbaceous plants achieve Sage-Grouse habitat objectives.

Positive and negative effects can be caused by livestock grazing (Beck and Mitchell 2000). The 

prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would retain the most herbaceous cover for nest 

concealment, and success; reduced predation; and increased chick survival (BER (Manier et al 

2013)). Structural development control would reduce mortalities associated with fence collisions, 

disease such as West Nile when it is associated with stock water development, and habitat 

fragmentation associated with water pipelines. Livestock grazing can also be beneficial in the 

establishment and maintenance of sage grouse leks (Beck and Mitchell .2000), and can stimulate 

forbs and increase their availability (BER (Manier et al 2013)). By monitoring and rest from 

grazing, post-burned habitat is more likely to return to quality Sage-Grouse habitat.

 Energy and Minerals 

No exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, Conditions of Approval (COAs), 

and terms and conditions (T&Cs) will be considered within Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) and PGH 

(General Habitat). Both sage‐grouse PPH (Core) and PGH (General Habitat) areas would be 

closed to fluid mineral leasing. As existing leases expire or are terminated, no new 

nominations/expressions of interest would be accepted for parcels within Sage-Grouse PPH 

(Core) or PGH (General Habitat). Oil and Gas Leasing would not be allowed in Sage-Grouse 

PPH (Core). Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) and 

PGH (General Habitat) to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to 

PPH (Core) and PGH (General) sage‐grouse habitat and would be subject to seasonal restrictions 

that preclude activities in breeding, nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats during their season 

of use by Sage-Grouse. Where existing leases exist in all Sage-Grouse habitat, stipulations for 

the protection of Sage-Grouse or their habitats could be added to Conditions of Approval 

(COAs) when approving exploration and development activities. No construction of evaporation 

or infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater would be allowed. All PPH (Core) 

would be closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing. Sage grouse PPH (Core) areas would be 

closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits.

Conservation measure would be applied to more Sage-Grouse habitat, in many cases both PPH 

(Core) and PGH (General). Habitat effectiveness would be improved and fragmentation 

minimized. Since nearly all of TBNG is in either PPH (Core) or PGH (General Habitat), many of 

these restrictions would be applied grassland wide. This alternative would be the most beneficial 

to Sage-Grouse and their habitat as it relates to energy development.
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 119

Fire and Fuels Management

Within all Sage-Grouse habitat, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Within all Sage-Grouse habitats, 

sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage would be avoided. Also, 

sagebrush canopy cover would generally not be reduced to less than 15% within any sage grouse 

habitat and vegetation treatments in both habitats would be designed to create landscape patterns 

which most benefit sage‐grouse. For all Sage-Grouse habitat, fire would not be used to treat 

sagebrush in precipitation zones with less than 12 inches except as a last resort as a fuel break.

Post fuels management projects will be designed to ensure the long term persistence of seeded or 

pre-treatment native plants, including sagebrush. Any vegetation treatment plan must include 

pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition, establish non-grazing enclosures, and include 

long-term monitoring where treated areas are monitored for at least three years before grazing 

returns. Grazing then should not return to the burn area until woody and herbaceous plants 

achieve Sage-Grouse habitat objectives. No fuels treatments would be allowed in known SageGrouse winter range unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk 

around or in the winter range and will maintain winter range habitat quality. Fuels reduction 

project (roadsides or other areas) in all Sage-Grouse habitat would utilize mowing of grass. In 

PPH (Core) habitat areas, fire suppression to conserve the Sage-Grouse habitat would be 

prioritized immediately after firefighter and public safety.

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in all Sage-Grouse habitat, and suppression 

would be emphasized in PPH (Core). This would promote the conservation of habitat and reduce 

disturbance associated with fire. In addition, habitat restoration would be a priority. These 

measures would help improve overall Sage-Grouse habitat. This alternative conserves more 

sagebrush habitat with higher shrub canopy cover than all other alternatives. This could result in 

a localized increase in nesting, wintering, or hiding cover habitat, while at the same time 

potentially allowing sagebrush encroachment into brood rearing habitat. The loss of fire as a tool 

could also restrict the removal of conifer encroachments into some sagebrush habitats. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on Sage-Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

This alternative provides habitat protections for both PPH (Core) and PGH (General) SageGrouse habitats. This represents the entire Sage-Grouse habitat on TBNG, and the majority of 

the National Grassland, excluding only the coal mine areas and ponderosa pine habitat type. This 

would result in very limited anthropogenic impacts to Sage-Grouse structural habitat conditions. 

With the increased emphasis on fire suppression, reduced energy development, noise restrictions, 

and livestock grazing limitations, overall Sage-Grouse habitat usability should remain stable with 

a high potential for an improving trend. However, there are negative impacts to this alternative 

with the complete exclusion of grazing and the loss of fire to enhance brood rearing habitat and 

conifer removal. These tools, if used properly can assist in the maintenance and improvement of 

some key habitats. Overall, this alternative is the most conservative, and provides more suitable 

habitat than Alternatives A, B, D, and E. 

Effects on Sage-Grouse Population Trends TBNG-wide

Based upon the above habitat discussion and protections, the Sage-Grouse population would 

have a good chance of developing a stable or upward trend. Many of the documented stressors 
Appendix M Draft EIS

120 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

have been reduce or removed in much of the Sage-Grouse habitat across the National Grassland. 

This alternative would encourage better habitat conditions which would be conducive to 

increased male attendance at more leks across most Geographic Areas. While the potential for 

West Nile has not been removed, the potential for a larger population distributed across the 

landscape would provide a higher potential for more birds to survive an outbreak. The expected 

increase in population trend would also provide the opportunity for sage grouse to re-populate 

Geographic Areas where they are absent or decreasing in Alternative A.

This alternative is the most conservative, and provides more suitable habitat for Sage-Grouse and 

sagebrush associated species than Alternatives A, B, D, and E. 

Alternative D 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to alternative A, although alternative D has a 

9% disturbance in PPH and does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses 

in PPH (Core). The potential changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation 

measures would be very similar to but slightly less detrimental to Sage-Grouse than alternative 

A.

Lands and Realty

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH (Core) and connectivity habitat will be 

allowed > 0.25 miles from Sage-Grouse. This is closer than the disturbance allowed under the 

other alternatives except alternative A. 

New rights-of way and special use authorizations in PPH (Core) would generally be excluded; 

those allowed would be subject to the 9% disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat 

loss, and habitat degradation than allowed in alternatives B, C, and E but less disturbance than 

alternative A. These same uses would be allowed in PGH (Core). 

Range

Conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. Grazing management strategies 

would be developed cooperatively with permittees, leasees and other landowners on an 

allotment-by-allotment basis to improve sage grouse habitat. As grazing permits are renewed in 

PPH (Core), sage grouse habitat objectives and management considerations could be 

incorporated. Up to 15% of PPH (Core) could be retired from grazing where permittee or lessee 

voluntarily relinquishes their grazing preference in their grazing allotment. Vegetative 

management and grazing infra-structure is essentially the same as Alternative A. Potential 

adverse effects to Sage-Grouse habitat could include habitat fragmentation due to infra-structure 

development, habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to grasslands for improved livestock forage, 

and site specific overgrazing during drought years, with a potential reduction in cover, structure, 

and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Related impacts include 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 121

higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a reduction of residual herbaceous material 

causing a lack of hiding cover. 

 Energy and Minerals 

Most conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. However, there is a 9% 

disturbance cap that does not exist in alternative A. The lack of conservation measures in 

sagebrush outside of PPH (Core) could lead to increased anthropogenic disturbance of sagegrouse habitat, off road vehicle use, increased traffic on NFS and mineral development roads, 

new road construction, road traffic speed, utility corridor permits or easements, water 

development, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, 

noise, industrial campsites, and the development or removal of mineral materials. 

Fire and Fuels Management

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9% disturbance cap in PPH. This treatment would follow Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse to determining whether 

proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that will contribute toward the 9 percent 

threshold. Treated areas would not be rested from grazing. This allowance alone will promote the 

expansion of noxious weeds and a lack of cover. Also, treatment is permitted in Sage-Grouse 

breeding, nesting, and winter range. These limited conservation measures on PPH (Core) and the 

lack of measures in the remainder of Sage-Grouse habitat would have detrimental impacts on 

Sage-Grouse. This type of management could result in a localized loss or reduction in nesting, 

wintering, or hiding cover habitat, while at the same time potentially increasing brood rearing 

habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Effects on Sage-Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. As displayed in 

Alternative A, there is a downward trend in habitat suitability and availability. The few 

conservation measures included in this Alternative are limited to PPH (Core) habitat, and with 

this only representing 39% of the Sage-Grouse habitat within TBNG, they are not expected to be 

sufficient to create a noticeable change in Sage-Grouse habitat across the planning unit (TBNG). 

With implementation of this Alternative energy development, wildfire, road development and 

increased noise would likely work together to continue to fragment and reduce suitable, effective 

Sage-Grouse habitat on the Thunder Basin National Grassland. 

With all of this considered, the Grassland wide habitat could be expected to continue to decrease 

in effectiveness and size, under this alternative. 

Effects on Sage-Grouse Population Trends TBNG-wide

Since this alternative uses the Alternative A management direction, it is reasonable that the 

population trend associated with the Alternative A management would continue. Sage-Grouse 

populations have been steadily declining on the TBNG since 2007 with cyclic trends declining 

since 1998. Many of the sage grouse leks also had less than 10 male in attendance per lek 

recorded for 2012. With the above discussion about habitat in mind, it could be expected that the 

grassland wide sage grouse population would continue to decrease. This trend, combine with the 

potential for West Nile in Northeast Wyoming (Taylor et al. 2011), is likely to lead to additional 
Appendix M Draft EIS

122 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

reductions in the distribution of Sage-Grouse within Geographic Areas, and across the entire 

National Grassland. 

It is expected that this alternative will conserve more habitat for Sage-Grouse and sagebrush 

associated species habitat than Alternative A but conserves less than Alternative B, C, and E. 

Alternative E 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

New primary and secondary roads would avoid areas within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of 

occupied Sage-Grouse leks within Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) habitat areas. Other new roads 

would avoid areas within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied Sage-Grouse leks within PPH 

(Core) habitat areas. Road construction and re-construction would be completed only to the 

minimum construction needs. Disruptive activities are restricted from 6 pm to 8 am from March 

1 – May 15 on or within a six tenths (0.6) mile radius of the perimeter of occupied Sage-Grouse 

leks inside core habitat and connectivity habitat areas. In addition, noise levels at the 0.6 mile 

perimeter of the lek, should not exceed 10 dBA above ambient noise. Some recreation special 

uses would be allowed in PPH (Core). 

Conservations measures primarily apply to PPH (Core) habitat only. Measures in PPH (Core) 

would be slightly more restrictive than alternatives A and D but less restrictive than alternatives 

B and C .The restriction on road construction or upgrades in PPH (Core) would limit disturbance 

and habitat loss within PPH (Core), but would allow existing conditions to continue in the 

remaining Sage-Grouse habitat. 

Lands and Realty

Sage-Grouse habitat requirements would be used to prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition 

within PPH (Core) core habitats. New projects within Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) habitats would 

include the proposed distribution and transmission lines in their DDCT as part of the proposed 

disturbance. Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) habitat areas would be managed as ROW avoidance areas 

for new ROW or SUA permits.

Again, most conservation actions are taken in PPH (Core) habitats, little or no new protections 

would occur in PGH (General) habitat. Even then some habitat could be lost, degraded or 

disturbed since conservation measures would allow some limited powerlines, some lease 

changes, and activities within 0.6 miles of a lek in PPH (Core). Habitat changes could also occur 

because PPH (Core) can be exchanged to other ownership. Overall, impacts to Sage-Grouse and 

sagebrush habitat would be similar to but slightly reduced compared to alternatives A and D. 

Range

Within Sage-Grouse core habitat, as appropriate, site specific Sage-Grouse habitat objectives and 

management considerations would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals. Livestock 

grazing and associated range improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a way 

that contributes to rangeland health and maintains and/or improves Sage-Grouse and its habitat. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 123

Much of the direction for livestock management remains the same as the current management. 

Conservation measures place slightly more focus on incorporating measures to provide adequate 

habitat quality for Sage-Grouse in PPH (Core) than alternatives A and D. Potential adverse 

effects to Sage-Grouse habitat (primarily in PGH (General) habitat) could include habitat 

fragmentation due to infra-structure development, habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to 

grasslands for improved livestock forage, and site specific overgrazing during drought years, 

with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other 

vegetative objectives. Related impacts include higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a 

reduction of residual herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover. 

 Energy and Minerals 

A maximum of 5% disturbance would be allowed within PPH (Core) habitat using the DDTC. A 

minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral estate would be applied within 

Sage-Grouse PPH (Core) habitat areas. The density of oil and gas or mining activities would be 

considered and evaluated for measures that limit or reduce their activities to no more than an 

average of 1 location per 640 acres. Where existing leases exist in all Sage-Grouse habitat, 

stipulations for the protection of Sage-Grouse or their habitats could be added to Conditions of 

Approval (COAs) when approving exploration and development activities. All non-energy 

leasable and salable mineral activities would be considered in PPH (Core) habitats. The lack of 

conservation measures in sagebrush outside of PPH (Core) could lead to increased anthropogenic 

disturbance of sage- grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, increased traffic on NFS and mineral 

development roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, utility corridor permits or 

easements, water development, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on mineral 

leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and the development or removal of mineral materials. 

Conservation measures would have impacts similar to but more restrictive than alternatives A 

and D. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

A maximum of 5% disturbance would be allowed within PPH (Core) habitat using the DDTC.

Within Sage-Grouse core habitat in northeast Wyoming, vegetation treatments in nesting and 

wintering habitats that would reduce sagebrush canopy to less than 15% would not be conducted 

unless it could be shown to be beneficial to sage grouse. Habitat restoration would be prioritized 

to rehabilitate PPH (core) habitat first. Fuels treatments in PPH (Core) would be designed with 

an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems and enhancing as well as protecting 

future sagebrush ecosystems. Following wildfire, burned lands would be treated as disturbed 

pending an implementation management plan with trend data showing the area was returning to 

functional sage grouse habitat. Multiple tools would be considered for fuels reduction and 

analyze in NEPA compliance documentation before electing to implement prescribed fire in PPH 

(Core) habitat areas. Also within PPH (Core) the use of prescribed fire in areas of Wyoming big 

sagebrush, other xeric sagebrush species, or where cheatgrass or other fire-invasive species occur 

and/or within areas of less than 12 inches of annual precipitation would be avoided. During 

wildfire suppression prioritization, PPH (Core) habitat would be placed immediately after 

firefighter and public safety to conserve the habitat. 

Fire and fuel management again focuses primarily on PPH (Core) habitat for additional 

conservation management, leaving the remaining Sage-Grouse habitat to management similar to 
Appendix M Draft EIS

124 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Alternative A. These conservation measures would make this alternative more beneficial than 

alternatives A or D.

Cumulative Effects

Effects on Sage-Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

This alternative focuses of conservation practices primarily within the PPH (Core) habitat and 

relies on the current management to manage the remaining PGH (General) habitat. Table 1 

depicts NFS acreage on the TBNG and designated Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat acres. Of 

the over one-half million acres of NFS lands that comprise the TBNG, 217,768 acres (~39%) 

have been designated as PPH (Core) habitat.

Table 1: TBNG Acreage and Designated GSG Core Habitat Acres 

Unit

Core Habitat

Acres

General

Habitat Acres

Total Acres 

of Sage 

Grouse 

Habitat

Thunder Basin

National

Grassland 217,768 336,096 553,864

The conservation measures included in this Alternative are limited to PPH (Core) habitat, and 

with this only representing 39% of the Sage-Grouse habitat within TBNG, they are not expected 

to be sufficient to create an adequate change in Sage-Grouse habitat across the planning unit 

(TBNG). With implementation of this Alternative energy development, wildfire, road 

development and increased noise would still work together in the PGH (General) habitat to 

continue to fragment and reduce suitable, effective Sage-Grouse habitat on the Thunder Basin 

National Grassland. 

With all of this considered, the Grassland wide habitat could be expected to continue to decrease 

in effectiveness and size, under this alternative. 

Effects on Sage-Grouse Population Trends TBNG-wide

With 61% of the suitable habitat on TBNG being managed under current management direction, 

it is reasonable to assume that the Sage-Grouse population trend would not change markedly 

from current conditions. While populations might stabilize, and possibly improve within the PPH 

(Core) habitat, that would only represent 39% of the potential population on TBNG. SageGrouse populations have been steadily declining on the TBNG since 2007 with cyclic trends 

declining since 1998. Many of the sage grouse leks also had less than 10 male in attendance per 

lek recorded for 2012. With the above discussion about habitat in mind, it could be expected that 

the grassland wide sage grouse population would continue to decrease. This trend, combine with 

the potential for West Nile in Northeast Wyoming (Taylor et al. 2011), is likely to lead to 

additional reductions in the distribution of Sage-Grouse within Geographic Areas, and across the 

entire National Grassland. 

It is expected that this alternative will conserve more habitat for Sage-Grouse and sagebrush 

associated species habitat than Alternative A and D, but conserves less than Alternative B, and C 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 125

Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) 

Distribution

Sharp-tailed grouse historically were found in Canadian and 21 U.S. states. They ranged from 

Alaska to California and New Mexico, and as far east as Quebec, Canada. It is now extirpated 

from California, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico (Wikipedia on line 

at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp-tailed_Grouse#Distribution). On TBNG, sharp-tailed 

grouse are MIS in only 2 Geographic Areas, the Spring Creek Geographic Area and the 

Upton/Osage Geographic Area. These two areas are also the only areas where sharp-tailed 

grouse are known to reliably occur on TBNG. Other sightings have been reported, but no sharptailed grouse populations have been found within the remaining 4 Geographic Areas.

Habitat Associations and Threats 

The plains sharp-tailed grouse was selected as a management indicator species on TBNG for the 

biological community most often found in grasslands with a diversity of structural stages, 

including an abundance of high structure grasslands. Quality nesting cover on mixed grasslands 

occurs where mid and/or tall grass species are dominant, and ungrazed or lightly grazed cover 

has accumulated over a few years. On less productive mixed-grass prairies that receive an 

average of 14 to 16 inches of precipitation, quality nesting cover is typically found less on 

upland sites and more in the taller and denser cover patches in run-in sites (clumps of tall 

vegetation surrounded by shorter species types or vegetation ) and along drainages become more 

important for nesting. Where long-term grazing has reduced the composition of mid and/or tall 

grass species, quality nesting cover is sometimes unavailable regardless of the grazing intensity. 

Interspersed shrubs and shrub communities also contribute to habitat suitability for this species 

and many other wildlife species. Individual patch sizes of quality nesting cover across pastures 

or range sites should be at least 160 acres in size.

On Thunder Basin National Grassland Sharp-tailed grouse habitat overlaps sage-grouse habitat. 

This specie is found most prominently in the northern portions of the unit that are periodically 

rested from annual livestock grazing or grazed at light intensities. 

Population Status and Trend

Sharp-tailed Grouse do not receive annual monitoring and are primarily monitored by the U.S. 

Forest Service on Thunder Basin National Grassland. The TBNG population has shown an 

overall increasing population trend over the last 10 years (Figure 5). It should be noted that, due 

to concerns about the noticeable decline in lek attendance after the 2007 survey season, 

additional monitoring was implemented. There was a second decline again in 2011, but the 2012 

counts show a recovery and improvement. 

Figure 5. Total Male Sharp-tailed Grouse Observed on TBNG surface from 2003 thru 2012. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

126 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

There would be no changes to the current Thunder Basin National Grassland system roads, 

transportation plan, or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on 

casual use, and some new roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There is a 

current Travel Management Plan in place addressing all non-special use travel on TBNG. 

Restrictions on special uses may apply, but off-road permits are still issued. In general, more 

acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a greater likelihood of habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and disturbance to sharp-tailed grouse. Motorized access to most of TBNG is 

present on authorized roads, and usually means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to 

motorized routes and in habitat. In addition, with increased road use, comes increased noise, 

which has been identified as a specific stressor on grouse. Under this alternative noise associated 

with traffic would not be moderated in sharp-tailed grouse habitat. 

Lands and Realty

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service lands. Some Sharp-tailed grouse 

habitat could be traded to other ownership where it improves habitat for a Region 2 Sensitive 

Species, the parcels are isolated, lands that would reduce boundary conflicts with other 

ownerships, or are otherwise in the public interest. All Forest Service lands would continue to be 

managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to 

allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss, 

fragmentation, or degradation. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or 

invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat. Though most projects would attempt to mitigate 

or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation of habitat. 

Range

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on TBNG. 

Range improvements are designed to not have a direct negative effect on Sharp-tailed grouse. 

Potential adverse effects to sharp-tail grouse habitat could include habitat fragmentation due to 

infra-structure development, moderate to heavy livestock grazing, and site specific overgrazing 

0

50

100

150

200

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Number of Males

Year
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 127

during drought years, with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual 

vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Related impacts include higher nest predation 

and chick mortality due to a reduction of residual herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding 

cover. 

Energy and Minerals 

Energy development consisting of coal, oil, and natural gas, has been a predominant use of 

public lands on the TBNG. Since sharp-tailed grouse are only found in 2 Geographic Areas 

(GA) and only the Spring Creek GA has seen any recent mineral development, the influence of 

energy is relatively low on its habitat. However, the majority of all sharp-tailed grouse habitats 

are open to leasing, including expansion of existing leases, with no cap on surface disturbing 

activities.

Oil and gas development within the Spring Creek GA has had little identifiable impact on sharptailed grouse. Habitat conditions and population trends appear to be more closely related to 

grazing intensity and precipitation. However, the above mentioned energy development may still 

cause some impacts as they relate to the increased anthropogenic disturbance of habitat, off road 

vehicle use, increased traffic on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, 

road traffic speed, utility corridor permits or easements, water development, mineral leasing and 

development, surface occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and the 

development or removal of mineral materials.

Fire and Fuels Management 

In the Powder River Basin sagebrush patch size has been reduced from an average of 820 acres 

to an average of less than 300 acres (from 1966 to 2006), a 63% reduction (NE Wyoming Sage 

Grouse Conservation Plan; 2006). This reduction has come about from a variety of activities 

including wildfire and prescribed burning. In several cases, these prescribed burns have been 

designed to specifically improve sharp-tailed grouse habitat. Since these grouse prefer tall, 

ungrazed to lightly grazed grasslands both prescribed and wild fire have provided benefits to 

this bird’s habitat condition.

Cumulative Effects

Effects on Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide 

Sharp-tailed grouse habitat can be influenced by the amount of precipitation, and based upon 

recent drought conditions it is expected that the overall habitat conditions on TBNG are in 

decline. With all of this considered, under this alternative the Grassland wide habitat could be 

expected to continue to decrease in effectiveness and size until moisture levels improve. 

 Effects on Sharp-tailed Grouse Population Trends TBNG-wide

Sharp-tailed grouse populations have been steadily increasing since 2007, with a slight decrease 

in 2011. This trend has developed under the current management direction, and is expected to 

continue. Viability is defined in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), as maintaining 

abundance and distribution across the planning unit. Current management standards in the 

TBNG Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) have demonstrated that they are sufficient 

to maintain viability across the planning unit.
Appendix M Draft EIS

128 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Alternative B 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

In Priority sage-grouse habitats (PPH also known as Core Areas) new road construction would 

be limited to areas with less than 3% habitat disturbance, and allowing only the minimum 

necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. Existing roads not designated in a 

Travel Management Plan would be reclaimed. All travel would remain on designated routes. 

Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there was a neutral or beneficial 

impact to GRSG. Road associated noise would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient 

levels (which are lower in this alternative (20-24 dBA) than Alternative A). All GRSG PPH and 

Important Bird Areas could be designated as SIAs. There would be less disruption of sharptailed grouse habitat, breeding, and a reduction of road associated mortality. These measures 

allow less habitat loss and disturbance than Alternative A, retaining more suitable habitat. 

Lands and Realty

PPH (Core) would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH would be managed as an 

avoidance area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage 

consolidation and acquisition of sage-grouse PPH (Core). These conservation measures would be 

more protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E but less protective than 

Alternative C. These conservation measures would also provide habitat protection for sharptailed grouse. 

Range

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH (Core). Many livestock 

improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting 

grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. Fencing would be developed to reflect sage-grouse 

needs in all sage-grouse habitats. Outside of PPH (Core) the potential effects due to livestock 

grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be the same as Alternative A. 

Potential adverse effects to sharp-tailed grouse habitat could include habitat fragmentation due to 

infra-structure development and site specific overgrazing during drought years, with a potential 

reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other vegetative 

objectives. Inside of PPH (Core) the focus on lighter grazing would also provide additional 

positive impact for sharp-tailed grouse in the form of higher residual grasses. 

Energy and Minerals 

PPH(Core) would be closed to new coal, energy and non-energy leasable materials, fluid mineral 

leases. Existing leases would have a 4 mile no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Conditions 

of Approval (COAs) would be attached to existing leases during analysis and approval of 

exploration and development activities to minimize or avoid the impacts to sage-grouse through 

a project design. Exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, (COAs), and terms 

and conditions (T&Cs) for sage-grouse would not be considered within sage-grouse priority 

habitat. Outside of PPH (Core), mineral development would be the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts associated with anthropomorphic disturbances would be reduced for sharp-tailed grouse, 

improving the quality of the available habitat. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 129

Fire and Fuels Management 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH (Core) and fuels treatments would 

emphasize protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Suppression and habitat protection would 

be emphasized. In sage-grouse PPH (Core) areas within precipitation zones of 12 inches or less, 

fire is not used to treat sagebrush, unless as a last resort for fuel breaks and must be within a 3% 

disturbance limit. Fire can provide improved habitat conditions for sharp-tailed grouse by 

increasing grassland habitat and reducing shrub species. In several cases, prescribed burns have 

been designed to specifically improve sharp-tailed grouse habitat. The reduction of fire could 

slow the establishment of new or expanded sharp-tailed habitat.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

Under this alternative sharp-tailed grouse habitat is expected to be maintained or improve 

slightly. The reduction in the availability of fire is expected to contribute to a slower expansion 

of the habitat, but other conservation measures would off-set this by precluding impacts to 

existing habitat.

Effects on Population Trends TBNG-wide

Sharp-tailed Grouse populations have been steadily increasing since 2007, with a slight decrease 

in 2011. This trend has developed under the current management direction, and since this 

alternative would provide increased habitat protections, it is expected to continue. Viability is 

defined in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), as maintaining abundance and 

distribution across the planning unit. Current management standards in the TBNG Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) have demonstrated that they are sufficient to maintain 

viability across the planning unit. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

In this Alternative conservation measures are generally applied to both PPH (Core Habitat) and 

PGH (General Habitat). Sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas would be managed as 

ROW exclusion areas for new Right Of Way or Special Use Authorization permits. New road 

construction would be prohibited within 4 miles of active sage-grouse leks, and avoided in PPH 

(Core) and PGH (General Habitat). Existing road management would be designed to maintain or 

improve both PPH (Core) and PGH (General Habitat). Road associated noise would be limited to 

less than 10 decibels above ambient levels (20-24 dBA). Camping and other non-motorized 

recreation would be seasonally prohibited within 4 miles of active sage-grouse leks. There would 

be less disruption of sharp-tailed grouse habitat, breeding, and a reduction of road associated 

mortality. 

Lands and Realty

No sage-grouse habitat in PPH (Core) would be exchanged away. The Forest Service (Forest 

Service) will strive to acquire important private lands in areas identified as Sage-Grouse Special 

Areas. Alternative C would encourage consolidation and acquisition of sage-grouse habitat. This 

could cause the loss of some sharp-tailed grouse habitat in exchange for sage-grouse habitat.
Appendix M Draft EIS

130 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Range

Livestock grazing would be prohibited within sage-grouse PPH (Core). All new structural range 

developments and location of supplements would be avoided in both PPH (Core) and PGH 

(General Habitat) unless they can be shown to benefit sage-grouse. Grazing and trailing within 

lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats would be avoided during periods of the year 

when these habitats are utilized by sage-grouse. Post fire (both prescribed and wildfire) 

monitoring is required in all sage-grouse habitat to re-establish grazing. Within sage-grouse PPH 

(Core) and PGH (General Habitat), livestock grazing should be excluded from burned areas until 

woody and herbaceous plants achieve sage-grouse habitat objectives. Since sharp-tailed grouse 

generally thrive in ungrazed of lightly grazed areas, these conservation measures would be a 

benefit to sharp-tailed grouse.

Energy and Minerals 

No exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, Conditions of Approval (COAs), 

and terms and conditions (T&Cs) will be considered within sage-grouse PPH (Core) and PGH 

(General Habitat). Both sage‐grouse PPH (Core) and PGH (General Habitat) areas would be 

closed to fluid mineral leasing. As existing leases expire or are terminated, no new 

nominations/expressions of interest would be accepted for parcels within sage-grouse PPH 

(Core) or PGH (General Habitat). Oil and Gas Leasing would not be allowed in sage-grouse PPH 

(Core). Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in sage-grouse PPH (Core) and PGH 

(General Habitat) to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to PPH 

(Core) and PGH (General) sage‐grouse habitat and would be subject to seasonal restrictions that 

preclude activities in breeding, nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats during their season of 

use by sage-grouse. Where existing leases exist in all sage-grouse habitat, stipulations for the 

protection of sage-grouse or their habitats could be added to Conditions of Approval (COAs) 

when approving exploration and development activities. No construction of evaporation or 

infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater would be allowed. All PPH (Core) 

would be closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing. Sage grouse PPH (Core) areas would be 

closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits.

Restrictions to energy development generally reduce the impacts to sharp-tailed grouse by 

reducing anthropogenic disruptions to the birds and their habitat. Noise, habitat fragmentation, 

and increased loss of habitat would be reduced under this alternative. 

Fire and Fuels Management

Within all sage-grouse habitat, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Within all sage-grouse habitats, 

sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage would be avoided. Also, 

sagebrush canopy cover would generally not be reduced to less than 15% within any sage grouse 

habitat and vegetation treatments in both habitats would be designed to create landscape patterns 

which most benefit sage‐grouse. For all sage-grouse habitat, fire would not be used to treat 

sagebrush in precipitation zones with less than 12 inches except as a last resort as a fuel break.

Post fuels management projects will be designed to ensure the long term persistence of seeded or 

pre-treatment native plants, including sagebrush. Any vegetation treatment plan must include 

pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition, establish non-grazing enclosures, and include 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 131

long-term monitoring where treated areas are monitored for at least three years before grazing 

returns. Grazing then should not return to the burn area until woody and herbaceous plants 

achieve sage-grouse habitat objectives. No fuels treatments would be allowed in known sagegrouse winter range unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk 

around or in the winter range and will maintain winter range habitat quality. Fuels reduction 

project (roadsides or other areas) in all sage-grouse habitat would utilize mowing of grass. In 

PPH (Core) habitat areas, fire suppression to conserve the sage-grouse habitat would be 

prioritized immediately after firefighter and public safety.

Fire can provide improved habitat conditions for sharp-tailed grouse by increasing grassland 

habitat and reducing shrub species. In several cases, prescribed burns have been designed to 

specifically improve sharp-tailed grouse habitat. The reduction of fire could slow the 

establishment of new or expanded sharp-tailed habitat, however, the deferment of grazing in 

burned areas would promote sharp-tailed grouse habitat.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

Under this alternative sharp-tailed grouse habitat is expected to be maintained or improve 

slightly. The reduction in the availability of fire is expected to contribute to a slower expansion 

of the habitat, but other conservation measures would off-set this by precluding impacts to 

existing habitat.

Effects on Population Trends TBNG-wide

Sharp-tailed Grouse populations have been steadily increasing since 2007, with a slight decrease 

in 2011. This trend has developed under the current management direction, and since this 

alternative would provide increased habitat protections, it is expected to continue. Viability is 

defined in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), as maintaining abundance and 

distribution across the planning unit. Current management standards in the TBNG Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) have demonstrated that they are sufficient to maintain 

viability across the planning unit. 

Alternative D 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sharp-tailed 

grouse habitat. Most measures are similar to alternative A, although alternative D has a 9% 

disturbance in PPH and does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses in 

PPH (Core). The potential changes in sharp-tailed grouse habitat would be very similar to but 

slightly less detrimental than alternative A.

Lands and Realty

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH (Core) and connectivity habitat will be 

allowed > 0.25 miles from sage-grouse leks. New rights-of way and special use authorizations in 

PPH (Core) would generally be excluded; those allowed would be subject to the 9% disturbance 
Appendix M Draft EIS

132 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

limit. For Sharp-tailed grouse, this is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation than 

allowed in alternatives B, C, and E but less disturbance than alternative A. 

Range

Conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. Grazing management strategies 

would be developed cooperatively with permittees, leasees and other landowners on an 

allotment-by-allotment basis to improve sage grouse habitat. As grazing permits are renewed in 

PPH (Core), sage grouse habitat objectives and management considerations could be 

incorporated. Up to 15% of PPH (Core) could be retired from grazing where permittee or lessee 

voluntarily relinquishes their grazing preference in their grazing allotment. Vegetative 

management and grazing infra-structure is essentially the same as Alternative A. With an 

expected move toward lighter grazing to enhance sage-grouse habitat and up to 15% of the PPH 

(Core) having grazing removed, this alternative would provide more, high quality habitat than 

Alternative A, but not as much as in Alternatives B, C, and E. 

 Energy and Minerals 

Most conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. However, there is a 9% 

disturbance cap that does not exist in alternative A. Since sharp-tailed grouse are only found in 2 

Geographic Areas (GA) and only the Spring Creek GA has seen any recent mineral 

development, the influence of energy is relatively low on its habitat. However, the majority of 

all sharp-tailed grouse habitats are open to leasing, including expansion of existing leases, but 

much of the Spring Creek GA falls into a designated PPH (Core) and therefor would be subject 

to the 9% disturbance cap. 

However, within the above mentioned disturbance cap, there may still be some impacts as they 

relate to the increased anthropogenic disturbance of habitat, off road vehicle use, increased 

traffic on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, utility 

corridor permits or easements, water development, mineral leasing and development, surface 

occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and the development or removal 

of mineral materials. The lack of conservation measures in sagebrush outside of PPH (Core) 

could also lead to these same increased anthropogenic disturbances, only they could be greater 

since there would be no cap on the disturbance. 

Fire and Fuels Management

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9% disturbance cap in PPH (Core). Treated areas would not be rested from grazing. Also, 

treatment is permitted in sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and winter range. In several cases, these 

prescribed burns have been designed to specifically improve sharp-tailed grouse habitat. Since 

these grouse prefer tall, ungrazed to lightly grazed grasslands both prescribed and wild fire have 

provided benefits to this bird’s habitat condition. The only adverse effect would be the limitation 

of a 9% disturbance, which could prevent increased habitat growth in some areas. 

Cumulative Effects

Effects on Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

Under this alternative sharp-tailed grouse habitat is expected to be maintained or improve 

slightly. The 9% disturbance cap could cause a reduction in habitat improvement projects 

associated with sagebrush removal in some cases. This is expected to contribute to a slower 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 133

expansion of the habitat, but overall sharp-tailed grouse habitat is expected to remain stable or 

increase.

Effects on Population Trends TBNG-wide

Sharp-tailed Grouse populations have been steadily increasing since 2007, with a slight decrease 

in 2011. This trend has developed under the current management direction, and since this 

alternative would provide increased habitat protections, it is expected to continue. Viability is 

defined in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), as maintaining abundance and 

distribution across the planning unit. Current management standards in the TBNG Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) have demonstrated that they are sufficient to maintain 

viability across the planning unit. 

Alternative E 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

New primary and secondary roads would avoid areas within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within sage-grouse PPH (Core) habitat areas. Other new roads would 

avoid areas within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks within PPH (Core) 

habitat areas. Road construction and re-construction would be completed only to the minimum 

construction needs. Disruptive activities are restricted from 6 pm to 8 am from March 1 – May 

15 on or within a six tenths (0.6) mile radius of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks inside 

core habitat and connectivity habitat areas. In addition, noise levels at the 0.6 mile perimeter of 

the lek, should not exceed 10 dBA above ambient noise. Some recreation special uses would be 

allowed in PPH (Core). 

Conservations measures primarily apply to PPH (Core) habitat only. Measures in PPH (Core) 

would be slightly more restrictive than alternatives A and D but less restrictive than alternatives 

B and C .The restriction on road construction or upgrades in PPH (Core) would limit disturbance 

and habitat loss within PPH (Core), but would allow existing conditions to continue in the 

remaining Sharp-tailed grouse habitat. 

Lands and Realty

Sage-grouse habitat requirements would be used to prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition 

within PPH (Core) core habitats. New projects within sage-grouse PPH (Core) habitats would 

include the proposed distribution and transmission lines in their DDCT as part of the proposed 

disturbance. Sage-grouse PPH (Core) habitat areas would be managed as ROW avoidance areas 

for new ROW or SUA permits.

Sharp-tailed grouse would benefit from conservation measures restricting anthropomorphic 

activities, but could see a loss of habitat if habitat were identified for disposal in favor of sagegrouse habitat. 

Range

Within sage-grouse core habitat, as appropriate, site specific sage-grouse habitat objectives and 

management considerations would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals. Livestock 

grazing and associated range improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a way 

that contributes to rangeland health and maintains and/or improves sage-grouse and its habitat. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

134 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Much of the direction for livestock management remains the same as the current management. 

In some cases, emphasizing sage-grouse habitat could de-emphasize sharp-tailed grouse habitat. 

For example, increased sagebrush retention would not be in the best interest for sharp-tailed 

grouse. Other impacts could include habitat fragmentation due to infra-structure development, 

habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to grasslands for improved livestock forage, and site 

specific overgrazing during drought years, with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and 

diversity of residual vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Related impacts include 

higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a reduction of residual herbaceous material 

causing a lack of hiding cover. 

 Energy and Minerals 

A maximum of 5% disturbance would be allowed within PPH (Core) habitat using the DDTC. A 

minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral estate would be applied within 

sage-grouse PPH (Core) habitat areas. The density of oil and gas or mining activities would be 

considered and evaluated for measures that limit or reduce their activities to no more than an 

average of 1 location per 640 acres. Where existing leases exist in all sage-grouse habitat, 

stipulations for the protection of sage-grouse or their habitats could be added to Conditions of 

Approval (COAs) when approving exploration and development activities. All non-energy 

leasable and salable mineral activities would be considered in PPH (Core) habitats. 

The lack of conservation measures in sagebrush outside of PPH (Core) could lead to increased 

anthropogenic disturbance of sharp-tailed grouse habitat, off road vehicle use, increased traffic 

on NFS and mineral development roads, new road construction, road traffic speed, utility 

corridor permits or easements, water development, mineral leasing and development, surface 

occupancy on mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and the development or removal 

of mineral materials.. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

A maximum of 5% disturbance would be allowed within PPH (Core) habitat using the DDTC.

Within sage-grouse core habitat in northeast Wyoming, vegetation treatments in nesting and 

wintering habitats that would reduce sagebrush canopy to less than 15% would not be conducted 

unless it could be shown to be beneficial to sage grouse. Habitat restoration would be prioritized 

to rehabilitate PPH (core) habitat first. Fuels treatments in PPH (Core) would be designed with 

an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems and enhancing as well as protecting 

future sagebrush ecosystems. Following wildfire, burned lands would be treated as disturbed 

pending an implementation management plan with trend data showing the area was returning to 

functional sage grouse habitat. Multiple tools would be considered for fuels reduction and 

analyze in NEPA compliance documentation before electing to implement prescribed fire in PPH 

(Core) habitat areas. Also within PPH (Core) the use of prescribed fire in areas of Wyoming big 

sagebrush, other xeric sagebrush species, or where cheatgrass or other fire-invasive species occur 

and/or within areas of less than 12 inches of annual precipitation would be avoided. During 

wildfire suppression prioritization, PPH (Core) habitat would be placed immediately after 

firefighter and public safety to conserve the habitat. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 135

Fire can provide improved habitat conditions for sharp-tailed grouse by increasing grassland 

habitat and reducing shrub species. In several cases, prescribed burns have been designed to 

specifically improve sharp-tailed grouse habitat. The reduction of fire and the 5 % disturbance 

cap could slow the establishment of new or expanded sharp-tailed habitat.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

Under this alternative sharp-tailed grouse habitat is expected to be maintained or improve 

slightly. The reduction in the availability of fire is expected to contribute to a slower expansion 

of the habitat, but other conservation measures would off-set this by precluding impacts to 

existing habitat.

Effects on Population Trends TBNG-wide

Sharp-tailed Grouse populations have been steadily increasing since 2007, with a slight decrease 

in 2011. This trend has developed under the current management direction, and since this 

alternative would provide increased habitat protections, it is expected to continue. Viability is 

defined in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), as maintaining abundance and 

distribution across the planning unit. Current management standards in the TBNG Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) have demonstrated that they are sufficient to maintain 

viability across the planning unit. 

Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) 

Distribution

Black-tailed prairie dogs (prairie dogs) historically ranged throughout the Great Plains in shortgrass and mixed-grass prairies. This R2 sensitive Species is a common resident in the short- and 

mid-grass habitats of eastern Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). The TBNG harbors one of the 

seven major colony complexes remaining in North America. 

Habitat Associations and Threats 

This species is also a common resident in the short- and mid-grass habitats of eastern Wyoming 

(Cerovski et al. 2004). The TBNG harbors one of the seven major colony complexes remaining 

in North America. Black-tailed prairie dogs are highly social, diurnal burrowing rodents that 

typically feed on grasses and forbs. Prairie dogs form colonies that are the main unit of a prairie 

dog population. Black-tailed prairie dog abundance and occupied acreage have been 

dramatically reduced throughout its historic range, and continue to exhibit a slow decline 

(NatureServe 2004). Major factors contributing to the reduction include disease (sylvatic 

plague), urbanization, habitat conversion, and control efforts. Additional information (including 

population trend) on the black-tailed prairie dog will be provided as a part of the Management 

Indicator Species section of this report. 

Population Status and Trend

The black-tailed prairie dog is selected as a MIS on TBNG for low structure grasslands and the 

biological community associated with prairie dog colonies (Forest Service 2002, Appendix H). 

MIS for TBNG are identified by Geographic Area. In accordance with the Grassland Plan 

(Forest Service 2002), the black-tailed prairie dog is designated as the Management Indicator 

Species to be evaluated for 2 of the 6 Geographic Areas, however they occur in all 6 Geographic 

areas at some level. Prairie dogs form colonies that are the main unit of a prairie dog population. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

136 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Population monitoring for prairie dogs has been found to be difficult to track over time. It has 

become the accepted norm to use acres of occupied habitat as a surrogate to direct population 

monitoring. This species has the ability to rapidly expand its distribution and population if not 

limited by pest control practices or disease, and will readily spread into recently disturbed areas. 

The area occupied by BTPDs has declined to approximately 2% of its former range. Conversions 

of habitat to other land uses and widespread prairie dog eradication efforts combined with 

sylvatic plague spread by fleas (Yersinia pestis), have caused significant population reductions. 

Although, the species itself is not in imminent jeopardy of extinction, its unique ecosystem is 

jeopardized by continuing fragmentation and isolation (USFWS, 2009).Of the 2% of their 

original range that prairie dogs still occupy, 1.5% occur on tribal lands, 0.33% occur on federal 

lands, and only .08% occur on private lands (Miller et al., 2007). 

Estimated total active acres of prairie dog colonies within the TBNG from 1996-1997 and

from 2001-2012 are illustrated in Figure 4. Colony acreages experienced a significant 

reduction from 1997 through 2000 due to plague outbreak. In 2006 the number of estimated

acres of active prairie dogs fell to nearly the 2004 numbers due to continuing plague. All active 

prairie dog colonies on TBNG are mapped annually. The population for 2012 occupies 16,638

acres. 

Black-tailed prairie dogs and Greater Sage-Grouse share some of the same habitats. Historically 

on TBNG sage-grouse have used prairie dog colonies for lekking and foraging habitat. 

Figure 4: Prairie Dog Acres - TBNG

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Acres

Year
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 137

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

There would be no changes to the current Thunder Basin National Grassland system roads, 

transportation plan, or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on 

casual use, and some new roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There is a 

current Travel Management Plan in place addresses all non-special use travel on TBNG. 

Restrictions on special uses may apply, but off-road permits are still issued. Motorized access to 

most of TBNG is present on authorized roads, and usually means higher concentrations of 

human use adjacent to motorized routes and in habitat. In general, more acres and lineal miles of 

routes and use equate to a greater likelihood of ground disturbance, and the increased potential 

for prairie dog expansion. 

Lands and Realty

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service lands. As a Region 2 Sensitive 

Species, prairie dog habitat acquisition may be emphasized, however, some habitat could be 

traded to other ownership where the parcels are isolated, lands that would reduce boundary 

conflicts with other ownerships, or are otherwise in the public interest. All Forest Service lands 

would continue to be managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted 

ROWs would continue to allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may 

result in ground disturbing activities that could encourage colony expansion. 

Range

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on TBNG. 

Sagebrush fragmentation due to infra-structure development, habitat conversion of sagebrush 

stands to grasslands for improved livestock forage, and site specific overgrazing during drought 

years, with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet 

other vegetative objectives can provide or improve prairie dog habitat conditions. 

Energy and Minerals 

Energy development consisting of coal, oil, and natural gas, has been a predominant use of 

public lands on the TBNG. The majority of TBNG habitats are open to leasing, including 

expansion of existing leases, with no cap on surface disturbing activities. Disturbances such as 

roads, pipelines, and staging areas or abandon drill pads create improved habitat conditions and 

travel corridors through sagebrush and other tall vegetation. As these disturbances increase, the 

potential spread of prairie dog colonies also increases. 

Fire and Fuels Management

Fire is a habitat disturbance factor in the Powder River Basin. Across the basin sagebrush patch 

size has been reduced from an average of 820 acres to an average of less than 300 acres (from 

1966 to 2006), a 63% reduction (NE Wyoming Sage Grouse Conservation Plan; 2006). This 

reduction has come about from a variety of activities including wildfire and prescribed burning. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

138 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Under this alternative the use of prescribed fire generally is to be designed to maintain or 

improve habitat for desired plants and animals. Prescribed burning is, by design, used to reduce 

the structure and seral condition when used in sagebrush, and this treatment tool is permitted 

throughout TBNG. These treatments impacts could result in removal or loss of up to 25% of the 

sagebrush within a stand and a burn area of up to 80 acres in size. As fire (both prescribed and 

wildfire) reduces structural diversity in these sagebrush stands, it creates conditions that allow 

easier colonization by prairie dogs, and generally is seen as a positive for improving their habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

Under the Alternative A, black-tailed prairie dogs are managed following a formal management 

strategy that directs the management of prairie dogs and their habitat. Currently prairie dogs are 

found on 16,638 acres of TBNG, distributed in all Geographic Areas. The current LRMP has 

established the Management Area (MA) 3.63 where black-tailed prairie dogs management is 

actively and intensively managed. This MA makes up 44,420 acres of the National Grassland. 

Within this MA, 10,974 acres are currently occupied. The current trend in habitat is upward, 

especially in light of a recent drought and its associated reduction in herbaceous structure. 

With all of this considered, the Grassland wide habitat could be expected to continue to increase 

in effectiveness and size under this alternative. 

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Population Trends TBNG-wide

Plague has been found on TBNG since 2002. This disease has had devastating impacts to the 

TBNG prairie dog populations since then, reaching a low of 3,243 acres of occupied habitat in 

2007. The population has steadily increased since then, now populating over 16,600 acres. The 

current management encourages the continued growth of prairie dogs across the TBNG. 

Viability is defined in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), as maintaining abundance 

and distribution across the planning unit. Current management standards in the TBNG Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) have demonstrated that they are sufficient to maintain 

viability across the planning unit. 

Alternative B 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

In Priority sage-grouse habitats (PPH also known as Core Areas) new road construction would 

be limited to areas with less than 3% habitat disturbance, and allowing only the minimum 

necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. Existing roads not designated in a 

Travel Management Plan would be reclaimed. All travel would remain on designated routes. 

Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there was a neutral or beneficial 

impact to GRSG. Road associated noise would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient 

levels (which are lower in this alternative (20-24 dBA) than Alternative A). All GRSG PPH and 

Important Bird Areas could be designated as SIAs. These restrictions would reduce the amount 

of growth of prairie dog habitat within the PPH (Core) habitats. Outside of PPH (Core) the 

management would continue similar to Alternative A, which encourages prairie dog growth. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 139

Lands and Realty

PPH (Core Habitat) would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH(General Habitat) would be 

managed as an avoidance area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would 

encourage consolidation and acquisition of sage-grouse PPH (Core). These conservation 

measures would be more impactive than conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E but 

less impactive than Alternative C. 

Range

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH (Core). Many livestock 

improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting 

grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. Fencing would be developed to reflect sage-grouse 

needs in all sage-grouse habitats. Outside of PPH (Core) the potential effects due to livestock 

grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be the same as Alternative A. 

These restrictions would reduce the amount of growth of prairie dog habitat within the PPH 

(Core) habitats. Outside of PPH (Core) the management would continue similar to Alternative A, 

which encourages prairie dog growth. 

Energy and Minerals 

PPH(Core) would be closed to new coal, energy and non-energy leasable materials, fluid mineral 

leases. Existing leases would have a 4 mile no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Conditions 

of Approval (COAs) would be attached to existing leases during analysis and approval of 

exploration and development activities to minimize or avoid the impacts to sage-grouse through 

a project design. Exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, (COAs), and terms 

and conditions (T&Cs) for sage-grouse would not be considered within sage-grouse priority 

habitat. Outside of PPH (Core), mineral development would be the same as Alternative A. These 

restrictions would reduce the amount of growth of prairie dog habitat within the PPH (Core) 

habitats. Outside of PPH (Core) the management would continue similar to Alternative A, which 

encourages prairie dog growth 

Fire and Fuels Management 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH(Core) and fuels treatments would 

emphasize protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Suppression and habitat protection would 

be emphasized. In sage-grouse PPH (Core) areas within precipitation zones of 12 inches or less, 

fire is not used to treat sagebrush, unless as a last resort for fuel breaks and must be within a 3% 

disturbance limit. With the reduction of fire within sage-grouse PPH (Core), the expansion of 

prairie dog habitat could be limited due to the lack of this type of vegetation disturbance. Outside 

of PPH (Core) the management would continue similar to Alternative A, which encourages 

prairie dog growth 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

Within PPH (Core) the 3% disturbance limitation would limit anthropogenic impacts and thus 

reduce the disturbance factor that promotes prairie dog expiation. With the increased emphasis 

on fire suppression, reduced energy development, and livestock grazing modifications within 

PPH (Core), overall prairie dog habitat usability should remain stable with a potential for 

decreasing. Additional protections and directions for PGH (General habitat) will further habitat 

expansion this alternative. This alternative is more impactive to prairie dog habitat than 
Appendix M Draft EIS

140 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Alternatives A, D, and E but promotes more than Alternative C. However, specific habitat 

management direction for prairie dogs and MA 3.63 insure that sufficient habitat will remain to 

support desired prairie dog levels. 

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Population Trends TBNG-wide

With the prairie dog management strategy in place, and in the absence of a plague outbreak, the 

current population trend is expected to continue to increase, although possibly at a slower rate 

due to the lack of anthropogenic influences. 

Viability is defined in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), as maintaining abundance 

and distribution across the planning unit. With prairie dogs occurring in all Geographic Areas 

and with the current Prairie Dog Management strategy in place this Alternative it is expected to 

maintain a viable population of black-tailed prairie dogs across the planning unit. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

Conservation measure in this Alternative would be more restrictive to prairie dogs and their 

habitat than other alternatives. In this Alternative conservation measures are generally applied to 

both PPH (Core Habitat) and PGH (General Habitat). Sage-grouse priority and general habitat 

areas would be managed as ROW exclusion areas for new Right Of Way or Special Use 

Authorization permits. New road construction would be prohibited within 4 miles of active 

sage-grouse leks, and avoided in PPH (Core) and PGH (General Habitat). Existing road 

management would be designed to maintain or improve both PPH (Core) and PGH (General 

Habitat). Camping and other non-motorized recreation would be seasonally prohibited within 4 

miles of active sage-grouse leks. There would be less disruptive activities. Conservation measure 

in this Alternative would be more restrictive to prairie dogs and their habitat development than 

other alternatives and would promote the least amount of expansion of prairie dog colonies. 

Lands and Realty

No sage-grouse habitat in PPH (Core) would be exchanged away. The Forest Service (Forest 

Service) will strive to acquire important private lands in areas identified as Sage-Grouse Special 

Areas. Alternative C would encourage consolidation and acquisition of sage-grouse habitat. This 

alternative would promote the greatest distribution and highest density of high structure habitat. 

With the emphasis on sage-grouse habitat, exchanges to promote prairie dog habitat acquisition 

would most likely be reduced. 

Range

Livestock grazing would be prohibited within sage-grouse PPH (Core). All new structural range 

developments and location of supplements would be avoided in both PPH (Core) and PGH 

(General Habitat) unless they can be shown to benefit sage-grouse. Grazing and trailing within 

lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats would be avoided during periods of the year 

when these habitats are utilized by sage-grouse. 

The prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH (core) would reduce ground disturbance and 

vegetation utilization. Both of these activities are effective in creating prairie dog habitat. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 141

Structural development control would further reduce habitat modifications from construction 

associated with new fence building, waterline development, and stock water developments. The 

trailing of livestock can also be beneficial by breaking up sagebrush stands and creating areas of 

low vegetation and bare ground which is susceptible to prairie dog colonization. 

 Energy and Minerals 

No exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, Conditions of Approval (COAs), 

and terms and conditions (T&Cs) will be considered within sage-grouse PPH (Core) and PGH 

(General Habitat). Both sage‐grouse PPH (Core) and PGH (General Habitat) areas would be 

closed to fluid mineral leasing. As existing leases expire or are terminated, no new 

nominations/expressions of interest would be accepted for parcels within sage-grouse PPH 

(Core) or PGH (General Habitat). Oil and Gas Leasing would not be allowed in sage-grouse PPH 

(Core). Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in sage-grouse PPH (Core) and PGH 

(General Habitat) to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to PPH 

(Core) and PGH (General) sage‐grouse habitat and would be subject to seasonal restrictions that 

preclude activities in breeding, nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats during their season of 

use by sage-grouse. Where existing leases exist in all sage-grouse habitat, stipulations for the 

protection of sage-grouse or their habitats could be added to Conditions of Approval (COAs) 

when approving exploration and development activities. No construction of evaporation or 

infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater would be allowed. All PPH (Core) 

would be closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing. Sage grouse PPH (Core) areas would be 

closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits.

The above sage-grouse conservation measures are designed to reduce or eliminate ground 

disturbing activities associated with mineral development. These conservation measure would be 

applied to more sage-grouse habitat, in many cases both PPH (Core) and PGH (General). Blacktailed prairie dog habitat effectiveness would be reduced. Since nearly all of TBNG is in either 

PPH (Core) or PGH (General Habitat), many of these restrictions would be applied grassland 

wide.

Fire and Fuels Management

Within all sage-grouse habitat, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Within all sage-grouse habitats, 

sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage would be avoided. Also, 

sagebrush canopy cover would generally not be reduced to less than 15% within any sage grouse 

habitat and vegetation treatments in both habitats would be designed to create landscape patterns 

which most benefit sage‐grouse. For all sage-grouse habitat, fire would not be used to treat 

sagebrush in precipitation zones with less than 12 inches except as a last resort as a fuel break.

Post fuels management projects will be designed to ensure the long term persistence of seeded or 

pre-treatment native plants, including sagebrush. Any vegetation treatment plan must include 

pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition, establish non-grazing enclosures, and include 

long-term monitoring where treated areas are monitored for at least three years before grazing 

returns. Grazing then should not return to the burn area until woody and herbaceous plants 

achieve sage-grouse habitat objectives. No fuels treatments would be allowed in known sagegrouse winter range unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk 

around or in the winter range and will maintain winter range habitat quality. Fuels reduction 
Appendix M Draft EIS

142 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

project (roadsides or other areas) in all sage-grouse habitat would utilize mowing of grass. In 

PPH (Core) habitat areas, fire suppression to conserve the sage-grouse habitat would be 

prioritized immediately after firefighter and public safety.

Prescribed fire in sagebrush can be a very useful tool in promoting prairie dog habitat. The 

substantial loss or restriction of the use of fire would limit prairie dog habitat expansion. This 

alternative conserves more sagebrush habitat with higher shrub canopy cover than all other 

alternatives. This could result in a more difficult time in achieving prairie dog colony levels. 

While it does not remove prairie dog habitat, it would slow its growth.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

Conservation measure in this Alternative would be more restrictive to prairie dogs and their 

habitat development than other alternatives and would promote the least amount of expansion of 

prairie dog colonies. The substantial loss or restriction of ground and vegetation disturbing 

activities would limit prairie dog habitat expansion. This alternative conserves more sagebrush 

habitat with higher shrub canopy cover than all other alternatives. This could result in a more 

difficult time in achieving prairie dog colony levels. While it does not remove prairie dog 

habitat, it would slow its growth.

With the increased emphasis on fire suppression, reduced energy development, and livestock 

grazing modifications, overall prairie dog habitat usability should remain stable with a potential 

for increasing, but at a much slower rate than under current management. Additional protections 

and directions for PGH (General habitat) will further habitat expansion this alternative. This 

alternative will likely have more effects to prairie dog habitat expansion than Alternatives A, D, 

and E. However, specific habitat management direction for prairie dogs and MA 3.63 insure that 

sufficient habitat will remain to support desired prairie dog levels.

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Population Trends TBNG-wide

With the prairie dog management strategy in place, and in the absence of a plague outbreak, the 

current population trend is still expected to continue to increase, although possibly at a slower 

rate due to the lack of anthropogenic influences. 

Viability is defined in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), as maintaining abundance 

and distribution across the planning unit. With prairie dogs occurring in all Geographic Areas 

and with the current Prairie Dog Management strategy in place this Alternative it is expected to 

maintain a viable population of black-tailed prairie dogs across the planning unit. 

Alternative D 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more ground disturbance and impacts to sagebrush than most other 

alternatives. Most measures are similar to alternative A, although alternative D has a 9% 

disturbance in PPH (Core) and does require consideration of sage-grouse needs for recreation 

special uses in PPH (Core). The potential changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 143

conservation measures would be very similar to but slightly more detrimental to prairie dogs 

than alternative A.

Lands and Realty

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH (Core) and connectivity habitat will be 

allowed > 0.25 miles from the 3 known leks and any new leks on the Grassland. This is closer 

than the disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except alternative A. 

New rights-of way and special use authorizations in PPH (Core) would generally be excluded; 

those allowed would be subject to the 9% disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, and 

potential habitat improvement for prairie dogs than allowed in alternatives B, C, and E but less 

than alternative A. These same uses would be allowed in PGH (Core). 

Range

Conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. Grazing management strategies 

would be developed cooperatively with permittees, leasees and other landowners on an 

allotment-by-allotment basis to improve sage grouse habitat. As grazing permits are renewed in 

PPH (Core), sage grouse habitat objectives and management considerations could be 

incorporated. Up to 15% of PPH (Core) could be retired from grazing where permittee or lessee 

voluntarily relinquishes their grazing preference in their grazing allotment. Vegetative 

management and grazing infra-structure is essentially the same as Alternative A. Potential 

adverse effects to prairie dog habitat would be limited. The loss of up to 15% of grazing within 

PPH (Core) would restrict the expansion of suitable prairie dog habitat. Habitat development 

due to infra-structure development, habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to grasslands for 

improved livestock forage, and site specific overgrazing during drought years, with a potential 

reduction in cover, structure, and diversity would still provide some opportunity for growth. 

 Energy and Minerals 

Most conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. However, there is a 9% 

disturbance cap that does not exist in alternative A. The lack of conservation measures in 

sagebrush outside of PPH (Core) could lead to increased anthropogenic disturbance prairie dog 

habitat. These could include off road vehicle use, new road construction, utility corridor permits 

or easements, water development, mineral leasing and development, surface occupancy on 

mineral leased areas, noise, industrial campsites, and the development or removal of mineral 

materials. These disturbances have been documented to encourage the spread of prairie dogs. 

Fire and Fuels Management

Prescribed fire in sagebrush can be a very useful tool in promoting prairie dog habitat. Under this 

alternative there would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is 

restricted only by the 9% disturbance cap in PPH. Treated areas would not be rested from 

grazing. Also, treatment is permitted in sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and winter range. This 

allowance alone will promote the expansion of prairie dogs where they occur in the nearby area. 

These limited conservation measures on PPH (Core) and the lack of measures in the remainder 

of sage-grouse habitat could have a positive influence on prairie dogs. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

144 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Cumulative Effects 

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. Under the 

Alternative A, black-tailed prairie dogs are managed following a formal management strategy 

that directs the management of prairie dogs and their habitat. Currently prairie dogs are found on 

16,638 acres of TBNG, distributed in all Geographic Areas. The current LRMP has established 

the Management Area (MA) 3.63 where black-tailed prairie dogs management is actively and 

intensively managed. The primary difference between Alternative A and D is the use of a 9% 

habitat disturbance cap on PPH (Core). Since PPH (Core) only makes up 39% of the TBNG, 

61% would not be affected by this cap and would follow the current trend. This current trend in 

habitat availability is upward, especially in light of a recent drought and its associated reduction 

in herbaceous structure. 

With all of this considered, the Grassland wide habitat could be expected to continue to increase 

in effectiveness and size under this alternative. 

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Population Trends TBNG-wide

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. Under the 

Alternative A, black-tailed prairie dogs are managed following a formal management strategy 

that directs the management of prairie dogs and their habitat. The population has steadily 

increased over the last 6 years, and is now occupying over 16,600 acres. The current 

management encourages the continued growth of prairie dogs across the TBNG. 

Viability is defined in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), as maintaining abundance 

and distribution across the planning unit. Since this Alternative mirrors the current management 

(Alternative A) and the standards in the TBNG Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) 

have demonstrated that they are sufficient to maintain viability across the planning unit and this 

Alternative mirrors most of that direction, it is expected that Alternative D is sufficient to 

maintain viability across the planning unit. 

Alternative E 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

New primary and secondary roads would avoid areas within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within sage-grouse PPH (Core) habitat areas. Other new roads would 

avoid areas within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks within PPH (Core) 

habitat areas. Road construction and re-construction would be completed only to the minimum 

construction needs. Disruptive activities are restricted from 6 pm to 8 am from March 1 – May 

15 on or within a six tenths (0.6) mile radius of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks inside 

core habitat and connectivity habitat areas. In addition, noise levels at the 0.6 mile perimeter of 

the lek, should not exceed 10 dBA above ambient noise. Some recreation special uses would be 

allowed in PPH (Core). 

Conservations measures primarily apply to PPH (Core) habitat only. Measures in PPH (Core) 

would be slightly more restrictive than alternatives A and D but less restrictive than alternatives 

B and C .The restriction on road construction or upgrades in PPH (Core) would limit disturbance 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 145

and potential habitat growth associated with this disturbance within PPH (Core), but would allow 

existing conditions to continue in the remaining prairie dog habitat. 

Lands and Realty

Sage-grouse habitat requirements would be used to prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition 

within PPH (Core) core habitats. New projects within sage-grouse PPH (Core) habitats would 

include the proposed distribution and transmission lines in their DDCT as part of the proposed 

disturbance. Sage-grouse PPH (Core) habitat areas would be managed as ROW avoidance areas 

for new ROW or SUA permits.

Again, most conservation actions are taken in PPH (Core) habitats, little or no new protections 

would occur in PGH (General) habitat. This alternative would promote an increased distribution 

and density of high structure habitat in PPH (Core). With the emphasis on sage-grouse habitat, 

exchanges to promote prairie dog habitat acquisition would most likely be reduced. 

Range

Within sage-grouse core habitat, as appropriate, site specific sage-grouse habitat objectives and 

management considerations would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals. Livestock 

grazing and associated range improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a way 

that contributes to rangeland health and maintains and/or improves sage-grouse and its habitat. 

Much of the direction for livestock management remains the same as the current management. 

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on TBNG. 

Prairie dog habitat growth derived from livestock management under current conditions would 

most likely continue under this Alternative. Sagebrush fragmentation due to infra-structure 

development, habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to grasslands for improved livestock forage, 

and site specific overgrazing during drought years would most probably continue, particularly 

outside of PPH (Core). With the potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual 

vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives improved prairie dog habitat conditions are likely. 

 Energy and Minerals

A maximum of 5% disturbance would be allowed within PPH (Core) habitat using the DDTC. A 

minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral estate would be applied within 

sage-grouse PPH (Core) habitat areas. The density of oil and gas or mining activities would be 

considered and evaluated for measures that limit or reduce their activities to no more than an 

average of 1 location per 640 acres. Where existing leases exist in all sage-grouse habitat, 

stipulations for the protection of sage-grouse or their habitats could be added to Conditions of 

Approval (COAs) when approving exploration and development activities. All non-energy 

leasable and salable mineral activities would be considered in PPH (Core) habitats. The lack of 

conservation measures in sagebrush outside of PPH (Core) could lead to increased anthropogenic 

disturbance of sagebrush stands. Reduction of mineral development associated ground and 

vegetation disturbances inside of PPH (Core) would limit prairie dog colony growth. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

A maximum of 5% disturbance would be allowed within PPH (Core) habitat using the DDTC.

Within sage-grouse core habitat in northeast Wyoming, vegetation treatments in nesting and 
Appendix M Draft EIS

146 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

wintering habitats that would reduce sagebrush canopy to less than 15% would not be conducted 

unless it could be shown to be beneficial to sage grouse. Habitat restoration would be prioritized 

to rehabilitate PPH (core) habitat first. Fuels treatments in PPH (Core) would be designed with 

an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems and enhancing as well as protecting 

future sagebrush ecosystems. Following wildfire, burned lands would be treated as disturbed 

pending an implementation management plan with trend data showing the area was returning to 

functional sage grouse habitat. Multiple tools would be considered for fuels reduction and 

analyze in NEPA compliance documentation before electing to implement prescribed fire in PPH 

(Core) habitat areas. Also within PPH (Core) the use of prescribed fire in areas of Wyoming big 

sagebrush, other xeric sagebrush species, or where cheatgrass or other fire-invasive species occur 

and/or within areas of less than 12 inches of annual precipitation would be avoided. During 

wildfire suppression prioritization, PPH (Core) habitat would be placed immediately after 

firefighter and public safety to conserve the habitat. 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush can be a very useful tool in promoting prairie dog habitat. The 

substantial loss or restriction of the use of fire within PPH (Core) would limit prairie dog habitat 

expansion. This alternative would conserves more sagebrush habitat with higher shrub canopy 

cover than Alternatives A, and E. This could result in a more difficult time in achieving prairie 

dog colony levels. While it does not remove prairie dog habitat, it would slow its growth. 

Cumulative Effects

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

Within PPH (Core) the 5% disturbance limitation would limit anthropogenic impacts and thus 

reduce the disturbance factor that promotes prairie dog expiation. With the increased emphasis 

on fire suppression, reduced energy development, and livestock grazing modifications within 

PPH (Core), overall prairie dog habitat usability should remain stable with a potential for 

decreasing within the PPH (Core). Outside of PPH (Core) the potential for prairie dog habitat 

expansion would be similar to the current conditions which encourage growth. Specific habitat 

management direction for prairie dogs and MA 3.63 insure that sufficient habitat will remain to 

support desired prairie dog levels. 

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Population Trends TBNG-wide

With the prairie dog management strategy in place, and in the absence of a plague outbreak, the 

current population trend is expected to continue to increase, although possibly at a slower rate 

due to the lack of some anthropogenic influences within PPH (Core). 

Viability is defined in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), as maintaining abundance 

and distribution across the planning unit. With prairie dogs occurring in all Geographic Areas 

and with the current Prairie Dog Management strategy in place this Alternative it is expected to 

maintain a viable population of black-tailed prairie dogs across the planning unit.

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella brewerii)

Distribution

Brewer’s sparrow is a MIS for the BT and also a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps with sagegrouse habitat on the TBNG, BT and MB. Brewer’s sparrows inhabit prairie and foothills 

shrublands where sagebrush is present. Brewer’s sparrows summer in North America and winter 

in Central or South America. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 147

Habitat Associations and Threats 

Brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate species, which nests in live sagebrush or on the ground 

at the base of a live sagebrush shrub. Alteration has occurred as a result of extensive, 

ecologically transformative influences of livestock grazing, followed by alteration of natural fire 

regimes and invasion by exotic plant species, especially cheatgrass (Holmes and Johnson 2005). 

Across their breeding grounds, the largest threat is permanent loss of big sagebrush due to land 

use changes such as cultivated agriculture and residential development. Fire and other 

disturbances temporarily reduce nesting habitat, but this turnover of the big sagebrush type is 

needed for its sustained health (USDA 2009a). Loss and fragmentation of habitat due to 

agricultural, urban, suburban, energy, and road development also threaten the species. 

Population Status and Trend

Brewer’s sparrow is considered globally “secure” by the Natural Heritage Program because of its 

wide distribution across North America. Within Wyoming, trend estimates show non-significant 

decreases between 1966 and 1979 and between 1980 and 2002. Declines are more pronounced 

between 1966 and 1979 than between 1980 and 2002 (Holmes and Johnson 2005). Detection 

frequencies increased slightly in northwest Wyoming from 1966 to 2002. Reported Brewer’s 

sparrow population declines on the breeding areas in North America are likely linked to 

extensive alteration of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) shrub-steppe habitat (Holmes and Johnson 

2005). 

There are five North American Breeding Bird Survey routes on the BT. Four of the routes 

showed a positive trend from 1968 to 2003 (+3.3, +18.1, +8.8, and +29.1 percent increase in the 

number on each route). The other route showed a negative trend of -16.2 percent/year. The 

stable to slightly decreasing Forest-wide population trend (1 of 5 routes) mimics the nonsignificant long-term decline across the state.

The sagebrush biome previously covered 63 million hectares (156 million acres) of western 

North America. Although the current geographic distribution of the sagebrush biome remains the 

same, very little remains undisturbed or unaltered from its condition prior to Euro-American 

settlement (Holmes and Johnson 2005). In addition to the thousands of acres where nonnative 

grasses are now mixed with sagebrush, approximately 10% of native sagebrush steppe has now 

been completely replaced by invasive annuals or by intentionally seeded nonnative grasses. 

Another 10% of the sagebrush steppe has been converted to dry land or irrigated agriculture 

(Nicholoff 2003). 

The Brewer’s sparrow was selected as a MIS for the BT as an ecological indicator for the 

condition of sagebrush. Brewer’s sparrows utilize sagebrush with canopy cover 15% - 25% or 

greater (USDA 2009a). Herbaceous cover should provide concealment cover, sufficient 

herbaceous vegetation to provide forage (seeds), and habitat for prey insects (Holmes and 

Johnson 2005). 

Livestock management and shrubland management on the BT broadly, and permanent sagebrush 

removal directly, can affect the herbaceous understory and sagebrush canopy cover in Brewer’s 
Appendix M Draft EIS

148 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

sparrow habitat. Retaining insufficient herbaceous cover or insufficient shrub cover can 

negatively affect Brewer’s sparrow population trend. 

Forest-wide monitoring indicates that existing habitat conditions are well-suited to sustain the 

Brewer’s sparrow population. Rangeland management practices have improved considerably in 

the last 50 years, little sagebrush shrubland has been permanently lost, and natural or prescribed 

shrubland disturbance has been limited. In fact, USDA (2009a) suggests that “...the existing 

proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions. Since Brewer’s sparrow thrives in late 

succession sagebrush, there is a larger amount of their habitat in satisfactory condition than 

occurred historically.” 

Available population and habitat information suggests Brewer’s sparrows on the BT have a 

population trend that is generally stable to slightly declining. This sparrow is distributed across 

the Forest and is well-distributed throughout Wyoming as evidenced by BBS survey results. 

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current Bridger-Teton National Forest system roads, 

transportation plan, or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on 

casual use, and some new roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are 

few restrictions on recreation special uses. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and 

use equate to a greater likelihood of habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance to Brewer’s 

sparrows. Less restrictive recreation travel usually means higher concentrations of human use 

adjacent to motorized routes and in sparrow habitat. These can cause disruption of nesting 

activities, abandonment of young and temporary displacement. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. Some sparrow 

habitat could be traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development for 

economic benefits in this area. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be 

managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to 

allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss, 

fragmentation, or degradation for Brewer’s sparrows. Other impacts may include new 

infestations of noxious or invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat. Though most projects 

would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation of habitat or 

disturbance of Brewer’s sparrows. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT. 

Potential effects on sparrow habitat could include site specific overgrazing, reduction in cover, 

structure, and diversity of residual vegetation from consumption, and degradation of rangeland 

habitat due to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include higher nest 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 149

predation and parasitism. Brewer sparrow abundance is higher in climax communities with 

>25% cover than sites with less cover (Holmes and Johnson 2005) so reduced cover could result 

in lower sparrow abundance. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management 

usually provide sufficient cover and forage for Brewer’s sparrows across the Forest. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PPH would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The majority 

and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing, including expansion of new leases. 

As such, this alternative could cause a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat. There would be greater negative effects 

from related noise, increased presence of roads/humans, and anthropogenic structures in an 

otherwise open landscape. Recent work from developed natural gas fields in Wyoming (Gilbert 

and Chalfoun 2011) documents 10-20 percent declines in the abundance of certain sagebrush 

obligates including Brewer‘s sparrows. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Also, treatment is permitted 

in breeding, nesting, and winter range. Much Brewer’s sparrow habitat could be treated. 

Impacts could include removing or losing large tracts of habitat due to prescribed or wildfire, 

losing nests, and increasing non-native or exotic grasses or weeds. This alternative does 

recommend that any necessary rehabilitation include native plants.

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (USDA 2009) indicates that “the existing 

proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions. Since Brewer’s Sparrow thrives in late 

succession sagebrush, there is a larger amount of their habitat in satisfactory condition than 

occurred historically.” The liberal prescribed fire opportunity in this alternative could decrease 

late succession habitat to a proportion that occurred historically. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Brewer’s sparrow 

habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. 

Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some 

existing conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be 

additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, 

energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in Brewer’s 

sparrow habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and 

the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative A 

Existing levels of habitat alteration or loss and disturbance would continue or could increase. 

Limitations would be provided only by Forest Plan guidance, which generally allows substantial 

disturbance and habitat loss in sagebrush habitat. This could allow substantial changes in 

Brewer’s sparrow habitat quantity, quality, and ownership on sagebrush habitat on the Forest. 

Currently, these potential habitat changes have not occurred and the Brewer’s sparrow 

population trend on the Forest is stable to slightly declining. It appears that current sagebrush 
Appendix M Draft EIS

150 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

habitat conditions can sustain this population. This trend is noticeably better than the rangewide 

decline observed in other BBS routes. Full use of Alternative A development opportunities in 

sagebrush would lead to a decline in sagebrush habitat which could cause a decline in the Forest 

Brewer’s sparrow population trend. 

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PPH coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. All travel would 

remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there 

was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PPH and Important Bird Areas could be 

designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than Alternative A, 

retaining more habitat for Brewer’s sparrows across the Forest. There would be less disruption 

of nesting, less abandonment of young or temporary displacement. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH would be managed as an avoidance area 

for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of sage-grouse PPH and, therefore, a potential gain of some Brewer’s sparrow habitat 

on the BT. These conservation measures would be more protective than conservation measures 

in Alternatives A, D, and E but less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted 

effort to maximize connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PPH, which also benefits 

Brewer’s sparrow. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH in favor of GRSG; therefore, in 

favor of Brewer’s sparrows. Many livestock improvements could occur only if beneficial to 

upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. The 

potential effects due to livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would 

be similar to Alternative A, except that Alternative B provides a few more restrictions that would 

protect sparrow habitat. GRSG PPH accounts for less than 1% of the land cover of the BT, so 

any changes would be localized. There could be small pockets of improved areas for productive 

breeding, nesting, and brood rearing for Brewer’s sparrow. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a 4 mile no 

surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only 3 known active leks and only 5933 

acres of PPH on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the future for 

GRSG and, consequently, for Brewer’s sparrow. Energy and mineral development could still 

occur the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves PPH, 

and therefore Brewer’s sparrow habitat, than alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to alternative 

C in PPH. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 151

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would promote the conservation of Brewer’s sparrow habitat and reduce 

disturbance to sparrows associated with fire in PPH. In addition, habitat restoration would be a 

priority. These measures would help support the current forest-wide population of Brewer’s 

sparrows. This alternative conserves more habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E but conserves 

less than Alternative C.

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (USDA 2009) indicates that “the existing 

proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions. Since Brewer’s Sparrow thrives in late 

succession sagebrush, there is a larger amount of their habitat in satisfactory condition than 

occurred historically.” The limited prescribed fire opportunity in this alternative will continue to 

maintain more late succession habitat than occurred historically in PPH. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Brewer’s sparrow 

habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. 

Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some 

existing conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be 

additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, 

energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in Brewer’s 

sparrow habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and 

the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative B 

This alternative limits loss, fragmentation, and disturbance in PPH, which is <1% of the forestwide Brewer’s sparrow habitat. So, there would be benefits to individual sparrows but these 

would likely be too small to affect the forest-wide population trend. Generally, activities in PGH 

and the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest will occur as they do currently or could 

expand as existing direction allows. These activities affect almost all (>99%) Brewer’s sparrow 

habitat on the Forest. Therefore, overall impacts on Brewer’s sparrow forest-wide population 

would be similar to Alternative A. 

Currently, these potential habitat changes have not occurred and the Brewer’s sparrow 

population trend on the Forest is stable to slightly declining. It appears that current habitat 

conditions can sustain this population. This trend is noticeably better than the rangewide decline 

observed in other BBS routes. Full use of conservation measures in alternative B in PPH could 

slow a forest-wide decline of Brewer’s sparrow population if the remaining 99% of sagebrush on 

the Forest was managed to the limit of allowable disturbances.

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to Brewer’s sparrows and their habitat than 

other alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these 

measures would benefit more than 255,000 more acres of sparrow habitat than other alternatives. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

152 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance would be reduced on >60% of the forest-wide 

sparrow habitat. There could be greatly reduced disruption of nesting activities, abandonment of 

young or temporary displacement. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for Brewer’s sparrows. ADH would be 

managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. Alternative C would encourage 

consolidation and acquisition of ADH, limiting the possibilities for loss or degradation of habitat. 

This alternative would promote the greatest distribution and highest density of Brewer’s 

sparrows forest-wide.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

The prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would retain the most herbaceous cover for nest 

concealment, seed production and insect production. These results would provide the greatest 

opportunity among alternatives for reduced nest predation and parasitism, and sparrow fitness in 

PPH. Since PPH is <1% of forest-wide Brewer’s sparrow habitat, benefits would occur to 

individuals and not be noticed across the population. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to Brewer’s sparrows and their habitat than 

other alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these 

measures would benefit more than 255,000 more acres of sparrow habitat than other alternatives. 

Habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance would be reduced on >60% of the forest-wide 

sparrow habitat. There could be greatly reduced disruption of nesting activities, abandonment of 

young or temporary displacement. Measures such as the seasonal restriction on disturbance in 

nesting habitat in ADH would achieve these results.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and PGH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would promote the conservation of Brewer’s sparrow habitat and reduce 

disturbance to sparrows associated with fire. This alternative would maintain more than 255,000 

more acres of sagebrush in a condition to support Brewer’s sparrows by maintaining shrub 

canopy cover. In addition, habitat restoration would be a priority. These measures would help 

support the current forest-wide population of Brewer’s sparrows. This alternative conserves 

more sagebrush habitat with higher shrub canopy cover than all other alternatives. As mentioned 

earlier, Brewer’s sparrow abundance is higher in stands with >25% canopy cover (Holmes and 

Johnson 2005). 

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (USDA 2009) indicates that “the existing 

proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions. Since Brewer’s Sparrow thrives in late 

succession sagebrush, there is a larger amount of their habitat in satisfactory condition than 

occurred historically.” The focus on preserving sagebrush cover in this alternative will continue 

to maintain more late succession habitat than occurred historically in PPH.
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 153

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Brewer’s sparrow 

habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. 

Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some 

existing conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be 

additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, 

energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in Brewer’s 

sparrow habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and 

the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative C 

This alternative limits loss, fragmentation, and disturbance in ADH, which is >60% of the forestwide Brewer’s sparrow habitat. So, there could be benefits to individual sparrows across much 

of the forest-wide habitat that could be observed in the forest-wide population trend compared to 

other alternatives. Generally, activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest will 

occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. Overall this alternative 

would promote the greatest abundance of Brewer’s sparrows forest-wide. 

Currently, potential habitat changes on the remaining 40% of habitat have not occurred and the 

Brewer’s sparrow population trend on the Forest is stable to slightly declining. It appears that 

current habitat conditions can sustain this population. This trend is noticeably better than the 

range-wide decline observed in other BBS routes. Full use of conservation measures in 

alternative C in PPH and PGH could slow any forest-wide decline of Brewer’s sparrow 

population if the remaining 40% of sagebrush on the Forest was managed to the limit of 

allowable disturbances. 

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to alternative A, although alternative D has a 

9% disturbance in PPH and does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses 

in PPH. The potential changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures would 

be very similar to but slightly less detrimental to Brewer’s sparrows than alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from the 3 known leks and any new leks on the Forest. This is closer than the 

disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except alternative A. This disturbance would 

affect <1% of the forest-wide Brewer’s sparrow habitat. A few more sparrows could be 

disrupted, nests lost, or young abandoned. 

New rights-of way and special use authorizations in PPH would generally be excluded; those 

allowed would be subject to the 9% disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and 
Appendix M Draft EIS

154 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

habitat degradation than allowed in alternatives B, C, and E but less disturbance than alternative 

A. These same uses would be allowed in PGH. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

alternative D apply to sage-grouse habitat. A few slight differences include that this alternative 

recommends considering sage-grouse habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in 

response to drought in PPH. Since PPH is <1% of forest-wide Brewer’s sparrow habitat, these 

conservation measures would have a very small benefit to the forest-wide population. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. However, there is a 9% 

disturbance cap that does not exist in alternative A. Recent work from developed natural gas 

fields in Wyoming (Gilbert and Chalfoun 2011) documents 10-20 percent declines in the 

abundance of certain sagebrush obligates including Brewer‘s sparrows. The lack of conservation 

measures in sagebrush outside of PPH could lead to increased disturbance, loss of habitat, 

degradation of habitat, loss of nests, or abandonment of young. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9% disturbance cap in PPH. Also, treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and 

winter range. Treated areas would not be rested from livestock grazing. This allowance alone 

will promote the expansion of noxious weeds and a lack of cover. Brewer sparrow abundance is 

higher in climax communities with >25% cover than sites with less cover (Holmes and Johnson 

2005) so reduced cover could result in lower sparrow abundance. These limited conservation 

measures on PPH and the lack of measures in the remainder of Brewer’s sparrow habitat would 

have detrimental impacts on Brewer’s sparrows. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Brewer’s sparrow 

habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. 

Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some 

existing conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be 

additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, 

energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in Brewer’s 

sparrow habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and 

the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative D 

This alternative is most similar to alternative A. This alternative does include a cap on 

disturbance in PPH while there is no similar limit in alternative A. The allowance of 9% 

disturbance in PPH, which only conserves 1% of forest-wide Brewer’s sparrow habitat, and the 

limited conservation measures in other sagebrush habitat will have detrimental impacts on 

Brewer’s sparrows compared to alternatives B, C, and E. Allowable activities could cause 

substantial changes in Brewer’s sparrow habitat quantity, quality, and fragmentation. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 155

Currently, these potential habitat changes have not occurred and the Brewer’s sparrow 

population trend on the Forest is stable to slightly declining. It appears that current habitat 

conditions can sustain this population. This trend is noticeably better than the rangewide decline 

observed in other BBS routes. Full use of development opportunities in sagebrush areas not 

conserved by Alternative D would lead to a decline in sagebrush habitat which would cause a 

decline in the Forest Brewer’s sparrow population trend. 

Alternative E

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The restriction on road construction or upgrades near leks in PPH would limit disturbance and 

habitat loss. Some recreation special uses would be allowed in PPH. Conservations measures do 

not apply to most Brewer’s sparrow habitat, that habitat outside of PPH. Measures in PPH 

would be slightly more restrictive than alternatives A and D but less restrictive than alternatives 

B and C. There would be less habitat loss or degradation, and less disruption of nesting, 

abandonment of young, or temporary displacement in PPH compared to alternatives A and D. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some Brewer’s sparrow habitat could be lost, degraded or disturbed since conservation measures 

would allow some limited powerlines, some lease changes, and activities within 0.6 miles of a 

lek in PPH. Habitat changes could also occur because PPH can be exchanged to other 

ownership. Overall, impacts on Brewer’s sparrows and sagebrush habitat would be similar to but 

slightly reduced compared to alternatives A and D. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place slightly more focus on incorporating measures to provide adequate 

habitat quality for GRSG in PPH than alternatives A and D. These measures would also 

maintain habitat quality for Brewer’s sparrows within PPH. There could be more small pockets 

of improved areas for productive breeding, nesting, and brood rearing for Brewer’s sparrow. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would have impacts similar to but more restrictive than alternatives A 

and D. The general prohibition of wind energy development in PGH, with exceptions, would 

limit disturbance, loss, and degradation of Brewer’s sparrow habitat compared to alternatives A 

and D. This conservation would benefit > 260,000 acres (+60%) of sagebrush habitat on the BT. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Conservation measures would be more beneficial than alternatives A and D, considering a no 

disturbance limit and 9% disturbance limit for these alternatives, respectively. Treatment would 

be limited to 5% for this alternative. So, impacts on sagebrush habitat and the Brewer’s 

sparrows would be reduced. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Brewer’s sparrow 

habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

156 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some 

existing conservation measures on these other lands. Cumulatively, however, there could be 

additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, 

energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in Brewer’s 

sparrow habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and 

the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative E 

This alternative limits habitat loss and fragmentation in PPH to 5%. This alternative also limits 

disturbing activities in PPH. Impacts are decreased compared to alternatives A and D. This 

alternative also limits some disturbances and habitat loss in PGH, such as wind energy 

development. PGH includes >260,000 (+60%) of forest-wide sagebrush habitat. So, there 

would be less loss or fragmentation of Brewer’s sparrow habitat forest-wide. Generally, other 

activities in PGH and all activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest will occur as 

they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These activities could affect 

about 40% Brewer’s sparrow habitat on the Forest. Overall impacts would be less impacting to 

Brewer’s sparrow forest-wide population than alternatives A and D. Impacts would be more 

than alternatives B and C.

Currently, possible habitat changes have not occurred and the Brewer’s sparrow population trend 

on the Forest is stable to slightly declining. It appears that current habitat conditions can sustain 

this population. This trend is noticeably better than the rangewide decline observed in other BBS 

routes. Full use of conservation measures in alternative E in PPH and, in some cases PGH, could 

slow any forest-wide decline of Brewer’s sparrow population if the remaining 40% of sagebrush 

on the Forest was managed to the limit of allowable disturbances. 

Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni)

Distribution

Elk is a MIS for the BT that overlaps with sage-grouse habitat on the National Forest. Rocky 

Mountain elk are common throughout the Rocky Mountains and western states and have been 

introduced into several other states. 

Habitat Associations and Threats 

Virtually all of the BT provides elk habitat (USDA 2009). They use a wide variety of vegetation 

types to meet their life history needs, including aspen, several conifer types, big sagebrush, 

several mountain shrubland types, meadows, grasslands, herblands, and tall forbs. 

Threats can include competition with livestock, predation, and aspen decline. For these elk 

herds, transmission of brucellosis among elk at state established feedgrounds is a concern 

(USDA 2009a). 

Population Status and Trend

Elk harvest across Wyoming has averaged >20,000 animals annually since 2002 and has 

increased slightly the last 3 years (WGFD 2011). Elk are abundant in suitable habitat across the 

state.
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 157 

The BT includes 11 elk herds. These elk herds are supported by annual feeding operations on 

winter feed grounds. The population trend for these elk herd units has been trending slightly 

downward but the elk population was above the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 

objectives by approximately 12% in 2005 for the herd units within the BT, and it remains above 

objectives in 2008 (USDA 2009). The slight downward trend on the Forest is due to harvest 

designed to reduce the population. The high elk numbers on the Forest mimic the high statewide 

population status. 

Rocky Mountain elk was selected as a MIS for the BT as a harvest species reflecting 

socioeconomic status. Elk use many habitat types; those overlapping with sage-grouse habitat 

are generally winter ranges comprised of sagebrush and aspen. 

Some habitat conditions appear to be declining slowly. Aspen regeneration has been reduced, 

particularly around elk feedgrounds. Aspen distribution and stand vigor has declined due to 

aging stands and related conifer encroachment. Mountain shrub stands are predominantly 

mature and often decadent. In contrast, riparian, willow, and grassland communities have 

improved due to improvements in grazing management compared to historic times. 

Livestock management and vegetation management on the BT can affect forage quality and 

quantity for elk. Retaining insufficient shrub, aspen, or herbaceous production can negatively 

affect the elk population trend. Prohibiting shrub and aspen regeneration within appropriate time 

intervals can reduce the quality and quantity of forage production. USDA (2009) suggests that 

lack of disturbance is affecting the quality of this elk habitat.

Forest-wide monitoring indicates that existing habitat conditions are sustaining the elk 

population. Most elk in this population use winter feedgrounds. Rangeland management 

practices have improved considerably in the last 50 years and little sagebrush shrubland has been 

permanently lost. The lack of natural or prescribed disturbance has created a higher proportion 

of older age class shrub stands and a decline in aspen vigor than occurred historically (USDA 

2009a). 

Available population and habitat information suggests elk on the BT have a population trend that 

is generally stable to slightly declining. The slight decline appears to be directly related to 

harvest strategies designed to reduce the population to state population management objectives. 

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current Bridger-Teton National Forest system roads, 

transportation plan, or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on 

casual use, and some new roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are 

few restrictions on recreation special uses. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and 

use equate to a greater likelihood of habitat loss and disturbance to elk. Less restrictive 

recreation travel usually means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes 

and in elk habitat. These can cause animal displacement, disruption of parturition, or reduced 

fitness in sagebrush habitat. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

158 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. Some elk 

habitat could be traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development for 

economic benefits in this area. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be 

managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to 

allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss or 

degradation for elk. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds. 

Though most projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or 

degradation of habitat or disturbance of elk. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT. 

Potential effects on elk habitat could include site specific overgrazing, reduction in cover, 

structure, and diversity of residual vegetation from consumption, and degradation of rangeland 

habitat due to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include reduced fitness 

for winter survival. Reduced range condition could also cause elk on this Forest to rely more on 

winter feedgrounds. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management usually 

provide sufficient herbaceous forage for elk across the Forest. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PPH would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The majority 

and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing, including expansion of new leases. 

As such, this alternative could allow a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss and 

degradation of sagebrush habitat. There would be greater negative effects from related noise, 

increased presence of roads/humans, and anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open 

landscape. Loss of habitat and greater disturbance could cause elk to rely more on winter 

feedgrounds. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Much elk habitat could be 

treated. Impacts could include creating more grass forage for elk, benefitting survival of 

individuals. Results could make elk less reliant on winter feedgrounds. There could also be 

increasing non-native or exotic grasses or weeds. This alternative does recommend that any 

necessary rehabilitation include native plants.

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Elk habitat includes 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands creates more foraging 

habitat. Elk habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the 

Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are 

some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, 

however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and 

travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in elk 

habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 159

Summary of Alternative A 

Existing conservation measures for sagebrush habitat are limited, so there is a potential for 

habitat alteration or loss and disturbance in this elk habitat. Limitations would be provided only 

by Forest Plan guidance, which generally allows substantial disturbance in sagebrush habitat. 

Conversion to grass forage with fuels treatments would benefit elk. However, limited 

conservation in the other 4 resource areas could allow substantial changes in elk habitat quantity, 

quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the Forest. 

Currently, existing Forest Plan guidance has been adequate to manage disturbances in GRSG 

habitat which overlaps generally with elk winter and transition range on the Forest. Substantial 

changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the elk population trend on the Forest is 

stable to slightly declining (due to harvest strategy). It appears that current sagebrush habitat 

conditions can sustain this population considering that 80% of the elk on the BT also rely on 

winter feedgrounds (USDA 2009). This abundance of elk mimics the status of elk populations 

statewide. Full use of Alternative A conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small 

impact on the elk population trend since elk occur across all habitats on the BT, the conservation 

measures are limited in GRSG habitat, and elk are supported on winter feedgrounds. 

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PPH coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. All travel would 

remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there 

was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PPH and Important Bird Areas could be 

designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than Alternative A, 

retaining more habitat for elk across the Forest. There would be less displacement, disruption of 

parturition, or reduced elk fitness in sagebrush habitat. Of course, these benefits would occur on 

<0.1% of Forest-wide elk habitat; so, they would not be noticed in the population. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH would be managed as an avoidance area 

for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of sage-grouse PPH and, therefore, a potential gain of some elk habitat on the BT. 

These conservation measures would be more protective than conservation measures in 

Alternatives A, D, and E but less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted 

effort to maximize connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PPH, which also benefits 

elk. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH in favor of GRSG; therefore, in 

favor of elk. Many livestock improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian 

habitat. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. The potential effects 

due to livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be similar to 

Alternative A, except that Alternative B provides a few more restrictions that would protect elk 
Appendix M Draft EIS

160 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

habitat. GRSG PPH accounts for less than 1% of the land cover of the BT, so any changes 

would be localized. There could be small pockets of improved areas of productive foraging for 

elk. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a 4 mile no 

surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only 3 known active leks and only 5933 

acres of PPH on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the future for 

GRSG and, consequently, for elk. Energy and mineral development could still occur on the 

remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves PPH, and 

therefore elk habitat, than alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to alternative C in PPH. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would limit the creation of grass foraging areas on the 5593 acres of PPH. So, 

this habitat could not be improved for elk foraging. Still, this is only 1% of the sagebrush habitat 

on the BT. Impacts to the elk population would be small to immeasurable. 

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (USDA 2009) indicates that “the existing 

proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this 

condition. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Elk habitat includes 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands creates more foraging 

habitat. Elk habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the 

Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are 

some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, 

however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and 

travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in elk 

habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative B 

This alternative limits disturbance in PPH, which is <0.5% of the forest-wide elk habitat. So, 

there could be benefits to individual elk but these would likely be too small to affect the forestwide population trend. On the other hand, limits on sagebrush treatment will prohibit 

improvements in herbaceous forage. Generally, activities in PGH and the remaining sagebrush 

habitat on the Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. 

These activities affect almost all (>99%) sagebrush habitat on the Forest. Therefore, overall 

impacts on the elk forest-wide population would be similar to Alternative A. 

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the elk population trend on the 

Forest is stable to slightly declining (due to harvest strategy). It appears that existing sagebrush 

habitat conditions with proposed conservation measures can sustain this population considering 

that 80% of the elk on the BT also rely on winter feedgrounds (USDA 2009). This abundance of 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 161

elk mimics the status of elk populations statewide. Full use of Alternative B conservation 

measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on the elk population trend since elk occur 

across all habitats on the BT, the conservation measures are generally limited to PPH habitat, and 

elk are supported on winter feedgrounds. 

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to elk and their sagebrush habitat than other 

alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these measures 

would benefit more than 255,000 more acres of elk habitat than other alternatives. Habitat loss 

and disturbance would be reduced on +8% of the forest-wide elk habitat. There would be less 

disruption of wintering and parturition. There could be less reliance on elk feed grounds. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for elk sagebrush habitat. ADH would 

be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. Alternative C would encourage 

consolidation and acquisition of ADH, limiting the possibilities for loss or degradation of habitat. 

 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

The prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would retain the most herbaceous forage to support 

elk on transition and winter ranges. This result would provide the greatest opportunity among 

alternatives for elk fitness and reduced reliance on feedgrounds. Still, PPH is <0.5% of forestwide elk habitat, benefits would occur to individuals and not be noticed across the population. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to elk and their habitat than other alternatives. 

Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these measures would benefit 

more than 255,000 more acres of elk sagebrush habitat than other alternatives. Habitat loss and 

disturbance would be reduced on +8% of the forest-wide elk habitat. There could be noticeably 

reduced disruption on winter and transition ranges, possibly leading to less reliance on feed 

grounds. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and PGH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would limit the creation of grass foraging areas across >255,000 acres of 

sagebrush. So, this habitat could not be improved for elk foraging. This is >60% of the 

sagebrush habitat on the BT. 

Lack of sagebrush treatment does not entice elk to leave feed grounds for native range. 

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (USDA 2009) indicates that “the existing 

proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this 

condition. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

162 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Elk habitat includes 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands creates more foraging 

habitat. Elk habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the 

Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are 

some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, 

however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and 

travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in elk 

habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Summary of Alternative C 

This alternative limits loss and disturbance in ADH, which is >60% of the forest-wide sagebrush 

habitat. So, there could be benefits to elk across much of this forest-wide habitat that could be 

observed in the forest-wide population trend compared to other alternatives. However, the limit 

on sagebrush treatment limits opportunities to improve winter and transition range and encourage 

elk to rely less on feedgrounds. Generally, activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat on the 

Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. 

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the elk population trend on the 

Forest is stable to slightly declining (due to harvest strategy). It appears that existing sagebrush 

habitat conditions with proposed conservation measures can sustain this population considering 

that 80% of the elk on the BT also rely on winter feedgrounds (USDA 2009). This abundance of 

elk mimics the status of elk populations statewide. Full use of Alternative C conservation 

measures in GRSG habitat could have a noticeable impact to the elk population trend since 

measures would affect >60% of the Forest’s sagebrush habitat. 

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to alternative A, although alternative D has a 

9% disturbance cap in PPH and does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special 

uses in PPH. The potential changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures 

would be very similar to but slightly less detrimental to elk than alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from the 3 known leks and any new leks on the Forest. This is closer than the 

disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except alternative A. This disturbance would 

affect <0.5% of the forest-wide elk habitat. A few more elk could be disrupted or a little habitat 

lost. 

New rights-of way and special use authorizations in PPH would generally be excluded; those 

allowed would be subject to the 9% disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 163

habitat degradation than allowed in alternatives B, C, and E but less disturbance than alternative 

A. These same uses would be allowed in PGH. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

alternative D apply to sage-grouse habitat. A few slight differences include that this alternative 

recommends considering sage-grouse habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in 

response to drought in PPH. Since PPH is 1% of forest-wide sagebrush habitat, these 

conservation measures would have a very small benefit to the forest-wide population. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. However, there is a 9% 

disturbance cap in PPH that does not exist in alternative A. Therefore, these measures would 

benefit 5593 acres of elk sagebrush habitat. Energy and mineral development could still occur 

on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves PPH, and 

therefore elk habitat, than alternative A. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9% disturbance cap in PPH. Also, treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and 

winter range. Impacts could include creating more grass forage for elk, benefitting survival of 

individuals. Results could make elk less reliant on winter feedgrounds . 

However, treated areas would not be rested from livestock grazing. This allowance alone will 

promote the expansion of noxious weeds and a lack of cover. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Elk habitat includes 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands creates more foraging 

habitat. Elk habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the 

Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are 

some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, 

however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and 

travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in elk 

habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative D 

This alternative is most similar to alternative A. This alternative does include a cap on 

disturbance in PPH while there is no similar limit in alternative A. The allowance of 9% 

disturbance in PPH will allow some additional shrub treatments. Conversion to grass forage 

with fuels treatments would benefit elk. However, limited conservation in the other 4 resource 

areas could allow substantial changes in elk habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush 

habitat on the Forest. Still, this alternative prevents more disturbance in these 4 areas than 

alternative A.
Appendix M Draft EIS

164 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the elk population trend on the 

Forest is stable to slightly declining (due to harvest strategy). It appears that existing sagebrush 

habitat conditions with proposed conservation measures can sustain this population considering 

that 80% of the elk on the BT also rely on winter feedgrounds (USDA 2009). This abundance of 

elk mimics the status of elk populations statewide. Full use of Alternative D conservation 

measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on the elk population trend since elk occur 

across all habitats on the BT, the conservation measures are generally limited to PPH habitat, and 

elk are supported on winter feedgrounds. 

Alternative E

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The restriction on road construction or upgrades near leks in PPH would limit disturbance and 

habitat loss. Some recreation special uses would be allowed in PPH. Conservations measures do 

not apply to most elk sagebrush habitat, that habitat outside of PPH. Measures in PPH would be 

slightly more restrictive than alternatives A and D but less restrictive than alternatives B and C. 

There would be less habitat loss or degradation, and less disruption of wintering or parturition in 

PPH compared to alternatives A and D.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some elk habitat could be lost, degraded or disturbed since conservation measures would allow 

some limited powerlines, some lease changes, and activities within 0.6 miles of a lek in PPH. 

Habitat changes could also occur because PPH can be exchanged to other ownership. Overall, 

impacts on elk and sagebrush habitat would be similar to but slightly reduced compared to 

alternatives A and D.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place slightly more focus on incorporating measures to provide adequate 

habitat quality for GRSG in PPH than alternatives A and D. These measures would also 

maintain habitat quality for elk within PPH. There could be more small pockets of improved 

areas for foraging for elk. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would have impacts similar to but more restrictive than alternatives A 

and D. The general prohibition of wind energy development in PGH, with exceptions, would 

limit disturbance, loss, and degradation of elk sagebrush habitat compared to alternatives A and 

D. This conservation would benefit > 260,000 acres (+60%) of sagebrush habitat on the BT. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are a few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted by the 

5% disturbance cap and a review of GRSG habitat needs in PPH. Treatment is permitted in 

GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. There are more treatment opportunities than allowed 

in alternatives B and C. Impacts could include creating more grass forage for elk, benefitting 

survival of individuals. Results could make elk less reliant on winter feedgrounds. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 165

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Elk habitat includes 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands creates more foraging 

habitat. Elk habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the 

Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are 

some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, 

however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and 

travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in elk 

habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative E 

This alternative limits habitat loss and degradation in PPH to 5%. This alternative also limits 

disturbing activities in PPH. The allowance of 5% disturbance in PPH will allow some 

additional shrub treatments. Conversion to grass forage with fuels treatments would benefit elk. 

This alternative also limits some disturbances and habitat loss in PGH, such as wind energy 

development. PGH includes >260,000 (61%) of forest-wide sagebrush habitat. So, there would 

be less loss or disturbance of elk sagebrush habitat forest-wide. Generally, other activities in 

PGH and all activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest will occur as they do 

currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These activities could affect about 80% 

of the elk habitat on the Forest. Overall, effects would be less impacting to the elk forest-wide 

population than alternatives A and D. 

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the elk population trend on the 

Forest is stable to slightly declining (due to harvest strategy). It appears that existing sagebrush 

habitat conditions with proposed conservation measures can sustain this population considering 

that 80% of the elk on the BT also rely on winter feedgrounds (USDA 2009). This abundance of 

elk mimics the status of elk populations statewide. Full use of Alternative E conservation 

measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on the elk population trend since elk occur 

across all habitats on the BT, the conservation measures are usually limited to PPH habitat, and 

elk are supported on winter feedgrounds. 

Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Distribution

Mule deer is a MIS for the BT that overlaps with sage-grouse habitat on the National Forest. 

Mule deer are common throughout the western states. 

Habitat Associations and Threats 

Mule deer are habitat generalists that can thrive in habitats from sagebrush and grassland to 

alpine tundra. All of the BT is classified as some type of mule deer seasonal range. 

Threats can include competition with livestock and elk, aspen decline, and habitat loss to housing 

and energy development on winter ranges (USDA 2009). 

Population Status and Trend
Appendix M Draft EIS

166 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Mule deer annual harvest across Wyoming has averaged between 43,000 and 55,000 since 2002 

(WGFD 2011). Mule deer are abundant across the state but populations are generally lower than 

30 years ago. 

The BT includes 5 mule deer herds. The mule deer population trend for the 5 herd units as a 

whole has been approximately stable since 2001; however, the total population remains below 

the state population objective (USDA 2009a). The population on the Forest mimics the 

statewide situation that mule deer are abundant but less abundant than over a decade ago. 

Mule deer was selected as a MIS for the BT as a harvest species reflecting socioeconomic status. 

Mule deer use many habitat types; those overlapping with sage-grouse habitat are generally 

winter ranges comprised of sagebrush and aspen. 

Livestock management and vegetation management on the BT can affect forage quality and 

quantity for mule deer. Retaining insufficient shrub, aspen, or herbaceous production can 

negatively affect the mule deer population trend. Rangeland management practices have 

improved considerably in the last 50 years and little sagebrush shrubland on the Forest has been 

permanently lost. 

On the other hand, some habitat conditions appear to be declining. Aspen regeneration has been 

reduced, particularly around elk feedgrounds. Aspen distribution and stand vigor has declined 

due to aging stands and related conifer encroachment. There is an overrepresentation of lateseral shrublands on the BT (USDA 2009), which limits nutritional quality to mule deer. In 

addition to greatly increased fire-return intervals, heavy browsing by native ungulates has 

contributed to this. The amount of winter range off the Forest is declining due to energy 

development and housing development. 

Forest-wide monitoring indicates that existing habitat conditions are sustaining the mule deer 

population. Available population and habitat information suggests mule deer on the BT have a 

population trend that is generally stable but reduced compared to previous decades. The lower 

but stable population parallels the abundance of older, less productive, and heavily browsed 

shrublands. 

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current Bridger-Teton National Forest system roads, 

transportation plan, or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on 

casual use, and some new roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are 

few restrictions on recreation special uses. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and 

use equate to a greater likelihood of habitat loss and disturbance to deer. Less restrictive 

recreation travel usually means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes 

and in deer habitat. These can cause animal displacement, disruption of parturition, or reduced 

fitness in sagebrush habitat. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 167

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. Some deer 

habitat could be traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development for 

economic benefits in this area. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be 

managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to 

allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss or 

degradation for deer. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds. 

Though most projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or 

degradation of habitat or disturbance of deer. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT. 

Potential effects on deer habitat could include site specific overgrazing, reduction in cover, 

structure, and diversity of residual vegetation from consumption, and degradation of rangeland 

habitat due to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include reduced fitness 

for winter survival. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management usually 

provide sufficient herbaceous forage for deer across the Forest. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PPH would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The majority 

and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing, including expansion of new leases. 

As such, this alternative could allow a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss and 

degradation of sagebrush habitat. There would be greater negative effects from related noise, 

increased presence of roads/humans, and anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open 

landscape. Loss of habitat and greater disturbance could cause deer to have a reduced ability to 

survive winters. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Much deer habitat in 

transition and winter range could be treated. Impacts could include regenerating younger, more 

palatable shrub stands, benefitting survival of individuals. USDA (2009a) indicates “the existing 

proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions”. Results could benefit individual survival. 

There could also be increasing non-native or exotic grasses or weeds. This alternative does 

recommend that any necessary rehabilitation include native plants.

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Deer habitat includes 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands creates more foraging 

habitat. Deer habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the 

Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are 

some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, 

however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and 

travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in deer 

habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

168 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Summary of Alternative A 

Existing conservation measures for sagebrush habitat are limited, so there is a potential for 

habitat alteration or loss and disturbance in this deer habitat. Limitations would be provided only 

by Forest Plan guidance, which generally allows substantial disturbance in sagebrush habitat. 

Regenerating shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit deer. However, limited 

conservation in the other 4 resource areas could allow substantial changes in deer habitat 

quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the Forest. 

Currently, existing Forest Plan guidance has been adequate to manage disturbances in GRSG 

habitat which overlaps generally with deer winter and transition range on the Forest. Substantial 

changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the deer population trend on the Forest is 

stable. It appears that current sagebrush habitat conditions can sustain this population. This 

abundance of deer mimics the status of deer populations statewide. Full use of Alternative A 

conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on the deer population trend 

since deer occur across all habitats on the BT and the conservation measures are limited in 

GRSG habitat. 

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PPH coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. All travel would 

remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there 

was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PPH and Important Bird Areas could be 

designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than Alternative A, 

retaining more habitat for deer across the Forest. There would be less displacement, disruption 

of parturition, or reduced deer fitness in sagebrush habitat. Of course, these benefits would occur 

on <0.1% of Forest-wide deer habitat; so, they would not be noticed in the population. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH would be managed as an avoidance area 

for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of sage-grouse PPH and, therefore, a potential gain of some deer habitat on the BT. 

These conservation measures would be more protective than conservation measures in 

Alternatives A, D, and E but less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted 

effort to maximize connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PPH, which also benefits 

deer. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH in favor of GRSG; therefore, in 

favor of deer. Many livestock improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian 

habitat. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. The potential effects 

due to livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be similar to 

Alternative A, except that Alternative B provides a few more restrictions that would protect deer 

habitat. GRSG PPH accounts for less than 1% of the land cover of the BT, so any changes 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 169

would be localized. There could be small pockets of improved areas of productive herbaceous 

foraging for deer. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a 4 mile no 

surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only 3 known active leks and only 5933 

acres of PPH on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the future for 

GRSG and, consequently, for deer. Energy and mineral development could still occur on the 

remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves PPH, and 

therefore deer habitat, than alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to alternative C in PPH. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would limit the regeneration of shrubs on the 5593 acres of PPH. So, this 

habitat could not be improved for mule deer foraging. Still, this is only 1% of the sagebrush 

habitat on the BT. Impacts to the mule deer population would be small to immeasurable. 

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (USDA 2009) indicates that “the existing 

proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this 

condition. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Deer habitat includes 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands creates more foraging 

habitat. Deer habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the 

Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are 

some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, 

however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and 

travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in deer 

habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative B 

This alternative limits disturbance in PPH, which is <0.5% of the forest-wide deer habitat. So, 

there could be benefits to individual deer but these would likely be too small to affect the forestwide population trend. On the other hand, limits on sagebrush treatment will prohibit 

regeneration of shrub stands. Generally, activities in PGH and the remaining sagebrush habitat 

on the Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These 

activities affect almost all (>99%) sagebrush habitat on the Forest. Therefore, overall impacts on 

the deer forest-wide population would be similar to Alternative A. 

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the deer population trend on the 

Forest is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed conservation 

measures can sustain this population. This relative abundance of deer mimics the status of deer 

populations statewide. Full use of Alternative B conservation measures in GRSG habitat would 
Appendix M Draft EIS

170 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

have a small impact on the deer population trend since deer occur across all habitats on the BT 

and the conservation measures are generally limited to PPH habitat. 

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to deer and their sagebrush habitat than other 

alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these measures 

would benefit more than 255,000 more acres of deer habitat than other alternatives. Habitat loss 

and disturbance would be reduced on +8% of the forest-wide deer habitat. There would be less 

disruption of wintering and parturition and improved chances of winter survival. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for deer sagebrush habitat. ADH would 

be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. Alternative C would encourage 

consolidation and acquisition of ADH, limiting the possibilities for loss or degradation of habitat. 

 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

The prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would retain the most herbaceous forage to support 

deer on transition and winter ranges. This result would provide the greatest opportunity among 

alternatives for improved deer fitness. Still, PPH is <0.5% of forest-wide deer habitat, benefits 

would occur to individuals and not be noticed across the population. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to deer and their habitat than other alternatives. 

Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these measures would benefit 

more than 255,000 more acres of mule deer sagebrush habitat than other alternatives. Habitat 

loss and disturbance would be reduced on +8% of the forest-wide deer habitat. There could be 

noticeably reduced disruption on winter and transition ranges, possibly leading to improved 

winter survival. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and PGH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would limit the regeneration of shrubs across >255,000 acres of sagebrush. 

This is >60% of the sagebrush habitat on the BT. So, this habitat could not be improved for deer 

foraging. 

Lack of sagebrush treatment would be detrimental to mule deer over the long term. Additional 

information from forest-wide monitoring (USDA 2009) indicates that “the existing proportion of 

the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the communities were in 

healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this condition. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 171

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Deer habitat includes 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands creates more foraging 

habitat. Deer habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the 

Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are 

some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, 

however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and 

travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in deer 

habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative C 

This alternative limits loss and disturbance in ADH, which is >60% of the forest-wide sagebrush 

habitat. So, there could be benefits to deer across much of this forest-wide habitat that could be 

observed in the forest-wide population trend compared to other alternatives. However, the limit 

on sagebrush treatment limits opportunities to improve winter and transition range and improve 

chances for winter survival. Generally, activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat on the 

Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. 

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the deer population trend on the 

Forest is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed conservation 

measures can sustain this population. This relative abundance of deer mimics the status of deer 

populations statewide. Full use of Alternative C conservation measures in GRSG habitat could 

have a noticeable to the deer population trend since measures would affect >60% of the Forest’s 

sagebrush habitat. 

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to alternative A, although alternative D has a 

9% disturbance cap in PPH and does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special 

uses in PPH. The potential changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures 

would be very similar to but slightly less detrimental to deer than alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from the 3 known leks and any new leks on the Forest. This is closer than the 

disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except alternative A. This disturbance would 

affect <0.5% of the forest-wide deer habitat. A few more deer could be disrupted or a little 

habitat lost. 

New rights-of way and special use authorizations in PPH would generally be excluded; those 

allowed would be subject to the 9% disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and 
Appendix M Draft EIS

172 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

habitat degradation than allowed in alternatives B, C, and E but less disturbance than alternative 

A. These same uses would be allowed in PGH. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

alternative D apply to sage-grouse habitat. A few slight differences include that this alternative 

recommends considering sage-grouse habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in 

response to drought in PPH. Since PPH is 1% of forest-wide sagebrush habitat, these 

conservation measures would have a very small benefit to the forest-wide population. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. However, there is a 9% 

disturbance cap in PPH that does not exist in alternative A. Therefore, these measures would 

benefit 5593 acres of deer sagebrush habitat. Energy and mineral development could still occur 

on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves PPH, and 

therefore deer habitat, than alternative A. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9% disturbance cap in PPH. Also, treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and 

winter range. Impacts could include regenerating shrub stands for mule deer, benefitting 

survival of individuals. However, treated areas would not be rested from livestock grazing. This 

allowance alone will promote the expansion of noxious weeds and a lack of cover. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Deer habitat includes 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands creates more foraging 

habitat. Deer habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the 

Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are 

some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, 

however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and 

travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in deer 

habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative D 

This alternative is most similar to alternative A. This alternative does include a cap on 

disturbance in PPH while there is no similar limit in alternative A. The allowance of 9% 

disturbance in PPH will allow some additional shrub treatments. Conversion to early 

successional shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit deer forage quality and diversity. 

However, limited conservation in the other 4 resource areas could allow substantial changes in 

deer habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the Forest. Still, this 

alternative prevents more disturbance in these 4 areas than alternative A.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the deer population trend on the 

Forest is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed conservation 

measures can sustain this population. This relative abundance of deer mimics the status of deer 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 173

populations statewide. Full use of Alternative D conservation measures in GRSG habitat would 

have a small impact on the deer population trend since deer occur across all habitats on the BT 

and the conservation measures are generally limited to PPH habitat. 

Alternative E

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The restriction on road construction or upgrades near leks in PPH would limit disturbance and 

habitat loss. Some recreation special uses would be allowed in PPH. Conservations measures do 

not apply to most deer sagebrush habitat, that habitat outside of PPH. Measures in PPH would 

be slightly more restrictive than alternatives A and D but less restrictive than alternatives B and 

C. There would be less habitat loss or degradation, and less disruption of wintering or parturition 

in PPH compared to alternatives A and D. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some deer habitat could be lost, degraded or disturbed since conservation measures would allow 

some limited powerlines, some lease changes, and activities within 0.6 miles of a lek in PPH. 

Habitat changes could also occur because PPH can be exchanged to other ownership. Overall, 

impacts on deer and sagebrush habitat would be similar to but slightly reduced compared to 

alternatives A and D.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place slightly more focus on incorporating measures to provide adequate 

habitat quality for GRSG in PPH than alternatives A and D. These measures would also 

maintain habitat quality for deer within PPH. There could be more small pockets of improved 

areas for foraging for mule deer. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would have impacts similar to but more restrictive than alternatives A 

and D. The general prohibition of wind energy development in PGH, with exceptions, would 

limit disturbance, loss, and degradation of deer sagebrush habitat compared to alternatives A and 

D. This conservation measure would benefit > 260,000 acres (+60%) of sagebrush habitat on the 

BT. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are a few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted by the 

5% disturbance cap and a review of GRSG habitat needs in PPH. Treatment is permitted in 

GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. There are more treatment opportunities than allowed 

in alternatives B and C. Impacts could include regenerating shrub stands for mule deer, 

benefitting survival of individuals. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Deer habitat includes 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands creates more foraging 

habitat. Deer habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the 
Appendix M Draft EIS

174 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are 

some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, 

however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and 

travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in deer 

habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative E 

This alternative limits habitat loss and degradation in PPH to 5%. This alternative also limits 

disturbing activities in PPH. The allowance of 5% disturbance in PPH will allow some 

additional shrub treatments. Regeneration of shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit 

deer. This alternative also limits some disturbances and habitat loss in PGH, such as wind 

energy development. PGH includes >260,000 (61%) of forest-wide sagebrush habitat. So, there 

would be less loss or disturbance of deer sagebrush habitat forest-wide. Generally, other 

activities in PGH and all activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest will occur as 

they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These activities could affect 

about 80% of the deer habitat on the Forest. Overall, effects would be less impacting to the mule 

deer forest-wide population than alternatives A and D. 

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the deer population trend on the 

Forest is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed conservation 

measures can sustain this population. This relative abundance of deer mimics the status of deer 

populations statewide. Full use of Alternative E conservation measures in GRSG habitat would 

have a small impact on the deer population trend since deer occur across all habitats on the BT 

and the conservation measures are usually limited to PPH habitat. 

Moose (Alces alces shiras)

Distribution

Moose is a MIS for the BT that overlaps with some sage-grouse habitat on the National Forest. 

Moose are common throughout northern states that include boreal forest. 

Habitat Associations and Threats 

Nearly all of the BT is classified as some type of moose seasonal range. Vegetation types used 

by moose on the BT include aspen, many conifer types, several mountain shrubland types, big 

sagebrush, meadows, herblands, and tall forbs. 

Factors, some of which are documented by research, contributing to the decline in moose 

numbers include decline in habitat conditions, predation, human disturbance during winter, and 

disease (USDA 2009). Typically habitat is the primary limiting factor of moose populations 

(USDA 2009). 

Population Status and Trend

Annual moose harvest across Wyoming has declined consistently over the last 10 years. Harvest 

was 1160 in 2002 but was as low as 460 in 2011 (WGDF 2011), indicating declining 

populations. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 175

The BT includes 5 moose herds. The moose population for these herds has been trending 

downward since 1998, and the total population remains below state population objectives 

(USDA 2009). The moose population trend on the Forest mimics statewide population declines. 

Moose was selected as a MIS for the BT as a harvest species reflecting socioeconomic status. 

Moose use many habitat types; those overlapping with sage-grouse habitat are generally winter 

ranges comprised of sagebrush and aspen. 

Some habitat conditions appear to be slowly declining. Aspen regeneration has been reduced, 

particularly around elk feedgrounds. Aspen distribution and stand vigor has declined due to 

aging stands and related conifer encroachment. USDA (2009) suggests that lack of disturbance 

is affecting the quality of this moose habitat. Winter recreation activity and other human activity 

on and off the BT and loss of willow habitat off the BT appears to have shifted moose habitat use 

in many areas to a much greater reliance on conifer forestland (USDA 2009). The large 

overrepresentation of late-seral and old-age classes limits browse production. 

In contrast, willow and other riparian communities have improved due to improvements in 

grazing management compared to historic times. Livestock management and vegetation 

management on the BT can affect forage quality and quantity for moose. Retaining sufficient 

shrub, aspen, or willow production can benefit the moose population trend. 

Forest-wide monitoring indicates that existing habitat conditions are contributing to the reduced 

moose population. Rangeland management practices have improved considerably in the last 50 

years. However, the lack of natural or prescribed disturbance has created a higher proportion of 

older age class shrub stands and a decline in aspen vigor than occurred historically (USDA 

2009a). 

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current Bridger-Teton National Forest system roads, 

transportation plan, or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on 

casual use, and some new roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are 

few restrictions on recreation special uses. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and 

use equate to a greater likelihood of habitat loss and disturbance to moose. Less restrictive 

recreation travel usually means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes 

and in moose habitat. These can cause animal displacement, disruption of parturition, or reduced 

fitness in sagebrush habitat. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. Some moose 

habitat could be traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development for 

economic benefits in this area. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be 

managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to 
Appendix M Draft EIS

176 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss or 

degradation for moose. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive 

weeds. Though most projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss 

or degradation of habitat or disturbance of moose. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT. 

Potential effects on moose habitat could include site specific overgrazing, reduction in cover, 

structure, and diversity of residual vegetation from consumption, and degradation of rangeland 

habitat due to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include reduced fitness 

for winter survival. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management usually 

provide sufficient herbaceous forage and shrub cover and browse for moose across the Forest. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PPH would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The majority 

and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing, including expansion of new leases. 

As such, this alternative could allow a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss and 

degradation of sagebrush habitat. There would be greater negative effects from related noise, 

increased presence of roads/humans, and anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open 

landscape. Loss of habitat and greater disturbance could cause a few individual moose to have a 

reduced ability to survive winters. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Some moose habitat could 

be treated. Impacts could include regenerating younger, more palatable shrub stands and 

increasing herbaceous forage, benefitting survival of individuals. USDA (2009a) indicates “the 

existing proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions”. Also, USDA (2009) indicates that 

declining habitat conditions are a primary limiting factor for moose populations. Results from 

shrub treatment could benefit individual survival. There could also be increasing non-native or 

exotic grasses or weeds. This alternative does recommend that any necessary rehabilitation 

include native plants. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Moose habitat 

includes the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can create more 

quality moose habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides important healthy willow 

and aspen stands for moose. Moose habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered 

land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these 

ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially 

BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance 

from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range 

management in moose habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et 

al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 177

Summary of Alternative A 

Existing conservation measures for sagebrush habitat are limited, so there is a potential for 

habitat alteration or loss and disturbance in this moose habitat. Limitations would be provided 

only by Forest Plan guidance, which generally allows substantial disturbance in sagebrush 

habitat. Regenerating shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit moose. However, 

limited conservation in the other 4 resource areas could allow substantial changes in moose 

habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the Forest. 

Currently, existing Forest Plan guidance has been adequate to manage disturbances in GRSG 

habitat which overlaps with some spring/summer/fall moose habitat on the Forest. In general, 

sagebrush shrubland is not a significant component of moose habitat. Substantial changes to 

sagebrush quantity have not occurred but the quality of more important moose habitats have 

declined (USDA 2009). The moose population trend on the Forest is declining, which mimics 

statewide trends. Management of sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this decline. Full use 

of Alternative A conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on 

individual moose but not population trend since moose occur across all habitats on the BT, 

conservation measures are limited to GRSG habitat, and most sagebrush is not important moose 

habitat. 

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PPH coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. All travel would 

remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there 

was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PPH and Important Bird Areas could be 

designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than Alternative A, 

retaining more sagebrush habitat for moose across the Forest. There would be less displacement 

or reduction of moose fitness in sagebrush habitat. Of course, these benefits would occur on 

<0.1% of Forest-wide moose habitat; so, they would not be noticed in the population. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH would be managed as an avoidance area 

for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of sage-grouse PPH and, therefore, a potential gain of some moose habitat on the BT. 

These conservation measures would be more protective than conservation measures in 

Alternatives A, D, and E but less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted 

effort to maximize connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PPH, which also benefits 

moose. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH in favor of GRSG. Many livestock 

improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting 

grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. These would benefit moose, especially in willow, 

other riparian, and aspen habitat. The potential effects due to livestock grazing, vegetation 
Appendix M Draft EIS

178 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

disturbance, and range improvements would be similar to Alternative A, except that Alternative 

B provides a few more restrictions that would protect moose habitat. GRSG PPH accounts for 

less than 1% of the land cover of the BT, so any changes would be localized. There could be 

small areas of improvement in aspen, willow, riparian, and sagebrush for moose. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a 4 mile no 

surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only 3 known active leks and only 5933 

acres of PPH on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the future for 

GRSG and, consequently, for moose. Energy and mineral development could still occur on the 

remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves PPH, and 

therefore some moose habitat, than alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to alternative C in PPH. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would limit the regeneration of shrubs on the 5593 acres of PPH. So, this 

habitat could not be improved for moose foraging. Still, this is only 1% of the sagebrush habitat 

on the BT. Impacts to the moose population would be small to immeasurable. 

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (USDA 2009) indicates that “the existing 

proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this 

condition. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Moose habitat 

includes the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can create more 

quality moose habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides important healthy willow 

and aspen stands for moose. Moose habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered 

land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these 

ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially 

BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance 

from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range 

management in moose habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et 

al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative B 

This alternative limits disturbance in PPH, which is <0.5% of the forest-wide moose habitat. So, 

there could be benefits to individual moose but these would be too small to affect the forest-wide 

population trend. On the other hand, limits on sagebrush treatment will prohibit regeneration of 

shrub stands. Generally, activities in PGH and the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest 

will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These activities 

affect almost all (>99%) sagebrush habitat on the Forest. Therefore, overall impacts on the 

moose forest-wide population would be similar to Alternative A. 

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush shrubland is 

not a significant component of moose habitat. The moose population trend on the Forest is 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 179

declining but appears to be related to the reduced quality of more important habitats and other 

factors (USDA 2009). The moose population trend on the Forest is declining, which mimics 

statewide trends. Management of sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this decline. Full use 

of Alternative B conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on 

individual moose but not population trend since moose occur across all habitats on the BT, 

conservation measures are limited to GRSG habitat, and most sagebrush is not important moose 

habitat. 

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to moose and their sagebrush habitat than other 

alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these measures 

would benefit more than 255,000 more acres of moose habitat than other alternatives. Habitat 

loss and disturbance would be reduced on +8% of the forest-wide moose habitat. There would 

be less disruption in spring/summer/fall habitat and improved chances of winter survival. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for moose sagebrush habitat. ADH 

would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. Alternative C would encourage 

consolidation and acquisition of ADH, limiting the possibilities for loss or degradation of habitat. 

 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

The prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would retain the most browse in willow 

communities and aspen and herbaceous forage to support moose on spring/summer/fall ranges. 

This result would provide the greatest opportunity among alternatives for improved moose 

fitness. Still, PPH is <0.5% of forest-wide moose habitat; benefits would occur to individuals 

and not be noticed across the population. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to moose and their habitat than other 

alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these measures 

would benefit more than 255,000 more acres of moose sagebrush habitat than other alternatives. 

Habitat loss and disturbance would be reduced on +8% of the forest-wide moose habitat. There 

could be noticeably reduced disruption on spring/summer/fall ranges, possibly leading to 

improved winter survival of individuals. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and PGH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would limit the regeneration of shrubs across >255,000 acres of sagebrush. 

So, this habitat could not be improved for moose foraging. This is >60% of the sagebrush 

habitat on the BT. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

180 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Lack of sagebrush treatment would be detrimental to moose over the long term. Additional 

information from forest-wide monitoring (USDA 2009) indicates that “the existing proportion of 

the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the communities were in 

healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this condition. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Moose habitat 

includes the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can create more 

quality moose habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides important healthy willow 

and aspen stands for moose. Moose habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered 

land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these 

ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially 

BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance 

from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range 

management in moose habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et 

al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative C 

This alternative limits loss and disturbance in ADH, which is >60% of the forest-wide sagebrush 

habitat. So, there could be benefits to individual moose but these would be too small to affect 

the forest-wide population trend. On the other hand, limits on sagebrush treatment will prohibit 

regeneration of shrub stands. Generally, activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat on the 

Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. 

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush shrubland is 

not a significant component of moose habitat. The moose population trend on the Forest is 

declining but appears to be related to the reduced quality of more important habitats and other 

factors (USDA 2009). The moose population trend on the Forest mimics statewide trends. 

Management of sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this decline. Full use of Alternative C 

conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on individual moose but not 

population trend since moose occur across all habitats on the BT, conservation measures are 

limited to GRSG habitat, and most sagebrush is not important moose habitat. 

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to alternative A, although alternative D has a 

9% disturbance cap in PPH and does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special 

uses in PPH. The potential changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures 

would be very similar to but slightly less detrimental to moose than alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from the 3 known leks and any new leks on the Forest. This is closer than the 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 181

disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except alternative A. This disturbance would 

affect <0.5% of the forest-wide moose habitat. A few more moose could be disrupted or a little 

habitat lost. 

New rights-of way and special use authorizations in PPH would generally be excluded; those 

allowed would be subject to the 9% disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and 

habitat degradation than allowed in alternatives B, C, and E but less disturbance than alternative 

A. These same uses would be allowed in PGH. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

alternative D apply to sage-grouse habitat. A few slight differences include that this alternative 

recommends considering sage-grouse habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in 

response to drought in PPH. Since PPH is 1% of forest-wide sagebrush habitat, these 

conservation measures would have a very small benefit to the forest-wide population. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. However, there is a 9% 

disturbance cap in PPH that does not exist in alternative A. Therefore, these measures would 

benefit 5593 acres of moose sagebrush habitat. Energy and mineral development could still 

occur on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves 

PPH, and therefore moose habitat, than alternative A. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9% disturbance cap in PPH. Also, treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and 

winter range. Impacts could include regenerating shrub stands for moose, somewhat benefitting 

survival of individuals. However, treated areas would not be rested from livestock grazing. This 

allowance alone will promote the expansion of noxious weeds and a lack of cover. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Moose habitat 

includes the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can create more 

quality moose habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides important healthy willow 

and aspen stands for moose. Moose habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered 

land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these 

ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially 

BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance 

from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range 

management in moose habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et 

al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative D 

This alternative is most similar to alternative A. This alternative does include a cap on 

disturbance in PPH while there is no similar limit in alternative A. The allowance of 9% 

disturbance in PPH will allow some additional shrub treatments. Conversion to early 

successional shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit moose forage quality and 
Appendix M Draft EIS

182 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

diversity. However, limited conservation in the other 4 resource areas could allow substantial 

changes in moose habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the Forest. 

Still, this alternative prevents more disturbance in these 4 areas than alternative A.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush shrubland is 

not a significant component of moose habitat. The moose population trend on the Forest is 

declining but appears to be related to the reduced quality of more important habitats and other 

factors (USDA 2009). The population decline mimics statewide trends. Management of 

sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this decline. Full use of Alternative D conservation 

measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on individual moose but not population 

trend since moose occur across all habitats on the BT, conservation measures are limited to 

GRSG habitat, and most sagebrush is not important moose habitat. 

Alternative E

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The restriction on road construction or upgrades near leks in PPH would limit disturbance and 

habitat loss. Some recreation special uses would be allowed in PPH. Conservations measures do 

not apply to most moose sagebrush habitat, that habitat outside of PPH. Measures in PPH would 

be slightly more restrictive than alternatives A and D but less restrictive than alternatives B and 

C. There would be less habitat loss or degradation, and less disruption during spring/summer/fall 

in PPH compared to alternatives A and D.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some moose habitat could be lost, degraded or disturbed since conservation measures would 

allow some limited powerlines, some lease changes, and activities within 0.6 miles of a lek in 

PPH. Habitat changes could also occur because PPH can be exchanged to other ownership. 

Overall, impacts on moose and sagebrush habitat would be similar to but slightly reduced 

compared to alternatives A and D. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place slightly more focus on incorporating measures to provide adequate 

habitat quality for GRSG in PPH than alternatives A and D. These measures would also 

maintain habitat quality for moose within PPH especially where willow or aspen are inclusions 

within PPH. There could be more small areas of improvement in aspen, willow, riparian, and 

sagebrush for moose. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would have impacts similar to but more restrictive than alternatives A 

and D. The general prohibition of wind energy development in PGH, with exceptions, would 

limit disturbance, loss, and degradation of moose sagebrush habitat compared to alternatives A 

and D. This conservation measure would benefit > 260,000 acres (+60%) of sagebrush habitat 

on the BT. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 183

There are a few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted by the 

5% disturbance cap and a review of GRSG habitat needs in PPH. Treatment is permitted in 

GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. There are more treatment opportunities than allowed 

in alternatives B and C. Impacts could include regenerating shrub stands for moose, benefitting 

survival of individuals. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Moose habitat 

includes the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can create more 

quality moose habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides important healthy willow 

and aspen stands for moose. Moose habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered 

land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas also occur on these 

ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially 

BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance 

from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral development, and range 

management in moose habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et 

al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative E 

This alternative limits habitat loss and degradation in PPH to 5%. This alternative also limits 

disturbing activities in PPH. The allowance of 5% disturbance in PPH will allow some 

additional shrub treatments. Conversion to early successional shrub stands with fuels treatments 

would benefit moose forage quality and diversity. This alternative also limits some disturbances 

and habitat loss in PGH, such as wind energy development. PGH includes >260,000 (61%) of 

forest-wide sagebrush habitat. So, there would be less loss or disturbance of moose sagebrush 

habitat forest-wide. Generally, other activities in PGH and all activities in the remaining 

sagebrush habitat on the Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing 

direction allows. These activities could affect about 80% of the moose habitat on the Forest. 

Overall, effects would be less impacting to the moose forest-wide population than alternatives A 

and D. 

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush shrubland is 

not a significant component of moose habitat. The moose population trend on the Forest is 

declining but appears to be related to the reduced quality of more important habitats and other 

factors (USDA 2009). The population decline mimics statewide trends. Management of 

sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this decline. Full use of Alternative E conservation 

measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on individual moose but not population 

trend since moose occur across all habitats on the BT, conservation measures are limited to

GRSG habitat, and most sagebrush is not important moose habitat. 

Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) 

Distribution

Pronghorn antelope is a MIS for the BT that overlaps with sage-grouse habitat on the National 

Forest. Pronghorn are common throughout the western states where sagebrush shrublands occur. 

Habitat Associations and Threats 
Appendix M Draft EIS

184 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Pronghorn antelope use sagebrush and grassland habitats in Wyoming, and only a small portion 

of the lower elevation habitat on the BT is considered pronghorn antelope habitat on both sides 

of the Green River basin and into the Gros Ventre River drainage (USDA 2009). They also use 

riparian and other meadows within the sagebrush/grassland matrix, as well as more limited use 

of short-stature mountain shrublands, open conifer forestland, and open aspen stands where there 

is high visibility. 

Threats include loss of habitat to energy development and the contraction of or obstacles 

constructed within migration corridors. Intensive development in the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, 

and proposed expansion to the south of these areas in the Normally Pressurized Lance project 

area could potentially remove large areas from being useable by pronghorn (WGFD 2010). 

Population Status and Trend

Annual statewide pronghorn harvest has steadily increased over the last 10 years (WGFD 2011), 

reflecting more liberal harvest strategies aimed at maintaining or reducing animal numbers 

toward population objectives and habitat capability. Harvest was 30,260 in 2002 and has risen to 

55,525 in 2011. 

The BT includes portions of 2 pronghorn herds. The population trend for these 2 herds has 

generally been stable and is near the state population objective (USDA 2009, 2009a). The Forest 

population trend mimics the abundance of pronghorn statewide. 

Pronghorn were selected as a MIS for the BT as a harvest species reflecting socioeconomic 

status. Pronghorn rely on sagebrush shrublands. These overlap with sage-grouse habitat. 

Livestock management and vegetation management on the BT can affect forage quality and 

quantity for pronghorn. Retaining insufficient shrub or herbaceous production can negatively 

affect the pronghorn population trend. Rangeland management practices have improved 

considerably in the last 50 years and little sagebrush shrubland on the Forest has been 

permanently lost. 

Some habitat conditions appear to be declining. There is an overrepresentation of late-seral 

shrublands on the BT (USDA 2009), which limits nutritional quality to pronghorn. In addition to 

greatly increased fire-return intervals, heavy browsing by native ungulates has contributed to 

this. The amount of habitat off the Forest is declining due to energy development and housing 

development. 

Forest-wide monitoring indicates that existing habitat conditions are sustaining the pronghorn 

population. Available population and habitat information suggests pronghorn on the BT have a 

population trend that is generally stable. 

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current Bridger-Teton National Forest system roads, 

transportation plan, or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 185

casual use, and some new roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are 

few restrictions on recreation special uses. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and 

use equate to a greater likelihood of habitat loss and disturbance to pronghorn. Less restrictive 

recreation travel usually means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes 

and in pronghorn habitat. These can cause animal displacement or reduced fitness for parturition 

or wintering in sagebrush habitat. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. Some 

pronghorn habitat could be traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for 

development for economic benefits in this area. All Forest Service-administered lands would 

continue to be managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs 

would continue to allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in 

habitat loss or degradation for pronghorn. Other impacts may include new infestations of 

noxious or invasive weeds. Though most projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize 

impacts, there could be loss or degradation of habitat or disturbance of pronghorn. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT. 

Potential effects on pronghorn habitat could include site specific overgrazing, reduction in cover, 

structure, and diversity of residual vegetation from consumption, and degradation of rangeland 

habitat due to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include reduced fitness 

for parturition or winter survival. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management 

usually provide sufficient herbaceous and browse forage for pronghorn across the Forest. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PPH would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The majority 

and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing, including expansion of new leases. 

As such, this alternative could allow a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss and 

degradation of sagebrush habitat. There would be greater negative effects from related noise, 

increased presence of roads/humans, and anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open 

landscape. Loss of habitat and greater disturbance could cause pronghorn to have reduced ability 

to survive winters and reduced reproductive abilities. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Much pronghorn habitat 

could be treated. Impacts could include regenerating younger, more palatable shrub stands, 

benefitting survival of individuals. USDA (2009a) indicates “the existing proportion of the big 

sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the communities were in healthy, 

functioning conditions”. Results could benefit individual survival. There could also be 

increasing non-native or exotic grasses or weeds. This alternative does recommend that any 

necessary rehabilitation include native plants.
Appendix M Draft EIS

186 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Pronghorn habitat 

includes all sagebrush on the BT, more than 430,000 acres. Pronghorn habitat also occurs on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat 

loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and 

mineral development, and range management in pronghorn habitat off the BT. These cumulative 

effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative A 

Existing conservation measures for sagebrush habitat are limited, so there is a potential for 

habitat alteration or loss and disturbance in this pronghorn habitat. Limitations would be 

provided only by Forest Plan guidance, which generally allows substantial disturbance in 

sagebrush habitat. Regenerating shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit pronghorn. 

However, limited conservation in the other 4 resource areas could allow substantial changes in 

pronghorn habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the Forest. 

Currently, existing Forest Plan guidance has been adequate to manage disturbances in GRSG 

habitat, which overlaps with pronghorn habitat on the Forest. Substantial changes to sagebrush 

habitat have not occurred and the pronghorn population trend on the Forest is stable. It appears 

that current sagebrush habitat conditions can sustain this population. This abundance of 

pronghorn mimics the status of pronghorn populations statewide. Full use of Alternative A 

conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on the pronghorn population 

trend since pronghorn occur across all sagebrush on the BT (>430,000 acres) and the 

conservation measures are limited in GRSG habitat. 

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PPH coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. All travel would 

remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there 

was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PPH and Important Bird Areas could be 

designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than Alternative A, 

retaining more habitat for pronghorn across the Forest. There would be less displacement, 

disruption, or reduced pronghorn fitness in sagebrush habitat. Of course, these benefits would 

occur on 1% of Forest-wide pronghorn habitat; so, they would not be noticed in the population. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH would be managed as an avoidance area 

for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of sage-grouse PPH and, therefore, a potential gain of some pronghorn habitat on the 

BT. These conservation measures would be more protective than conservation measures in 

Alternatives A, D, and E but less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 187

effort to maximize connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PPH, which also benefits 

pronghorn. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH in favor of GRSG; therefore, in 

favor of pronghorn. Many livestock improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or 

riparian habitat. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. The potential 

effects due to livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be 

similar to Alternative A, except that Alternative B provides a few more restrictions that would 

protect pronghorn habitat. GRSG PPH accounts for only 1% of the sagebrush cover on the BT, 

so any changes would be localized. There could be small improved areas of productive 

herbaceous and browse foraging for pronghorn. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a 4 mile no 

surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only 3 known active leks and only 5933 

acres of PPH on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the future for 

GRSG and, consequently, for pronghorn. Energy and mineral development could still occur on 

the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves PPH, and 

therefore pronghorn habitat, than alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to alternative C in PPH. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would limit the regeneration of shrubs on the 5593 acres of PPH. So, this 

habitat could not be improved for pronghorn foraging. Still, this is only 1% of the sagebrush 

habitat on the BT. Impacts to the pronghorn population would be small to immeasurable. 

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (USDA 2009) indicates that “the existing 

proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this 

condition. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Pronghorn habitat 

includes all sagebrush on the BT, more than 430,000 acres. Pronghorn habitat also occurs on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat 

loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and 

mineral development, and range management in pronghorn habitat off the BT. These cumulative 

effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative B 

This alternative limits disturbance in PPH, which is 1% of the forest-wide pronghorn habitat. So, 

there could be benefits to individual pronghorn but these would likely be too small to affect the 

forest-wide population trend. On the other hand, limits on sagebrush treatment will prohibit 

regeneration of shrub stands. Generally, activities in PGH and the remaining sagebrush habitat 
Appendix M Draft EIS

188 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

on the Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These 

activities affect almost all (>99%) sagebrush habitat on the Forest. Therefore, overall impacts on 

the pronghorn forest-wide population would be similar to Alternative A. 

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the pronghorn population trend 

on the Forest is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed 

conservation measures can sustain this population. This abundance of pronghorn mimics the 

status of pronghorn populations statewide. Full use of Alternative B conservation measures in 

GRSG habitat would have a small impact on the pronghorn population trend since pronghorn 

occur across all sagebrush on the BT and the conservation measures are generally limited to PPH 

habitat. 

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to pronghorn and their sagebrush habitat than 

other alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these 

measures would benefit more than 255,000 more acres of pronghorn habitat than other 

alternatives. Habitat loss and disturbance would be reduced on +8% of the forest-wide 

pronghorn habitat. There would be less disruption of wintering and parturition and improved 

chances of winter survival. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for pronghorn sagebrush habitat. ADH 

would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. Alternative C would encourage 

consolidation and acquisition of ADH, limiting the possibilities for loss or degradation of habitat. 

 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

The prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would retain the most herbaceous forage to support 

pronghorn. This result would provide the greatest opportunity among alternatives for improved 

pronghorn fitness. Still, PPH is 1% of forest-wide pronghorn habitat; benefits would occur to 

individuals and not be noticed across the population. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to pronghorn and their habitat than other 

alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these measures 

would benefit more than 255,000 more acres of pronghorn sagebrush habitat than other 

alternatives. Habitat loss and disturbance would be reduced on +8% of the forest-wide 

pronghorn habitat. There could be noticeably reduced disruption, possibly leading to improved 

winter survival or reproductive ability. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and PGH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would limit the regeneration of shrubs across >255,000 acres of sagebrush. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 189

So, this habitat could not be improved for pronghorn foraging. This is >60% of the sagebrush 

habitat on the BT. 

Lack of sagebrush treatment would be detrimental to pronghorn over the long term. Additional 

information from forest-wide monitoring (USDA 2009) indicates that “the existing proportion of 

the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the communities were in 

healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this condition. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Pronghorn habitat 

includes all sagebrush on the BT, more than 430,000 acres. Pronghorn habitat also occurs on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat 

loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and 

mineral development, and range management in pronghorn habitat off the BT. These cumulative 

effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative C 

This alternative limits loss and disturbance in ADH, which is >60% of the forest-wide sagebrush 

habitat. So, there could be benefits to pronghorn across much of this forest-wide habitat that 

could be observed in the forest-wide population trend compared to other alternatives. However, 

the limit on sagebrush treatment limits opportunities to improve habitat conditions. Generally, 

activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest will occur as they do currently or 

could expand as existing direction allows. 

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the pronghorn population trend 

on the Forest is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed 

conservation measures can sustain this population. This abundance of pronghorn mimics the 

status of pronghorn populations statewide. Full use of Alternative C conservation measures in 

GRSG habitat could have a noticeable to the pronghorn population trend since measures would 

affect >60% of the Forest’s sagebrush habitat. 

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to alternative A, although alternative D has a 

9% disturbance cap in PPH and does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special 

uses in PPH. The potential changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures 

would be very similar to but slightly less detrimental to pronghorn than alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects
Appendix M Draft EIS

190 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from the 3 known leks and any new leks on the Forest. This is closer than the 

disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except alternative A. This disturbance would 

affect 1% of the forest-wide pronghorn habitat. A few more pronghorn could be disrupted or a 

little habitat lost. 

New rights-of way and special use authorizations in PPH would generally be excluded; those 

allowed would be subject to the 9% disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and 

habitat degradation than allowed in alternatives B, C, and E but less disturbance than alternative 

A. These same uses would be allowed in PGH. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

alternative D apply to sage-grouse habitat. A few slight differences include that this alternative 

recommends considering sage-grouse habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in 

response to drought in PPH. Since PPH is 1% of forest-wide sagebrush habitat, these 

conservation measures would have a very small benefit to the forest-wide population. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. However, there is a 9% 

disturbance cap in PPH that does not exist in alternative A. Therefore, these measures would 

benefit 5593 acres of pronghorn sagebrush habitat. Energy and mineral development could still 

occur on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves 

PPH, and therefore pronghorn habitat, than alternative A. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9% disturbance cap in PPH. Also, treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and 

winter range. Impacts could include regenerating shrub stands for pronghorn, benefitting 

survival of individuals. However, treated areas would not be rested from livestock grazing. This 

allowance alone will promote the expansion of noxious weeds and a lack of cover. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Pronghorn habitat 

includes all sagebrush on the BT, more than 430,000 acres. Pronghorn habitat also occurs on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat 

loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and 

mineral development, and range management in pronghorn habitat off the BT. These cumulative 

effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative D 

This alternative is most similar to alternative A. This alternative does include a cap on 

disturbance in PPH while there is no similar limit in alternative A. The allowance of 9% 

disturbance in PPH will allow some additional shrub treatments. Conversion to early 

successional shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit pronghorn forage quality and 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 191

diversity. However, limited conservation in the other 4 resource areas could allow substantial 

changes in pronghorn habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the Forest. 

Still, this alternative prevents more disturbance in these 4 areas than alternative A.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the pronghorn population trend 

on the Forest is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed 

conservation measures can sustain this population. This abundance of pronghorn mimics the 

status of pronghorn populations statewide. Full use of Alternative D conservation measures in 

GRSG habitat would have a small impact on the pronghorn population trend since the 

conservation measures are generally limited to PPH habitat. 

Alternative E

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The restriction on road construction or upgrades near leks in PPH would limit disturbance and 

habitat loss. Some recreation special uses would be allowed in PPH. Conservations measures do 

not apply to most pronghorn sagebrush habitat, that habitat outside of PPH. Measures in PPH 

would be slightly more restrictive than alternatives A and D but less restrictive than alternatives 

B and C. There would be less habitat loss or degradation, and less disruption of wintering or 

parturition in PPH compared to alternatives A and D.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some pronghorn habitat could be lost, degraded or disturbed since conservation measures would 

allow some limited powerlines, some lease changes, and activities within 0.6 miles of a lek in 

PPH. Habitat changes could also occur because PPH can be exchanged to other ownership. 

Overall, impacts on pronghorn and sagebrush habitat would be similar to but slightly reduced 

compared to alternatives A and D. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place slightly more focus on incorporating measures to provide adequate 

habitat quality for GRSG in PPH than alternatives A and D. These measures would also 

maintain habitat quality for pronghorn within PPH. There could be more small pockets of 

improved areas for foraging for pronghorn. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would have impacts similar to but more restrictive than alternatives A 

and D. The general prohibition of wind energy development in PGH, with exceptions, would 

limit disturbance, loss, and degradation of pronghorn sagebrush habitat compared to alternatives 

A and D. This conservation measure would benefit > 260,000 acres (+60%) of sagebrush habitat 

on the BT. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are a few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted by the 

5% disturbance cap and a review of GRSG habitat needs in PPH. Treatment is permitted in 

GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. There are more treatment opportunities than allowed 
Appendix M Draft EIS

192 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

in alternatives B and C. Impacts could include regenerating shrub stands for pronghorn, 

benefitting survival of individuals. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Pronghorn habitat 

includes all sagebrush on the BT, more than 430,000 acres. Pronghorn habitat also occurs on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat 

loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and 

mineral development, and range management in pronghorn habitat off the BT. These cumulative 

effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative E 

This alternative limits habitat loss and degradation in PPH to 5%. This alternative also limits 

disturbing activities in PPH. The allowance of 5% disturbance in PPH will allow some 

additional shrub treatments. Regeneration of shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit 

pronghorn. This alternative also limits some disturbances and habitat loss in PGH, such as wind 

energy development. PGH includes >260,000 (+60%) of forest-wide sagebrush habitat. So, 

there would be less loss or disturbance of pronghorn sagebrush habitat forest-wide. Generally, 

other activities in PGH and all activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest will 

occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These activities could 

affect about 40% of the pronghorn habitat on the Forest. Overall, effects would be less impacting 

to the pronghorn forest-wide population than alternatives A and D. 

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the pronghorn population trend 

on the Forest is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed 

conservation measures can sustain this population. This abundance of pronghorn mimics the 

status of pronghorn populations statewide. Full use of Alternative E conservation measures in 

GRSG habitat would have a small impact on the pronghorn population trend since the 

conservation measures are usually limited to PPH habitat. 

Boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas)

Distribution

The boreal toad is a R2 and R4 Sensitive Species and a MIS for the BT. Boreal toads overlap 

with some sage-grouse habitat on the BT. Boreal toads occur from northern New Mexico to 

Alaska, including the Rocky Mountains and west to the west to the Pacific Coast. In Wyoming, 

its range is restricted to mountains and foothills and relatively moist conditions, ranging in 

elevation from about 6,500 to 12,000 feet (WGFD 2005:438). 

Habitat Associations and Threats 

Boreal toads are associated with a variety of habitats, including wetlands, forests, woodlands, 

sagebrush, meadows, and floodplains in the mountains and valleys. Usually they inhabit 

wetlands near ponds, lakes, reservoirs, rivers and streams. Breeding occurs in ponds, slow 

streams, river backwater channels and along lake edges. They require 3 main habitat 

components; 1) shallow wetlands for breeding, 2) terrestrial habitats with vegetative cover for 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 193

foraging, and 3) burrows for winter hibernation (Loeffler 2001). Adults can move to drier 

terrestrial habitat after breeding. Boreal toads have a low reproductive output.

Threats to boreal toads include: chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, acidification of 

wetlands, thinning of the ozone layer, timber harvesting that causes sedimentation, livestock 

grazing in and around riparian areas, pesticides and herbicides, and introduced species which 

prey on toads or create competition for resources or are vectors for pathogens (Keinath and 

McGee 2005). Any activity that alters mountain wetland habitats can affect boreal toad 

populations. The primary threat is considered to be chytrid fungus (Keinath and McGee 2005). 

Population Status and Trend

Boreal toads were formerly widespread and common, but have declined dramatically in the last 

three decades in many portions of its extensive range in western North America (Carey 1993; 

Corn 1994; Keinath and McGee 2005). It is a species of concern in Wyoming. “Boreal toad 

populations appear to be in a state of severe decline.” (WGFD 2005:438). 

Currently, boreal toads appear to be rare to uncommon on the BT. In 2005, five boreal toad 

breeding sites were selected as monitor sites based on information in Patla (2002). Three sites 

were located between the Buffalo and Jackson Ranger Districts, and two sites in the Big 

Piney/Pinedale Districts. In the first year of monitoring, evidence of breeding was only observed 

at one site (Buffalo RD). The other sites were flooded out or somehow changed when the 

surveys took place. 

In 2006, the boreal toad sites were revisited, and breeding toads were found only at the 

Blackrock site. Adults were observed, but not young, at the Pinedale sites due to the time of year 

the monitoring took place, and therefore we were unable to confirm breeding. New boreal toad 

observations were made on the Greys River and Kemmerer Ranger Districts, but they were not 

observed at a time to indicate breeding. The scarcity of breeding sites on the Forest mimics the 

state conclusion that populations appear to be in a state of decline. 

Boreal toad was selected as a MIS for the BT to reflect the condition of wetlands. Boreal toad 

adults can also use upland shrublands after breeding that overlap with some sage-grouse habitat. 

Across the BT, condition of riparian areas and wetlands is variable. A Forest assessment 

concluded the risk to be “high trending toward moderate,” meaning that functionality is still 

reduced in many riparian areas but many riparian areas are fully functioning, especially those at 

higher elevations not associated with roads. 

In addition, upland and riparian communities have improved due to improvements in grazing 

management compared to historic times. Livestock management and vegetation management on 

the BT can affect herbaceous cover for boreal toads. Retaining sufficient shrub and herbaceous 

cover in upland and riparian habitats can benefit the boreal toad population trend. 

 

Forest-wide monitoring suggests that existing habitat conditions might be contributing to the 

uncommon occurrence of boreal toads on the BT. While improving, some riparian conditions 
Appendix M Draft EIS

194 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

are still functionally reduced. On the other hand, rangeland management practices have 

improved considerably in the last 50 years and upland habitat, which overlaps with sage-grouse 

habitat, has improved. The impact of chytrid fungus, a primary population threat (Keinath and 

McGee (2005), is unknown. 

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current Bridger-Teton National Forest system roads, 

transportation plan, or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on 

casual use, and some new roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are 

few restrictions on recreation special uses. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and 

use equate to a greater likelihood of habitat loss and disturbance to boreal toad. Less restrictive 

recreation travel usually means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes 

and in boreal toad habitat. These can cause animal displacement, disrupt seasonal movement, or 

reduced individual fitness in sagebrush habitat. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. Some boreal 

toad habitat could be traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development 

for economic benefits in this area. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be 

managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to 

allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss or 

degradation for boreal toad. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive 

weeds. Though most projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss 

or degradation of habitat or disturbance of boreal toads. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT. 

Potential effects on boreal toad habitat could include site specific overgrazing, reduction in 

cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation from consumption, and degradation of 

rangeland habitat due to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include 

reduced fitness for individuals. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management 

usually provide sufficient herbaceous and shrub cover for boreal toads across the Forest. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PPH would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The majority 

and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing, including expansion of new leases. 

As such, this alternative could allow a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss and 

degradation of sagebrush habitat. There would be greater negative effects from related noise, 

increased presence of roads/humans, and anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open 

landscape. Loss of habitat and greater disturbance could cause a few individual boreal toads to 

have a reduced fitness.
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 195

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. A small amount of adult 

toad habitat could be treated. The primary impact would be the loss of cover, making sites to dry 

to maintain body moisture or thermoregulate. This sagebrush habitat would be unsuitable to 

boreal toads. Results from shrub treatment would be detrimental to individual survival. There 

could also be increasing non-native or exotic grasses or weeds. This alternative does recommend 

that any necessary rehabilitation include native plants.

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Boreal toad habitat 

includes wetland and riparian and forested cover types where grazing management and 

vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can reduce cover that leads to habitat 

becoming unsuitable. Appropriate grazing management provides important healthy willow and 

aspen stands for boreal toad. A small amount of adult toad habitat also occurs on private, state, 

and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas 

also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other 

lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat loss, 

degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in boreal toad habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects 

are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative A

The overwhelming majority of boreal toad habitat does not occur in sagebrush. However, 

existing conservation measures for sagebrush habitat are limited, so there is a potential for small 

habitat alterations or loss and disturbance in adult boreal toad habitat. Limitations would be 

provided only by Forest Plan guidance, which generally allows substantial disturbance in 

sagebrush habitat. Regenerating shrub stands with fuels treatments would eliminate boreal toad 

habitat. Limited conservation in the other 4 resource areas could allow substantial changes in 

boreal toad habitat quantity and quality in the small amount of boreal toad sagebrush habitat. 

Currently, existing Forest Plan guidance has been adequate to manage disturbances in GRSG 

habitat which overlaps with some adult boreal toad habitat on the Forest. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component of boreal toad habitat. Substantial changes to sagebrush 

quantity have not occurred but the quality of more important boreal toad habitats have declined 

(USDA 2009). Boreal toads across the Forest are rare, which mimics population situation 

statewide. Management of sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this unless a new breeding 

site is found in sagebrush. Full use of Alternative A conservation measures in GRSG habitat 

could have a small impact on a few individual boreal toads but not population trend since there is 

a small amount of overlap of sagebrush and boreal toad habitat across the BT. 

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PPH coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. All travel would 

remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there 
Appendix M Draft EIS

196 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PPH and Important Bird Areas could be 

designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than Alternative A, 

retaining more sagebrush habitat for boreal toads across the Forest. There would be less 

displacement or reduction of boreal toad fitness in sagebrush habitat. Of course, these benefits 

would occur on very little boreal toad habitat; so, they would not be noticed in the population. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH would be managed as an avoidance area 

for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of sage-grouse PPH and, therefore, a potential gain of some boreal toad habitat on the 

BT. These conservation measures would be more protective than conservation measures in 

Alternatives A, D, and E but less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted 

effort to maximize connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PPH, which also benefits 

boreal toad. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH in favor of GRSG. Many livestock 

improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting 

grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. These would benefit boreal toad, ensuring cover 

important for retaining moisture and thermoregulation. The potential effects due to livestock 

grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be similar to Alternative A, 

except that Alternative B provides a few more restrictions that would protect boreal toad habitat. 

GRSG PPH accounts for less than 1% of the land cover of the BT, so any changes would be 

localized. There could be small areas of improvement in aspen, willow, riparian, and sagebrush 

for boreal toad. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a 4 mile no 

surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only 3 known active leks and only 5933 

acres of PPH on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the future for 

GRSG and, consequently, for boreal toad. Energy and mineral development could still occur on 

the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves PPH, and 

therefore some boreal toad habitat, than alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to alternative C in 

PPH. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would limit the regeneration of shrubs on the 5593 acres of PPH. This 

restriction would benefit retaining more boreal toad habitat. Still, this is only 1% of the 

sagebrush habitat on the BT. Impacts to the boreal toad population would be small to 

immeasurable. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Boreal toad habitat 

includes wetland and riparian and forested cover types where grazing management and 

vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can reduce cover that leads to habitat 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 197

becoming unsuitable. Appropriate grazing management provides important healthy willow and 

aspen stands for boreal toad. A small amount of adult toad habitat also occurs on private, state, 

and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas 

also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other 

lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat loss, 

degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in boreal toad habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects 

are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative B

This alternative limits disturbance in PPH, which is <1% of the forest-wide boreal toad habitat. 

So, there could be benefits to individual boreal toad but these would be too small to affect the 

forest-wide population trend. On the other hand, limits on sagebrush treatment will prohibit 

regeneration of shrub stands, conserving cover for boreal toads. Generally, activities in PGH and 

the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as 

existing direction allows. These activities affect almost all (>99%) sagebrush habitat on the 

Forest. Therefore, overall impacts on the boreal toad forest-wide population would be similar to 

Alternative A. 

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component of boreal toad habitat. Boreal toads are rare on the 

Forest, mimicking the condition throughout Wyoming. This scarcity is believed related 

primarily to chytrid fungus among other factors (Keinath and McGee 2005). Management of 

sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this situation unless a new breeding site is found in 

sagebrush. Full use of Alternative B conservation measures in GRSG habitat could have a small 

impact on a few individual boreal toads but not population trend since there is a small amount of 

overlap of sagebrush and boreal toad habitat across the BT. 

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to boreal toads and their sagebrush habitat than 

other alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Habitat loss and 

disturbance would be reduced. There would be less disruption in adult habitat and improved 

fitness of some individuals. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for boreal toad sagebrush habitat. ADH 

would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. Alternative C would encourage 

consolidation and acquisition of ADH, limiting the possibilities for loss or degradation of habitat. 

 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

The prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would retain the most cover in this habitat to support 

adult boreal toads. This result would provide the greatest opportunity among alternatives for 
Appendix M Draft EIS

198 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

improved boreal toad fitness. Still, PPH is <1% of forest-wide boreal toad habitat; benefits 

would occur to individuals and not be noticed across the population. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to boreal toads and their habitat than other 

alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these measures 

would benefit more acres of boreal toad sagebrush habitat than other alternatives. Habitat loss 

and disturbance would be reduced. There could be some reduced disruption in adult habitat, 

providing improved fitness to some individuals. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and PGH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would limit the regeneration of shrubs across >255,000 acres of sagebrush. 

This restriction would benefit retaining more boreal toad habitat. Still, this is a small portion of 

Forest-wide toad habitat. Impacts to the boreal toad population would be small. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Boreal toad habitat 

includes wetland and riparian and forested cover types where grazing management and 

vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can reduce cover that leads to habitat 

becoming unsuitable. Appropriate grazing management provides important healthy willow and 

aspen stands for boreal toad. A small amount of adult toad habitat also occurs on private, state, 

and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas 

also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other 

lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat loss, 

degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in boreal toad habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects 

are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative C 

This alternative limits loss and disturbance in ADH, which is >60% of the forest-wide sagebrush 

habitat. So, there could be benefits to individual boreal toads but these would likely be too small 

to affect the forest-wide population trend unless a new breeding site was discovered in ADH. 

Additionally, limits on sagebrush treatment will protect some toad habitat. Generally, activities 

in the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand 

as existing direction allows. 

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component of boreal toad habitat. Boreal toads are rare on the 

Forest, mimicking the condition throughout Wyoming. This scarcity is believed related 

primarily to chytrid fungus among other factors (Keinath and McGee 2005). Management of 

sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this situation unless a new breeding site is found in 

sagebrush. Full use of Alternative C conservation measures in GRSG habitat could have a small 

impact on a few individual boreal toads but not population trend since there is a small amount of 

overlap of sagebrush and boreal toad habitat across the BT. However, if a new breeding site was 

discovered in ADH, then conservation measures could have a substantial benefit to the 

population. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 199

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to alternative A, although alternative D has a 

9% disturbance cap in PPH and does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special 

uses in PPH. The potential changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures 

would be very similar to but slightly less detrimental to boreal toads than alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from the 3 known leks and any new leks on the Forest. This is closer than the 

disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except alternative A. This disturbance would 

affect <1% of the forest-wide boreal toad habitat. A few more boreal toads could be disrupted or 

a little habitat lost. 

New rights-of way and special use authorizations in PPH would generally be excluded; those 

allowed would be subject to the 9% disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and 

habitat degradation than allowed in alternatives B, C, and E but less disturbance than alternative 

A. These same uses would be allowed in PGH. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

alternative D apply to sage-grouse habitat. A few slight differences include that this alternative 

recommends considering sage-grouse habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in 

response to drought in PPH. Since PPH is 1% of forest-wide sagebrush habitat, these 

conservation measures would have a very small benefit to the forest-wide population. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. However, there is a 9% 

disturbance cap in PPH that does not exist in alternative A. Therefore, these measures could 

benefit boreal toad habitat within the 5593 acres of sagebrush. Energy and mineral development 

could still occur on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better 

conserves PPH, and therefore some boreal toad habitat, than alternative A. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9% disturbance cap in PPH. A small amount of adult toad habitat could be treated. The 

primary impact would be the loss of cover, making sites to dry to maintain body moisture or 

thermoregulate. This sagebrush habitat would be unsuitable to boreal toads. Results from shrub 

treatment would be detrimental to individual survival. Treated areas would not be rested from 

livestock grazing. This allowance alone will promote the expansion of noxious weeds and a lack 

of cover. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

200 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Boreal toad habitat 

includes wetland and riparian and forested cover types where grazing management and 

vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can reduce cover that leads to habitat 

becoming unsuitable. Appropriate grazing management provides important healthy willow and 

aspen stands for boreal toad. A small amount of adult toad habitat also occurs on private, state, 

and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas 

also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other 

lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat loss, 

degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in boreal toad habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects 

are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative D 

This alternative is most similar to alternative A. This alternative does include a cap on 

disturbance in PPH while there is no similar limit in alternative A. The allowance of 9% 

disturbance in PPH will allow some additional shrub treatments, degrading or eliminating toad 

habitat. Limited conservation in the other 4 resource areas could allow substantial changes in 

boreal toad habitat quantity and quality in sagebrush habitat on the Forest. These activities affect 

almost all (>99%) sagebrush habitat on the Forest. Therefore, overall impacts on the boreal toad 

forest-wide population would be similar to Alternative A. 

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component of boreal toad habitat. Boreal toads are rare on the 

Forest, mimicking the condition throughout Wyoming. This scarcity is believed related 

primarily to chytrid fungus among other factors (Keinath and McGee 2005). Management of 

sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this situation unless a new breeding site is found in 

sagebrush. Full use of Alternative D conservation measures in GRSG habitat could have a small 

impact on a few individual boreal toads but not population trend since there is a small amount of 

overlap of sagebrush and boreal toad habitat across the BT. 

Alternative E

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The restriction on road construction or upgrades near leks in PPH would limit disturbance and 

habitat loss. Some recreation special uses would be allowed in PPH. Conservations measures do 

not apply to most boreal toad sagebrush habitat, that habitat outside of PPH. Measures in PPH 

would be slightly more restrictive than alternatives A and D but less restrictive than alternatives 

B and C. There would be less habitat loss or degradation, and less disruption in adult habitat in 

PPH compared to alternatives A and D.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some boreal toad habitat could be lost, degraded or disturbed since conservation measures would 

allow some limited powerlines, some lease changes, and activities within 0.6 miles of a lek in 

PPH. Habitat changes could also occur because PPH can be exchanged to other ownership. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 201

Overall, impacts on boreal toads and sagebrush habitat would be similar to but slightly reduced 

compared to alternatives A and D. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place slightly more focus on incorporating measures to provide adequate 

habitat quality for GRSG in PPH than alternatives A and D. These measures would also 

maintain habitat quality for boreal toad within PPH especially where willow or aspen are 

inclusions within PPH. There could be more small areas of improvement in aspen, willow, 

riparian, and sagebrush for boreal toads. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would have impacts similar to but more restrictive than alternatives A 

and D. The general prohibition of wind energy development in PGH, with exceptions, would 

limit disturbance, loss, and degradation of boreal toad sagebrush habitat compared to alternatives 

A and D. This conservation measure would benefit > 260,000 acres (+60%) of sagebrush habitat 

on the BT. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are a few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted by the 

5% disturbance cap and a review of GRSG habitat needs in PPH. Treatment is permitted in 

GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. There are more treatment opportunities than allowed 

in alternatives B and C. Cover would be eliminated, reducing fitness of a few individuals. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Boreal toad habitat 

includes wetland and riparian and forested cover types where grazing management and 

vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can reduce cover that leads to habitat 

becoming unsuitable. Appropriate grazing management provides important healthy willow and 

aspen stands for boreal toad. A small amount of adult toad habitat also occurs on private, state, 

and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the 5 resource areas 

also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other 

lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be additional habitat loss, 

degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in boreal toad habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects 

are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative E

This alternative limits habitat loss and degradation in PPH to 5%. This alternative also limits 

disturbing activities in PPH. The allowance of 5% disturbance in PPH will allow some 

additional shrub treatments, eliminating some toad habitat. This alternative also limits some 

disturbances and habitat loss in PGH, such as wind energy development. PGH includes 

>260,000 (61%) of forest-wide sagebrush habitat. So, there would be less loss or disturbance of 

boreal toad sagebrush habitat forest-wide. Generally, other activities in PGH and all activities in 

the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as 

existing direction allows. These activities could affect boreal toad habitat on the Forest. Overall, 

effects would be less impacting to the boreal toad forest-wide population than alternatives A and 

D. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

202 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component of boreal toad habitat. Boreal toads are rare on the 

Forest, mimicking the condition throughout Wyoming. This scarcity is believed related 

primarily to chytrid fungus among other factors (Keinath and McGee 2005). Management of 

sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this situation unless a new breeding site is found in 

sagebrush. Full use of Alternative E conservation measures in GRSG habitat could have a small 

impact on a few individual boreal toads but not population trend since there is a small amount of 

overlap of sagebrush and boreal toad habitat across the BT. 

Populus tremuloides (Aspen)

Distribution

This plant is a MIS for the BT that overlaps some sage-grouse habitat on the Forest. Aspen 

occupies only 5% of the BT and a much smaller amount overlaps with sage-grouse habitat. 

Aspen is one of the most widely distributed trees in North America. It extends from 

Newfoundland and Labrador across the northern limit of trees to northwestern Alaska, south 

throughout the northern tier of the United States, and along the Rockies into Mexico. 

Habitat Associations and Threats 

Aspen is generally found in the elevation zone between lower elevation shrublands to higher 

elevation conifer forest and along drainages in each of these other vegetation communities. 

Threats include continued succession to later seral conifer stands due to lack of disturbance and 

localized lack of resprouting due to elk browsing near feedgrounds (USDA 2009). 

Population Status and Trend

In the State of Wyoming, 53% of the historic aspen had converted to another vegetation type. 

On some areas of the BT, aspen has declined by 32% (USDA 2009). Through continued plant 

succession, presumably with a continued lack of disturbance, it was predicted that there could be 

a 50% reduction of total acres of aspen over the next 20-30 years on the Forest. The slow forestwide decline of aspen mimics conditions across Wyoming. 

Aspen was selected as a MIS for the BT in order to monitor the condition of this valuable habitat 

type for wildlife. Some aspen occurs within sagebrush shrubland used by sage-grouse. 

Some aspen conditions appear to be declining. Regeneration has been reduced, particularly 

around elk feedgrounds. Aspen distribution and stand vigor has declined due to aging stands and 

related conifer encroachment. Some stands still receive higher than desired use by livestock and 

wild ungulates. 

Some aspen stand conditions are improving. Rangeland management practices have improved 

considerably in the last 50 years, generally leading to better understory production. There have 

been more than 17,000 acres of prescribed aspen regeneration between 1987 and 1997 with a 

lesser amount since that decade. 

Livestock management and vegetation management on the BT can affect aspen condition. 

Retaining insufficient shrub, aspen, or herbaceous production can reduce fine fuels needed for 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 203

natural fire regeneration. USDA (2009) indicates that lack of disturbance is affecting the quality 

and distribution of this habitat. 

Forest-wide monitoring indicates that aspen is declining on the BT. The lack of natural or 

prescribed disturbance has created a higher proportion of older age class stands and a decline in 

aspen vigor than occurred historically (USDA 2009a). 

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current Bridger-Teton National Forest system roads, 

transportation plan, or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on 

casual use, and some new roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are 

few restrictions on recreation special uses. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and 

use equate to a greater likelihood of loss of aspen. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. Some aspen 

habitat could be traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development for 

economic benefits in this area and less probability that regeneration treatment will occur. All 

Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be managed according to Forest Service 

policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow construction, maintenance, and 

operation activities that may result in aspen loss. Other impacts may include new infestations of 

noxious or invasive weeds. Though most projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize 

impacts, there could be loss of aspen. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT. 

Potential effects on aspen habitat could include site specific overgrazing, reduction in structure 

and diversity of residual vegetation from consumption, and degradation of rangeland habitat due 

to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts include reduced potential for regeneration 

from wild fires. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management usually provide 

sufficient cover and diversity for healthy aspen across the Forest. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PPH would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The majority 

and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing, including expansion of new leases. 

As such, this alternative could allow a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss and 

degradation of sagebrush habitat. Direct loss of sagebrush habitat could also include loss of 

adjacent aspen. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Some aspen habitat could 

be treated. Benefits would include regenerating younger, more vigorous aspen clones. USDA 
Appendix M Draft EIS

204 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

(2009a) indicates “the existing proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds 

what would exist if the communities were in healthy, functioning conditions”. Also, USDA 

(2009) indicates that a lack of fire is the primary reason for the decline of aspen on the BT. 

Results from shrub treatment would benefit aspen persistence. There could also be increasing 

non-native or exotic grasses or weeds. This alternative does recommend that any necessary 

rehabilitation include native plants. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Aspen occurs across 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can create more quality 

aspen habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides healthy aspen stands. Aspen also 

occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring 

in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation 

measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be 

additional habitat loss from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in aspen habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are 

discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative A 

Existing conservation measures for sagebrush habitat are limited, so there is a potential for 

habitat alteration or loss in aspen. Limitations would be provided only by Forest Plan guidance, 

which generally allows substantial disturbance in sagebrush habitat. Regenerating shrub stands 

with fuels treatments would benefit aspen. However, limited conservation in the other 4 resource 

areas could allow substantial changes in aspen habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in 

sagebrush habitat on the Forest. 

Currently, existing Forest Plan guidance has been adequate to manage loss in GRSG habitat 

which overlaps with some aspen habitat on the Forest. In general, sagebrush shrubland has a 

small amount of overlap with aspen on the Forest. Substantial changes to sagebrush quantity 

have not occurred but the quality of aspen habitat has declined (USDA 2009). The aspen 

population trend on the Forest is declining, which mimics statewide trends. Prescribed fire in 

sagebrush habitat could have a small impact on reducing the decline of aspen since there is small 

forest-wide overlap. Full use of Alternative A conservation measures in GRSG habitat would 

have a small impact on individual aspen clones since there is little overlap, most aspen is 

adjoining to other forest vegetation types, and conservation measures are limited to GRSG 

habitat. 

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PPH coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. All travel would 

remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there 

was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PPH and Important Bird Areas could be 

designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss than Alternative A, retaining more 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 205

sagebrush habitat and intermixed aspen across the Forest. Of course, these benefits would occur 

on only a small percentage of Forest-wide aspen. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH would be managed as an avoidance area 

for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of sage-grouse PPH and, therefore, a potential gain of some aspen habitat on the BT. 

These conservation measures would be more protective than conservation measures in 

Alternatives A, D, and E but less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted 

effort to maximize connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PPH, which also benefits 

aspen. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH in favor of GRSG. Many livestock 

improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting 

grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. These would benefit aspen. The potential effects 

due to livestock grazing and range improvements would be similar to Alternative A, except that 

Alternative B provides a few more restrictions that would protect aspen habitat. GRSG PPH 

accounts for less than 1% of the land cover of the BT, so any changes would be localized. There 

could be small areas of improvement in aspen. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PPH would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a 4 mile no 

surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only 3 known active leks and only 5933 

acres of PPH on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the future for 

GRSG and, consequently, for aspen. Energy and mineral development could still occur on the 

remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves PPH, and 

therefore some aspen habitat, than alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to alternative C in PPH. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would limit the regeneration of shrubs on the 5593 acres of PPH. So, aspen 

would not be regenerated here. Still, this is only 1% of the sagebrush habitat on the BT. Impacts 

to the aspen population would be small to immeasurable. 

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (USDA 2009) indicates that a lack of fire is 

the primary reason for the decline of aspen on the BT. This alternative would perpetuate this 

condition in PPH. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Aspen occurs across 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can create more quality 

aspen habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides healthy aspen stands. Aspen also 

occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring 

in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation 

measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be 
Appendix M Draft EIS

206 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

additional habitat loss from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in aspen habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are 

discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative B 

This alternative limits disturbance in PPH, which intermingles with a very small portion of the 

forest-wide aspen habitat. So, there could be benefits to individual aspen clones but these would 

be too small to affect the forest-wide population trend. On the other hand, limits on sagebrush 

treatment will prohibit regeneration of intermingled aspen stands. Generally, activities in PGH 

and the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest will occur as they do currently or could 

expand as existing direction allows. These activities affect almost all (>99%) sagebrush habitat 

on the Forest. Therefore, overall impacts on the aspen forest-wide would be similar to 

Alternative A. 

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component intermixed with aspen on the BT. Aspen on the Forest 

is declining and is related to a lack of disturbances (USDA 2009). The aspen trend on the Forest 

mimics statewide trends for the same reason. Prescribed burning of sagebrush habitat alone is 

not likely to change this decline. In addition, full use of Alternative B conservation measures in 

GRSG habitat would have a small impact on individual aspen clones but not the population since 

aspen occur across all habitats on the BT, conservation measures are limited to GRSG habitat, 

and most sagebrush is not intermixed with aspen habitat. 

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to aspen than other alternatives. Measures 

would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. These measures would limit habitat loss and 

benefit aspen where it is intermixed with sagebrush across more than 255,000 acres of PPH or 

PGH. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for sagebrush intermixed with aspen. 

ADH would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. Alternative C would 

encourage consolidation and acquisition of ADH, limiting the possibilities for loss of habitat. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

The prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would promote the most cover and diversity within 

aspen, indicators of stand health. This cover would provide the greatest opportunity for 

regeneration through fire. Still, PPH includes a very small portion of forest-wide aspen habitat; 

benefits would occur to individual clones and not be noticed across the BT. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to aspen and their habitat than other 

alternatives. Measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PPH. Therefore, these measures 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 207

would benefit more than 255,000 more acres of sagebrush where aspen can be intermingled. 

Habitat loss would be reduced on this portion of forest-wide aspen habitat. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and PGH and suppression would be 

emphasized. This would limit the regeneration of shrubs across >255,000 acres of sagebrush. 

This is >60% of the sagebrush habitat on the BT. So, aspen regeneration would also be 

prohibited in PPH and PGH. 

Lack of sagebrush treatment would be detrimental to aspen over the long term. Additional 

information from forest-wide monitoring (USDA 2009) indicates that a lack of fire is the primary 

reason for the decline of aspen on the BT. This alternative would perpetuate this condition in 

PPH and PGH. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Aspen occurs across 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can create more quality 

aspen habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides healthy aspen stands. Aspen also 

occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring 

in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation 

measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be 

additional habitat loss from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in aspen habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are 

discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative C 

This alternative limits loss in ADH, which is >60% of the forest-wide sagebrush habitat. So, 

there could be benefits to individual aspen clones but these would be small improvements to 

aspen forest-wide. On the other hand, limits on sagebrush treatment will also limit regeneration 

of intermingled aspen. Generally, activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest will 

occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. 

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component intermixed with aspen on the BT. Aspen on the Forest 

is declining and is related to a lack of disturbances (USDA 2009). The aspen trend on the Forest 

mimics statewide trends for the same reason. Prescribed burning of sagebrush habitat alone is 

not likely to change this decline. In addition, full use of Alternative C conservation measures in 

GRSG habitat would have a small impact on individual aspen clones but not the population since 

aspen occurs across all habitats on the BT, conservation measures are limited to GRSG habitat, 

and most sagebrush is not intermixed with aspen habitat.

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more habitat loss and habitat degradation of sagebrush than most other 
Appendix M Draft EIS

208 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

alternatives. Most measures are similar to alternative A, although alternative D has a 9% 

disturbance cap in PPH and does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special 

uses in PPH. The potential changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures 

would be very similar to but slightly less detrimental to aspen than alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from the 3 known leks and any new leks on the Forest. This is closer than the 

disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except alternative A. This disturbance would 

affect very little of the forest-wide aspen habitat. A few more aspen clones could be disrupted. 

New rights-of way and special use authorizations in PPH would generally be excluded; those 

allowed would be subject to the 9% disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and 

habitat degradation than allowed in alternatives B, C, and E but less disturbance than alternative 

A. These same uses would be allowed in PGH. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

alternative D apply to sage-grouse habitat. A few slight differences include that this alternative

recommends considering sage-grouse habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in 

response to drought in PPH. Since PPH is 1% of forest-wide sagebrush habitat, these 

conservation measures would have a very small benefit to aspen forest-wide. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to alternative A. However, there is a 9% 

disturbance cap in PPH that does not exist in alternative A. Therefore, these measures would 

benefit 5593 acres of sagebrush, some intermixed with aspen. Energy and mineral development 

could still occur on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better 

conserves PPH, and therefore some aspen habitat, than alternative A. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9% disturbance cap in PPH. Also, treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and 

winter range. Benefits could include regenerating aspen intermixed with sagebrush. However, 

treated areas would not be rested from livestock grazing. This allowance alone will promote the 

expansion of noxious weeds and a lack of aspen stand health. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Aspen occurs across 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can create more quality 

aspen habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides healthy aspen stands. Aspen also 

occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring 

in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation 

measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be 

additional habitat loss from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in aspen habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are 

discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 209

Summary of Alternative D 

This alternative is most similar to alternative A. This alternative does include a cap on 

disturbance in PPH while there is no similar limit in alternative A. The allowance of 9% 

disturbance in PPH will allow some additional shrub treatments. These could include aspen 

regeneration. However, limited conservation in the other 4 resource areas could allow 

substantial changes in aspen habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the 

Forest. Still, this alternative prevents more disturbance in these 4 areas than alternative A.

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component intermixed with aspen on the BT. Aspen on the Forest 

is declining and is related to a lack of disturbances (USDA 2009). The aspen trend on the Forest 

mimics statewide trends for the same reason. Prescribed burning of sagebrush habitat alone is 

not likely to change this decline. In addition, full use of Alternative D conservation measures in 

GRSG habitat would have a small impact on individual aspen clones but not the population since 

aspen occurs across all habitats on the BT, conservation measures are limited to GRSG habitat, 

and most sagebrush is not intermixed with aspen habitat. 

Alternative E

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The restriction on road construction or upgrades near leks in PPH would limit disturbance and 

habitat loss. Some recreation special uses would be allowed in PPH. Conservations measures do 

not apply to most sagebrush habitat, that habitat outside of PPH. Measures in PPH would be 

slightly more restrictive than alternatives A and D but less restrictive than alternatives B and C. 

There would be less habitat loss or degradation in PPH compared to alternatives A and D. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some aspen habitat could be lost or degraded or disturbed since conservation measures would 

allow some limited powerlines, some lease changes, and activities within 0.6 miles of a lek in 

PPH. Habitat changes could also occur because PPH can be exchanged to other ownership. 

Overall, impacts on sagebrush and intermixed aspen would be similar to but slightly reduced 

compared to alternatives A and D. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place slightly more focus on incorporating measures to provide adequate 

habitat quality for GRSG in PPH than alternatives A and D. These measures would also 

maintain habitat quality for aspen within PPH where it is intermixed with sagebrush within PPH. 

There could be more small areas of improvement in aspen. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would have impacts similar to but more restrictive than alternatives A 

and D. The general prohibition of wind energy development in PGH, with exceptions, would 

limit loss and degradation of aspen in sagebrush habitat compared to alternatives A and D. This 

conservation measure would benefit > 260,000 acres (+60%) of sagebrush habitat on the BT. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

210 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are a few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted by the 

5% disturbance cap and a review of GRSG habitat needs in PPH. Treatment is permitted in 

GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. There are more treatment opportunities than allowed 

in alternatives B and C. Benefits could include regenerating aspen intermixed with sagebrush. 

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas 

There could be cumulative effects in addition to impacts described above. Aspen occurs across 

the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can create more quality 

aspen habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides healthy aspen stands. Aspen also 

occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring 

in the 5 resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation 

measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, however, there could be 

additional habitat loss from recreation and travel, rights-of-way granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in aspen habitat off the BT. These cumulative effects are 

discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment. 

Summary of Alternative E 

This alternative limits habitat loss and degradation in PPH to 5%. This alternative also limits 

disturbing activities in PPH. The allowance of 5% disturbance in PPH will allow some 

additional shrub treatments. These could include aspen regeneration. This alternative also limits 

some disturbances and habitat loss in PGH, such as wind energy development. PGH includes 

>260,000 (61%) of forest-wide sagebrush habitat. So, there would be less loss or degradation of 

intermixed aspen/sagebrush habitat forest-wide. Generally, other activities in PGH and all 

activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat on the Forest will occur as they do currently or 

could expand as existing direction allows. Overall, effects would be less impacting to aspen 

forest-wide than alternatives A and D. 

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component intermixed with aspen on the BT. Aspen on the Forest 

is declining and is related to a lack of disturbances (USDA 2009). The aspen trend on the Forest 

mimics statewide trends for the same reason. Prescribed burning of sagebrush habitat alone is 

not likely to change this decline. In addition, full use of Alternative E conservation measures in 

GRSG habitat would have a small impact on individual aspen clones but not the population since 

aspen occurs across all habitats on the BT, conservation measures are limited to GRSG habitat, 

and most sagebrush is not intermixed with aspen habitat. 

CONCLUSION

There are no noticeable impacts to MIS on the Medicine Bow National Forest at the landscape 

level since Sage-Grouse habitat associated with this unit is scattered and generally on the 

periphery of the unit. However, several MIS for the Bridger-Teton National Forest and Thunder 

Basin National Grassland could potentially be impacted by the no action and action alternatives. 

When considering the potential for population-level impacts on MIS other than GRSG, across 

three planning areas, it is important to consider that PPH and PGH areas comprise a small 

portion of the overall habitat in the planning areas for most the MIS under analysis. Therefore, it 

is unlikely that population-level trends at the Forest scale would be significantly altered by any 
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 211

of the action alternatives for most MIS. A more likely scenario under the action alternatives is 

that there could be slight changes in the numbers of individuals and quality of habitat in localized 

areas of designated habitat for most MIS. This MIS analysis indicates that implementation of 

any of the action alternatives for most MIS would cause small habitat changes in the analysis 

area that could cause no change to small changes for stable or improving habitats and MIS 

populations at the Forest or Grassland scale. 

The National Forest Management Act implementing regulations require that "Fish and wildlife 

habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native 

vertebrate species in the planning area." Management Indicator Species (MIS) is a concept 

adopted by the agency (1982 rule provision 219.19) to serve, in part, as a barometer for species 

viability at the Forest level. Species are to be selected as MIS because their population changes 

are believed to indicate the effects of land management activities. Below, are the specific 

conclusions by MIS species evaluated. The exceptions are those on the Medicine Bow National 

Forest where no noticeable impacts to MIS on the landscape level are expected. This is due to the 

fact that Sage-Grouse habitat associated with this unit is scattered and generally on the periphery 

of the unit. 
Appendix M Draft EIS

212 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

Management Indicator Species 

Thunder Basin National Grassland

Greater Sage-Grouse

Most of the Planning unit is Sage-Grouse habitat on TBNG. By design it is expected that this 

MIS will be affected by all alternatives, with the goal of improving its habitat.

Plains sharp-tailed grouse

There are overlaps in Sage-Grouse and sharp-tailed grouse habitats and it is expected that all 

alternatives will influence some sharp-tailed grouse habitat and its management on TBNG

Black-tailed prairie dog

There are overlaps in Sage-Grouse and prairie dog habitats and it is expected that all alternatives 

will influence prairie dog habitat and its management on TBNG

Bridger-Teton National Forest

Brewer’s sparrow

Approximately 63% of the sagebrush habitat on the Planning Unit is sage-grouse PPH or PGH. 

All alternatives could cause at least a small change in Brewer’s sparrow population trend since 

conservation measures among alternatives do not affect the 37% of sagebrush habitat that is not 

also sage-grouse habitat.

Elk

Almost all of the 3.4 million acres of the Planning Unit are habitat for elk. Since conservation 

measures affect <1% to 8% of the elk habitat among alternatives, the alternatives might cause no 

change to small changes in the elk population trend.

Mule deer

Almost all of the 3.4 million acres of the Planning Unit are habitat for mule deer. Since 

conservation measures affect <1% to 8% of the mule deer habitat among alternatives, the 

alternatives might cause no change to small changes in the elk population trend.

Moose

Nearly all of the 3.4 million acres of the Planning Unit are identified as some type of habitat for 

moose. However, sagebrush is generally not a significant component of moose habitat. Since 

conservation measures affect a small percentage of the moose habitat among alternatives, the 

alternatives are not likely to cause a change in the moose population trend.

Pronghorn

Pronghorn habitat is primarily the 425,000 of sagebrush occurring on the Planning Unit. 

Approximately 63% of the sagebrush habitat on the Planning Unit is sage-grouse PPH or PGH. 

All alternatives could cause at least a small change in pronghorn population trend since 

conservation measures among alternatives do not affect the 37% of sagebrush habitat that is not 

also sage-grouse habitat. 

Boreal toad

The overwhelming majority of boreal toad habitat on the Planning Unit does not occur in 

sagebrush. None of the alternatives is expected to measurably affect boreal toad habitat. No 

change in boreal toad population trend is expected to occur.

Aspen

Aspen occupies only 5% of the Planning Unit and a much smaller amount overlaps with sagegrouse habitat. None of the alternatives is expected to change the population trend for aspen
Draft EIS Appendix M

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 213

LITERATURE CITED

Carey, C. 1993. Hypothesis concerning the causes of the disappearance of boreal toads from the 

mountains of Colorado. Conservation Biology 7(2):355-362. 

Corn, P.S. 1994. What we know and don’t know about amphibian declines in the west. Pages 59-

67 in W.W. Covington and L.F. DeBano, technical coordinators. Sustainable ecological 

systems: implementing and ecological approach to land management. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-247. 

Gilbert, M. M. and Chalfoun, A. D. 2011. Energy development affects populations of sagebrush 

songbirds in Wyoming. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75: 816–824. 

Grenier, M.B. B. Abel, and N. Cudworth. 2012. Threatened, endangered, and non-game bird and 

mammal investigations annual report. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Cheyenne, Wy. 

Holmes, J.A. and M.J. Johnson. 2005. Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella brewerii): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/brewerssparrow.pdf . 

Keinath, D. and M. McGee. 2005. Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas): a technical conservation 

assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, 

Colorado. 

Loeffler, C. (ed.). 2001. Conservation plan and agreement for the management and recovery of 

the southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas), Boreal 

Toad

Manier, D.J., D.J.A. Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. Juliusson, K.S. 

Mayne,, S.J. Oyler-McCance, F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and A.J. Titolo. 2013. Summary of 

Science, Activities, Programs and Policies that Influence the Rangewide Conservation of 

Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus). U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2013, Fort Collins, Colorado, 287pp. 

Nicholoff, S. H., compiler. 2003. Wyoming bird conservation plan, Version 2.0. Wyoming 

Partners In Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY. 

http://www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/plan/WY/menu.htm 

Patla, D.A. and D. Keinath. 2005. Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris formerly R. 

pretiosa): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/columbiaspottedfrog.pdf 

Sage Grouse National Technical Team. 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage‐Grouse 

Conservation Measures. On-line: 

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/ww

w/nepa/85336_FSPLT2_115747.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 4, Bridger-Teton National 

Forest, Jackson, Wyoming. 396pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Thunder Basin National Grassland Land Resource Management 

Plan, 2001 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. Laramie, 

Wyoming.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Medicine Bow National Forest Land Resource Management Plan, 

2003 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. Laramie, 

Wyoming.
Appendix M Draft EIS

214 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Updated Assessment of the Condition of Management Indicator 

Species Habitat With Respect to livestock Grazing Use On the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wy. 148pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Management Indicator Species for the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, Wy. 38pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants: 12-month findings for petitions to list the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 75(55): 13910-14014. 

WGFD. 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Cheyenne, WY. 558pp. 

WGFD. 2010. Job Completion Report for Sublette Pronghorn 

Antelope. http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/JCR_BGGR_ANT_2010

0001034.pdf

WGFD. 2013. Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group Reports 2007-2008. 

http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/wildlife-1000817.aspx 

WGFD. 2011. Annual report of big and trophy game harvest. Online. 

http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/hunting-1000829.aspx.